The Exterminating Angel and the repetition compulsion

In my previous post about The Exterminating Angel, I noted 8 repetitions: 
- The group arrive twice. 
- The 2 female employees try to leave twice. 
- The host gives the same toast twice. 
- The line about someone going bald is repeated. 
- The last part of the evening is replicated. 
- There are about 2 scenes of outsiders being unable to enter the house. 
- The absurd thing at the house is repeated at the church. 
- The scene of the sheep going towards the “imprisoned” people in the room is replicated at the end with the church. 
Last night I watched the film again and noticed another 3 repetitions: 
- 2 men, Cristian and Eduardo, greet each other 3 times, each time differently. 
- The exchange about the dishevelled look by the brother and sister is repeated by the couple in love. 
- A woman sees a hand of a dead man pop out of a closet, and later hallucinates that a hand moves out of the closet. 
The social and political satire aspect of the film is easy to see, but what do the repetitions mean, other than creating a surrealistic atmosphere? 
Here is a brilliant psychoanalytic reading of the film and the repetition compulsion: http://www.asharperfocus.com/Exterm.html
Look at this paragraph: 

“Buñuel introduced the ideas of repetition and the expected and unexpected early on in the dinner party itself. The host, Edmundo Nobile makes a gracious toast to Silvia (Rosa Elena Durgel) who provided the opera they have just seen. The guests all graciously echo the toast. Then Nobile makes the very same toast again but this time, to his puzzlement, the guests ignore him—the predictable has become unpredictable. The hostess Lucia (Lucy Gallardo) tells her guests she is going to vary the usual order of courses with a Maltese dish. The waiter comes in with the platter but stumbles, falls, and spills the food all over. The guests laugh delightedly because it is “quite unexpected,” but one woman comments that “Lucia has a style all her own,” and the other guests praise the fall as though this were all her characteristic plan. Buñuel is asking us to notice the difference between what is accidental and unpredictable and what is characteristic and predictable.” 

The last point is particularly interesting: the fall is accidental and unpredictable, but the guests perceive it as characteristic and predictable, because Lucia is predicted to be unpredictable. 
As for how the repetitions have to do with the film, the author argues: 

“Like any good surrealist, Buñuel represents the psychological fact in physical terms. Being one’s repetitive self is like being boxed in. You are in a cage, the cage of your character—or, in this film, a drawing-room you can’t get out of. Notice that the characters’ confinement is mental, not physical. They go up to the exit doorway and make excuses for not being able to go through. They are just like us. When our character compels us to repeat, we justify what we are doing. “There I go again”—but I go; I don’t not-go. I repeat and find reasons to justify repeating.” 

The characters get worse over time, as they become hungrier and more frustrated, but they do remain characteristically themselves throughout the film. Considering each character in isolation, they only have a few lines that they keep saying over and over again: the “nervous” brother keeps saying he can’t stand it and hates everybody, the grumpy man keeps saying that it’s the fault of Edmundo the host, the doctor keeps saying that they have to use reason, and so on. 
Earlier I wrote The Exterminating Angel could be seen as an allegory of the bourgeoisie being so privileged and self-centred that they’re cut off from the outside world. This is another interpretation: we all are in a cage, the cage of our character. 
The author elaborates his psychoanalytic reading of the film: 

“Buñuel takes his physical representation of Freudian ideas one step further in the releasing of these imprisoned characters. Some of the ways psychotherapy works are through “regression” and “transference.” Lying on the couch, the patient regresses toward childhood and childish patterns, as these guests do. Then follows “transference.” (Indeed the word occurs in the film when the doctor explains quite correctly to his amorous patient Leonora that her passionate desire for him is “transference.”) For instance, a patient, having fought with her parents all through childhood, now fights with another authority-figure, the therapist. She has transferred her feelings toward her parents to the therapist. By becoming conscious of this trait in the safe environment of the consulting room, the patient can perhaps replace an unconscious compulsion to repeat her squabbling with a conscious decision to repeat or not to repeat it. And the hope is that the patient can exercise this conscious control in life, not just with the therapist.
Buñuel embodies in the film this therapeutic recovery from helpless, unconscious repetition to conscious intention quite literally when he releases the party guests from their confinement. “The Valkyrie,” Leticia (Silvia Pinal) has the pianist Blanca (Patricia de Morelos) repeat her playing of the “Toccata in A,” a famous piece by the eighteenth-century Italian composer Paradisi. (Surely performing a memorized piece is as repetitious an act as can be, and the name Paradisi makes a nice contrast to the hell they’re in.) But then Leticia has the guests stand in the same places and deliberately repeat the very comments they made after this same music weeks before. They don’t just repeat, they consciously repeat—and suddenly they are freed! Buñuel has his imprisoned bourgeois enact a miniature psychotherapy.” 

That argument is rather convincing. 
On the end of the film the author comments: 

“At the end of the film, the guests from the middle of the film and a congregation and the priests enact the repetitive rituals of catholicism. Then, as if to underscore the meaning of the repetition, neither priests nor worshipers can leave the church. They are trapped as in the drawing-room, but now we are seeing a whole society, not just some dinner guests, confined in its character, its repetitive rituals and, to Buñuel, superstitious rituals. Outside, soldiers drive off citizens trying to enter the church as earlier the police stood between people outside and people inside the mansion. This bourgeois, religious character will persist and be sustained at all costs. And in the final shot, a flock of sheep enter the church, surely an ironic comment on the mindlessness of the religious rituals and the class structure so savagely enforced. Is this a “flock” seeking the Good Shepherd? Or is this a society of sheep blindly following their leader (Franco?) into endless, meaningless, and cruel repetitions? Or are these sacrificial victims like the sheep in the mansion?” 

You may agree, you may have a different take on the film—The Exterminating Angel is such a rich, multiple-layered work, it can have so many different interpretations.

Answering questions (including one about my name)

Originally published on 19/5. 
I want more, but okay... Thank you, Caroline and Anna, for your questions. 


What's your MBTI? 
I don't know. In recent years I generally avoid labelling myself, mostly because of my self-contradictions and inconsistency, though perhaps you could say it applies to everyone else too- human beings are too complex for that. 
This is an interesting article: http://www.wired.com/2010/08/the-personality-paradox/
For example, between introversion and extroversion, I'm more like an introvert. But living in small country of very quiet, introverted people has made me realised that I'm not as introverted as I thought- I still prefer cities to towns, being surrounded by people to being alone in a cabin in the mountain, talking to people to staring at my phone all the time... I like hanging out and talking to people and discussing things, and can talk continuously for hours. Sometimes I even feel that maybe by nature I should be more like an extrovert but experience has made me more introverted, more withdrawn, because back then in elementary school I was in some ways a leader, was also a storyteller, liked being the centre of attention, had no fear of public speaking... 
(About the last point, there was a time when I became terrified of public speaking, but I've more or less overcome that). 
Between sensing and intuition, it's hard to say. Depends, perhaps. Probably intuition, because I love literature, cinema, photography and music more than the sciences. 
Between thinking and feeling, generally speaking I'm rational, though I try not to be rigid, inflexible, extreme. I do have my principles and can till recognise good traits or talent of people I personally dislike and foibles and weaknesses of people I like. But the word "level-headed" can't be used for me because I can be short-tempered or irrational, sometimes even ridiculous, impulsive, melodramatic. If you think of Jane Austen's heroines for instance, I share Fanny's attitude about men and relationships (and many other things) but often tell people that I see myself in Marianne rather than Elinor. 
Between judging and perceiving, again it's not possible to say. Generally I respect deadlines and, if having to write an essay for instance, prepare carefully outlines and such things. But I like spontaneity too, changes, surprises (dislike repetitiveness, homogeneity and monotonousness) and am not exactly a planner. 

What Hogwarts House do you identify with? 
Don't know. So I cheated. I've taken 3 random quizzes on the internet and 2 of them sort me into Gryffindor, the other into the boring Hufflepuff (maybe it isn't boring, what I mean is that I remember nothing, absolutely nothing about it). 
Update on 20/5: According to this quiz http://www.gotoquiz.com/results/pottermore_sorting_quiz_all_possible_question, my result is 79% Ravenclaw: 
"You have been sorted into Ravenclaw, the house of intelligence, curiosity, individualism, and wit. You are amongst other Ravenclaws, such as: Cho Chang, and Luna Lovegood." 

How is it you live in Norway but don't like Ibsen? 
I've read only 1 play by Ibsen, A Doll's House (Et dukkehjem). That was in my 1st year in Norway, and at the time it didn't make an impression on me, except that I remember not liking the way Nora leaves her children. But I'll come back to Ibsen sometime. 

Favorite line from Wuthering Heights?
How can I choose? 1 example: "It was not the thorn bending to the honeysuckles, but the honeysuckles embracing the thorn." 
Or this wondrous line: "I lingered round them, under that benign sky; watched the moths fluttering among the heath and harebells; listened to the soft wind breathing through the grass; and wondered how any one could ever imagine unquiet slumbers for the sleepers in that quiet earth." 
Or this line: "My love for Linton is like the foliage in the woods: time will change it, I'm well aware, as winter changes the trees. My love for Heathcliff resembles the eternal rocks beneath: a source of little visible delight, but necessary. Nelly, I am Heathcliff - he's always, always in my mind - not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself - but as my own being; so, don't talk of our separation again - it is impracticable." 
Wuthering Heights of course is not a love story, not a beautiful one anyway. It's about obsession, dominance, hatred, revenge, it's also about class, gender, childhood trauma, abuse, animal cruelty, etc. But the image of foliage and "the eternal rocks" is just so beautiful. 

Is your name pronounced with a long E, like indeed, or a long I, like Diana? 
My name Di is pronounced more or less as /jɪ/. Like the English "yi" or the Norwegian "gi". 
The consonant D is /j/ as in "yes" /jɛs/ or "Yiddish" /ˈjɪdɪʃ/. 
The vowel is slightly longer than the short /ɪ/ and shorter than the long /iː/. 
People often pronounce it as the English "die" /dʌɪ/ or the German "die" /dɪ/ and both are inaccurate, though I do allow people to call me /dɪ/ (I can't go on correcting people every time, you see). 

Do you read biographies? If so what are your favourites? 
I rarely read biographies. But I do read autobiographies, memoirs and diaries, though not as much as novels. What comes to my mind right now is that back then as a kid I loved a book about the lives of Hollywood film stars like Vivien Leigh, Katharine Hepburn, Marilyn Monroe, Audrey Hepburn, etc. 

Are you good at reading people's characters from photographs? 
Can't say because I haven't tried that. Probably not, photographs are stills and I prefer to guess nothing until seeing facial expressions, gestures, manners... Besides, several incidents that have occurred over the past few weeks have made me realise that I have to get rid of the habit of overthinking, interpreting things in too many ways and getting carried away in my analysing and assuming to the point of almost ruining relationships. 

What fictional characters do you identify with (other than the ones you've already mentioned)? 
Objectively speaking, I don't see identification with characters as a criterion of literary merit. But I can see some of myself in Zooey and Franny Glass, Holden Caulfield, Erika Kohut, Sula Peace, Okonkwo, Esther Greenwood, Emma Woodhouse, Caroline Helstone, Anna Karenina, Emma Bovary, Gwendolen Harleth, Frédéric Moreau, Joe Trace, Ursa Corregidora, Pechorin, the underground man, Natasha Rostova... (Yes I do notice that some of these characters are horrendous- I don't like them either. I also know that they're very different from each other, but, as written there, there's a bit of myself in each of them and I'm a bundle of contradictions). 
There's 1 person that I used to strongly identify with, not a literary character, and that was Anne Frank. 

What are your favorite movies? 
Here is 1 list: http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/04/10-films-that-im-crazy-crazy-about.html
Here is another list: http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-best-films-of-40s-50s-60s-70s-80s.html
However, the 2nd list needs to be amended- I need to find room for Witness for the Prosecution. 
Because both lists lack films from the 2010s, my favourite films from the period are The Artist, Silver Linings Playbook, Birdman, The Imitation Game, The Sessions, De rouille et d'os, The King's Speech, Black Swan, Les Misérables, Intouchables, etc. I think very highly of Nymphomaniac, though I personally don't like it. 

What do you think would have happened if Catherine had managed to bring Heathcliff back after the "I am Heathcliff" scene? 
I have to think more about it. 
What can be said now is that Catherine and Heathcliff can't be completely happy together. Their kind of love is the can't-be-without-you-can't-be-with-you kind of love. There is love and passion and understanding, but also obsession, control, torment... 

Have you ever felt like you were 'drift compatible' with someone? (as in the movie Pacific Rim) 
I don't know what that means. 

What are your feelings on feminism? 
I am a feminist. We still need feminism because gender inequality still exists; because prejudices against women still exist; because around the world lots of women are being raped, beaten, abused, discriminated against, deprived of education and employment, punished in the name of honour...; because I come from a country where 1 of the 2 words for "woman" is considered 1 of the worst insults; because even in Western democracies women still suffer from double standards, slut-shaming, victim-blaming, discrimination, condescension, doubt, lower wages... 
At the same time, feminism should be about equality, not sameness, and definitely not misandry. Men and women are different, that the differences come from upbringing, culture, society... doesn't necessarily mean they should be dismissed altogether and I don't see the point in making men and women completely the same. Then there are women who see men as "the other", as enemies, misogynists, animals, potential rapists... and I don't agree with that. That kind of thinking is extreme, narrow, restrictive. 
I don't like the way some people do, or advocate, stupid things in the name of feminism either. 

Do you have a favorite era? 
In literature, I love the 19th century: Jane Austen, the 3 Bronte sisters, Dickens, Arthur Conan Doyle, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Gogol, Lermontov, Chekhov, Flaubert... 
In films, I like the 40s- 60s, though I like films produced in that period more than films about that period. 
In music, my interests are all over the place and unsystematic, but generally speaking I'm not very fond of contemporary pop music. 

Do you ever read fanfiction?
I used to read fanfic, because a friend of mine wrote Harry Potter fanfic. But not much. I do enjoy parodies, however. 


____________________________________________________________

I do realise that some of my answers are vague and probably unsatisfactory, but hopefully they can lead to some interesting discussions. 

On Mr and Mrs Poyser, or The severity of mild people

This is the scene where Mr Irwine communicates the bad news to Hetty's family.

"Before ten o'clock on Thursday morning the home at the Hall Farm was a house of mourning for a misfortune felt to be worse than death. The sense of family dishonour was too keen even in the kind-hearted Martin Poyser the younger to leave room for any compassion towards Hetty. He and his father were simple-minded farmers, proud of their untarnished character, proud that they came of a family which had held up its head and paid its way as far back as its name was in the parish register; and Hetty had brought disgrace on them all—disgrace that could never be wiped out. That was the all-conquering feeling in the mind both of father and son—the scorching sense of disgrace, which neutralised all other sensibility—and Mr. Irwine was struck with surprise to observe that Mrs. Poyser was less severe than her husband. We are often startled by the severity of mild people on exceptional occasions; the reason is, that mild people are most liable to be under the yoke of traditional impressions."

Curious, isn't it? Facing Hetty's scandal, Mr Poyser, who is usually mild, is more severe than Mrs Poyser, whose tongue is "is like a new-set razor" and who used to scold Hetty all the time. 
I don't think he reacts that way because he is mild and "mild people are most liable to be under the yoke of traditional impressions", but because: 1st, he has a mild temper, but lacks the kindness and compassion of Dinah and Mr Irwine (who also have a mild temper)- these things don't necessarily go together. To me, Mrs Poyser's outburst before the old Squire suggests that she has a stronger sense of justice. 2nd, Mr Poyser lives a good, honest life because of the importance he places on honour, that's his principle, that's the code he lives by, and as he has lived that way all his life, he cannot forgive the person who goes against it and who brings disgrace upon the whole family. To Mrs Poyser, family matters more than family honour. 3rd, the shock is too great for him, whereas for his wife, who has a sharper eye, she has known something of Hetty's character. This shock makes Mr Poyser extremely severe, unable to forgive or sympathise- this is in some ways similar to the way Adam reacts to Hetty and Arthur. Adam isn't too hard on Hetty only because he loves her and clings to the hope that he hasn't been mistaken and delusional for a long time, but it's precisely because he tells himself not to condemn Hetty that he puts all the blame on Arthur and hates him to the core of his being, ready to revenge and not at all interested in knowing Arthur's side of the story or understanding him. Of course jealousy is another factor, but I think shock is important, and if I can put it this way, Adam sort of transfers his anger at Hetty to Arthur. 
Anyway, I now have another concern- I've read till the morning of the trial, why have we not got another glimpse into the minds of Arthur and Hetty since the chapter before "The Quest"? 

Tyranny and force of habit

Another trip- I just got back from Frankfurt, Heidelberg, Würzburg and Rothenburg. Heavenly.... but photos will come later. 

________________________________________________

Still reading Memoirs from the House of the Dead. Here is an excerpt: 

"I do not know how things are now, but in the recent past there were gentlemen to whom the power of flogging a victim gave a satisfaction resembling that of the Marquis de Sade or Madame de Brinvilliers. I imagine that there was something in those sensations, at once sweet and painful, that made these gentlemen's hearts swoon with pleasure. There were people who, like tigers, thirst for blood. Any man who has once tasted this dominion, this unlimited power, over the body, blood and spirit of a human creature like himself, subject like himself to the law of Christ, any man has tasted this power, this boundless opportunity to humiliate with the deepest degradation another being in the image of God, becomes despite himself the servant instead of the master of his own emotions. Tyranny is a habit; it has the capacity to develop and it does develop, in the end, into a disease. I maintain that the best of men may become coarsened and degraded, by force of habit, to the level of a beast. Blood and power are intoxicants; callousness and perversity develop and grow; the greatest perversions become acceptable and finally sweet to the mind and heart. The man and the citizen perish eternally in the tyrant, and a return to human dignity, to remorse and regeneration, becomes almost completely impossible to him. Besides this, example and the possibility of such arbitrary power act like a contagion on the whole of society; such despotism is a temptation. A society which contemplates such manifestations calmly is already corrupted at its roots. In short, the right given to 1 man to inflict corporal punishment on another is 1 of the ulcers of society, 1 of the most powerful destructive agents of every germ and every budding attempt at civilisation, the fundamental cause of its certain and irretrievable destruction." 

(trans. Jessie Coulson) 

1/ Reminds me of that time when a classmate asked if we thought Nazis were enjoying what they were doing, or only doing their duties. I believed, and still do, that there were people who liked it, who did find pleasure in humiliating, tormenting, inflicting pain upon other people, in having power and control, in knowing that others feared them, in seeing these people cry and beg for mercy.

2/ I don't believe that human beings all are good at heart. Nor do I believe that human beings are basically evil. 

3/ This passage makes me think of VN. E.g, because there's no law that protects people, there's no limit to what the police can do (unless they want to 'touch' the higher officials), therefore, that people die in custody is common. It can be tempting to have such power, with the law on your side, to be able to do whatever you want to someone else, knowing that nothing will happen to you. A system that has no respect for justice, freedom and human rights gives that power to certain groups of people in society, and I believe, in many cases, wakens up and then develops that desire in some individuals who might not be cruel by nature. It affects them, and shapes them gradually. The monstrous acts they do becomes normal and acceptable, and they change. 
That's just 1 example. 
4/ Much as I want to believe in myself, I cannot say with confidence that, having the same kind of power, I would not abuse it a bit. It's like the way in VN everyone gives bribes- to traffic police, customs officers, officials, nurses...; to be accepted into good schools, to make things faster and easier, to bend rules, to reduce discomfort (especially at hospitals)... I have heard some Viet people, after many years living abroad, say that they find it wrong and therefore impossible to gives bribes, but I'm certain that after a short while in VN they would have to do it, force themselves to conform to the unwritten rule and finally get used to it without a bad conscience. We adapt. 
And people who start to have some power (some position in such a society) initially may find it wrong to receive bribes, but they will change and will expect others to do so, then they will speak coldly and meanly and contemptuously as everyone else in the same position does. We adapt. 

"In this day and age..."

War and Peace, volume II chapter III chapter 21. 
A conversation between Andrey Bolkonsky and Vera Rostova, when she realises something's going on between him and her sister Natasha. 

"....
'[...] In this day and age', she persisted (talking of 'this day and age' in the way that persons of limited intelligence generally love to do, all too certain that they have discovered and carefully considered what is special about their day and age, and that human characteristics change with the times), 'in this day and age a girl has so much liberty that the pleasure of receiving a lot of attention often suppresses her true feelings....'
..." 

"To be all things to all men"

The idea for this post comes from here: http://freds-ramblings.blogspot.no/2011/04/something-to-think-about.html
"Know how to be all things to all men. A wise Proteus, he who is learned with the learned, and with the pious, pious: it is the great way of winning all to you: for to be like, is to be liked. Observe each man's spirit and adapt yourself: to the serious, or to the jovial, as the case may be, by following the fashion, through a politic change within yourself: a veritable necessity in those who are dependent. But this great rule of life calls for rich talent: being least difficult to that man of the world whose mind is filled with knowledge, and whose spirit is filled with taste." (Baltasar Gracian)

The topic is so interesting, I'd like to share some thoughts.
Well, let's say, I divide people roughly into 5 groups:
1/ Inflexible. Frank and straightforward to the point of being rude and unpleasant. Open. Cannot hide their own dislike, aversion, contempt. Can scarcely be insincere (though once in a while they have to). Sometimes tactless and insensitive, mistaking rudeness for frankness.
Not bothering to please others and win friends, these people can create difficulties for themselves- become unpopular, get into trouble with people, displease employers/ teachers/ colleagues, hamper their own careers and may even create many unnecessary enemies. There might even be something egoistic in their insistence on voicing their thoughts and staying true to themselves regardless of whom they're being with, in their refusal to adjust their own manners to different people.
E.g: Marianne Dashwood, Bazarov, LC, HT, me (especially back then in high school), etc.
2/ Inflexible. Can never be two-faced because they are simple, artless and genuine (and not good judges of character), rather than because they have a strong personality. Such people are more likeable than those in the 1st group, but may encounter problems of a different kind, such as being used.
E.g: Catherine Morland, Harriet Smith, Sj, etc.
3/ More flexible. Sensitive, tactful. Adjust themselves to different people. Talk about things in which the other person is also interested, avoid topics that might lead to unnecessary conflicts. Express opinions in a way that doesn't insult others, choose words and phrasing with care but do have opinions, especially in important matters. Civil and polite without becoming deceitful or insincere (e.g seeing something horrendously ugly, they say tentatively that it's OK/ nice/ all right..., not wonderful/ gorgeous/ amazing). These people do have a clear idea whom they consider friends, whom not, and generally keep a distance from those they don't like, unless they're forced to work with them, i.e don't try to be close to those they don't like.
E.g: Elinor Dashwood, Anne Elliot, J, M, DC, etc.
4/ Flexible. Can adapt to different people. Diplomatic. These people are not exactly deceitful and manipulative, but they try to maintain a relationship with everybody and create no enemy. Generally liked though possibly not to depend on. Stand up for no one and defend nothing. Stay away from trouble, never get involved in other people's problems, even friends'. Have no opinion. Survive.
E.g: Oblonsky, NT, MA, MT, etc.
5/ Chameleons. Hypocritical, manipulative, cunning, calculating, dishonest. Friendly and affectionate towards everybody. Say what others want to hear. Master the art of flattery. Talk around anything, can always justify themselves and change their own meanings. Very popular.
These people are very likely to have influence, to succeed and to move up the career track. Can easily achieve what they want. Can also have lots of acquaintances. But because they are unreliable and, due to their deceitful nature, are not open, I doubt that they can have very good friends. They can be very close friends with those of the same type, with whom they can discuss their schemes and everything, but these friends are also deceitful and therefore untrustworthy.
E.g: Lucy Steele, Isabella Thorpe, Caroline Bingley, Susan Vernon, Mary Crawford, William Elliot, George Wickham, S, V, QH, etc.

(This is very general, so don't give me a fictional character or a real person and ask me which group he or she belongs to). 

Baltasar Gracian's quote, if you look back at it, may refer to type 3, 4 or 5. As type 3 is the best way for which we should strive, there is a grain of truth in the advice, but I cannot completely agree with the quote- Baltasar Gracian's phrasing makes me think more of people in group 5, the obnoxious phonies. I detest hypocrites more than anything.
People in group 4 are, on principle, better, but they are less detectable and may sometimes cause much deeper pain. 
Me? I think like Anne Elliot: "She felt that she could so much more depend upon the sincerity of those who sometimes looked or said a careless or a hasty thing, than of those whose presence of mind never varied, whose tongue never slipped." 

Best line in "Pride and prejudice"

"Nothing is more deceitful than the appearance of humility. It is often only carelessness of opinion, and sometimes an indirect boast." 
(says Mr Darcy in "Pride and prejudice" by Jane Austen) 

On Bazarov, the 1st Russian literary nihilist

Oh how I detest Bazarov. That annoyingly arrogant, sarcastic, cynical, narrow-minded, philistine, materialistic, shallow, mundane, egoistic, insensitive, conceited nihilist! That philistine who denounces art and all spiritual things, respects nothing, understands nothing, attacks everything that he calls romanticism, scorns emotion/ affection and expression of it and sees everyone else as inferior and backward! That idiot who compares human beings to trees, doesn't care about the individual and doesn't see all the light and shade of life! And yet I feel sorry for him, and pity him, when he finds himself falling in love with Anna Odintsova, realises in himself something of which he never thinks himself capable and even feels ashamed of such 'romanticism', such 'sentimentality'. It's a kind of pity one has for a childish, naive, inexperienced person who has neither gone through anything in life nor learnt about other people's experiences and expanded his own mind through literature, more importantly, a person who has no self-understanding and who has no courage to accept himself and come to terms with himself. 
Pathetic. 
I go back and forth between hating him and feeling sorry for him. 
Turgenev's portrayal of Bazarov is superb. 

Update at 6pm: 
I was a bit excited, perhaps. 
To be fair, Bazarov has his assets. He's simple, casual, frank, straightforward, progressive in some aspects, which makes others comfortable around him, especially those of the lower class. Proud, independent, unabashed, not seeing why he should feel ashamed of his lack of luxury, and not bowing to anyone. Self-important and conceited indeed, but not particularly pretentious. He can also be kind and friendly, as he helps other people as a doctor, and treats Fenechka nicely, removes her discomfort about her situation. Whilst I can't stand him because of his philistinism, his rejection of artistic and spiritual things, his insensitivity and extreme nihilism, I support him in some aspects, such as his attack on the idleness and pretentiousness of the aristocrats, his liberal view on marriage, his wish to be useful and mockery of Pavel Petrovich's 'collapse' after a failed relationship, etc. Bazarov, moreover, appears more pleasant, democratic when placed next to the ridiculous, intolerant dandy Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov. 
His boldness might be seen as appealing. 
I feel that as long as politics and philosophy are avoided, he could be an OK person, more tolerable than someone like Pavel Petrovich. 

Happy and unhappy families

"All happy families are alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." *
(1st sentence of "Anna Karenina", Tolstoy)

"All happy families are more or less dissimilar; all unhappy ones are more or less alike."
(1st sentence of "Ada or ardor: A family chronicle", Nabokov)

Here, Froma Walsh argues for Nabokov: http://books.google.no/books?id=3C15kY3XnMUC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=All+happy+families+are+more+or+less+dissimilar;+all+unhappy+ones+are+more+or+less+alike&source=bl&ots=IsAsr76GKo&sig=ReOEhbYZzC8ije0xJgsMX7Iz0oE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tZTmUvvmDvH7yAOpj4DQCw&ved=0CFMQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=All%20happy%20families%20are%20more%20or%20less%20dissimilar%3B%20all%20unhappy%20ones%20are%20more%20or%20less%20alike&f=false

I disagree. Strongly disagree.
1st, Froma Walsh attempts to refute the 1st clause in Tolstoy's sentence by saying, Tolstoy contends that families must conform to 1 model, which has been challenged in the 21st century. Then she goes on to redefine the idea of a normal family, breaking it into various types. This is problematic right from the beginning because Tolstoy's talking about happy families, not normal families, and she's replacing his word with another, twisting the meaning.
2nd, let's say Froma Walsh has a point, that Tolstoy thinks of 1 model and that families have become diverse and complex over time. It's true that many different models may function well: families with same-sex couples, adopted children, single parents, multi-ethnic/ multicultural parents, unmarried couples, step families, ...; in this sense they're not alike. However, if this is true, she may refute the 1st clause without refuting the 2nd clause. There are also numerous different models of an unhappy family.
3rd, I moreover believe what Tolstoy has in mind is not a model of a happy family, but the common elements of a happy family such as love, trust, understanding, compatibility, harmony... These elements, characteristics are both causes and signs of their happiness, whatever model the family is.
On the other hand, unhappy families may be unhappy for a variety of reasons: incompatibility, cultural barrier, jealousy, paranoia, ill temper, alcoholism, addiction, lack of love, new love, infidelity, deception, gap between parents and children, spoilt children, lack of understanding between husband and wife or between parents and children, financial problems, physical abuse, sex, violence, incest... ** They also have different forms, different manifestations such as family members arguing all the time, contradicting and disagreeing with each other over trifles, not talking, not seeing each other, not sleeping in the same bed, hiding things from each other, speaking ill of each other to outsiders, doing exactly what the other hates... Once in a while, an unhappy family may very much resemble a happy one, but it's all pretence, and this bubble may pop any moment.
I do not know Nabokov's arguments, how he gives examples to back up his point and attack Tolstoy's. But according to my way of seeing it, it's Tolstoy that is right.






*: This is called the Anna Karenina principle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Karenina_principle
**: And sometimes, because of "horrifyingly ugly children": http://www.examiner.com/article/man-sues-ex-wife-over-ugly-children-and-wins-daughter-s-looks-horrified-him

People are like rivers

"It is 1 of the commonest and most widespread misconceptions that every person has a set of fixed qualities; he is said to be good, bad, bright, stupid, dynamic, apathetic, and so on. People are not like that. We can say of a man that he is more often good than bad, more often bright than stupid, more often dynamic than apathetic, and vice versa; but it would be wrong to say of 1 individual that he is good or bright, and of another that he is bad or stupid. But that is how we always do divide people up. And it is wrong. People are like rivers: the water in all of them is the same and everywhere identical, but each river has its narrows and rapids, its broad stretches and gentle currents, sections that are clear or cold, others that are muddy or warm. So it is with people. Each person carries within him the germ of all human qualities, showing some of them 1 moment, others the next, and sometimes acting right out of character, while always remaining the same. Nekhlyudov was that type of person..." 

(Lev Tolstoy, "Resurrection"- part 1 chapter 54, tl. Anthony Briggs) 

__________________________________________________


This is the reason I can't find words to describe myself. Sometimes I'm this, sometimes I'm that, which can be grouped into 2 separate personalities that coexist in my body and that take turns to dominate my words and actions. Yet, on 2nd thoughts, I may not be as complex as I think, or I indeed am, but human beings are all complex and self-contradictory. 

__________________________________________________


I doubt that I may change from now on, that is, the tendency to divide people up. Following the motto "thou shalt not judge" isn't easy, and on the other hand I'm not sure if I really want to. In my opinion, the point is not to stop saying or thinking that somebody is witty, impatient, short-tempered, dim-witted, insipid, garrulous, fascinating, artificial, selfish, practical, deceitful, cruel, cynical... but to be aware that these traits or qualities often appear but they are not fixed. As I've said before, each human being has all traits in varying degrees, eg. selfishness is in all of us but a person is said to be selfish if he's more selfish than usual and he's more often selfish than not, and to say that everybody can be/ is selfish is not an excuse for his selfishness. 
That's what I like to say- the point is the awareness that these traits or qualities often appear but they aren't fixed in a person's character (the selfish person can, under certain circumstances or in certain moods or due to certain reasons, acts selflessly, altruistically), and that one should try to understand and look upon life from that person's point of view instead of judging, criticising and condemning. I know how grotesque it is, such a statement coming from me, since I know full well I am very critical and that is a negative trait for a person and much worse for an aspiring writer. This needs to be changed, and the quote by Tolstoy is therefore published here to remind me of it. 

3 wrong attitudes in reading novels

1/ Avoid depressing books (not in the sense that they have a pessimistic, misanthropic, depressing tone/vision, but in the sense that they deal with painful, tragic subjects): 
a) The majority of the greatest, most critically acclaimed, most valuable books, are depressing. One who has this attitude thus misses a great number of extraordinary works.
b) One who avoids depressing books often says that it's unnecessary to read about cruelty, misery, sadness, agony... when they have seen such things in real life. That is wrong. You may know pain and suffering but in life there are lots of other kinds of pain and suffering. Through reading one learns to empathise with people, to see things from other people's points of view, to widen one's perspective.
c) This attitude is equivalent to the choice to be kept ignorant, to be blind to suffering and all the negative aspects of life, all the negative things happening around the world. 
d) Avoiding depressing books also means a 'disapproval' of, denial of and fear for feelings labelled as negative and thus leads to a pointless pursuit of so-called happiness, which is more like a kind of happy-go-lucky, light-hearted attitude, instead of pursuit of wholeness. 

2/ Always want a happy ending (more extreme: avoid reading books that don't have happy endings).
Regarding the readers, they'll be like the people in no.1 above. 
Regarding the writers, some don't know that a forced happy ending may ruin the whole work. 
Eg: "Twilight" saga (Stephenie Meyer), etc. 

3/ Wish to like and identify with the characters, at least the protagonists (and thus dislike those in which one doesn't like any characters or doesn't like the protagonists). 
This is very common, and I myself don't understand why to some people novels can't be appreciated objectively for their merits, their values, their significance, but have to be perceived personally, and thus these people may attack a book and treat it as annoying or worthless simply because they don't like the people in it. 
There are times when I love a book even though I don't like anyone in it, such as "The great Gatsby" (F. Scott Fitzgerald), "Wuthering heights" (Emily Bronte), and even if I strongly dislike the main characters/ protagonists, such as "Lolita" (Vladimir Nabokov), "The piano teacher" (Elfriede Jelinek), "Madame Bovary" (Gustave Flaubert), "The stranger" (Albert Camus)... Or concerning the case of "Anna Karenina", I sympathise with Anna and don't want to blame her because I understand her position and emotions, but I don't always like her, Anna has her faults and shortcomings that somehow also increase her afflictions and contribute to her downfall. But that doesn't matter. The question of whether or not I like the characters, in my opinion, doesn't have much to do with the appreciation of the work itself. Elfriede Jelinek and Vladimir Nabokov may each create and depict a character nobody can like, Erika Kohut and Humbert Humbert respectively, but these 2 talented writers should nevertheless be praised for their understanding of psychology, for their exploration of the character's psyche and personality. 

But well, that's my rant. 
To each his own, I'm afraid. I can't change anybody. 

Half full chủ nghĩa

Dạo này trên facebook thấy nhiều người đăng những thứ đại loại như hãy suy nghĩ tích cực, vấn đề không phải là hoàn cảnh mà là thái độ, nên hài lòng với những gì đang có, đừng phàn nàn, hãy nghĩ tới những người không may hơn mình, blah blah blah. Phát ngấy.

- Suy nghĩ và cảm giác tiêu cực, vượt qua 1 giới hạn, có thể dẫn tới nhiều hậu quả xấu, đặc biệt với sức khỏe. Nhưng khi chưa đến giới hạn đó, nó hoàn toàn tự nhiên và bình thường như những suy nghĩ và cảm giác tích cực, không có lý do gì để cố gắng loại bỏ, né tránh hoặc phủ nhận. 

- 1 đứa bạn NU của mỳnh từng bảo, đôi khi nó mệt sau 7-8 tiết ở trường, về nhà lại đủ thứ bài vở và nhiều việc khác, chỉ phàn nàn 1 câu nhưng ba mẹ lại nói ngay, nên biết ơn vì mình may mắn như thế nào, nên nghĩ tới những đứa trẻ đói khát ở Châu Phi. Thực tế, ca cẩm 1 chút khi mệt mỏi, kiệt sức cũng như buột 1 tiếng chửi thề khi đau, bức bối, khó chịu có tác dụng tốt, làm giải tỏa những cảm giác khó chịu, tiêu cực trong người. 1 người đang đủ thứ trong lòng nghe ai đó bảo nên cảm thấy biết ơn và tận hưởng những gì mình đang có, chắc chắn không cảm thấy thoải mái sung sướng gì hơn, còn nếu tự nói với bản thân không nên tiêu cực nữa, mình thế này là may mắn lắm rồi, chưa chắc đã làm bản thân bớt bực dọc mà, theo nghĩa nào đó, chỉ đang chối bỏ cảm xúc thực sự của mình, trong khi những cảm xúc như bực bội, giận dữ, thất vọng, lo lắng, buồn bã... đều bình thường và tự nhiên. 

- Nói vấn đề không phải là hoàn cảnh mà là thái độ có ý đúng nhưng không hẳn 100% đúng. Tất nhiên, hoàn cảnh là cái mình không thể quyết định, còn thái độ là cái ta có thể hoàn toàn làm chủ. Nhưng cuộc sống không chỉ đơn giản là ăn, ngủ, học, làm việc, chơi, hạnh phúc không hẳn chỉ là có mái nhà, bạn bè...- định nghĩa hạnh phúc rất phức tạp và mang tính cá nhân. Có cơ thể lành lặn, được sống với gia đình và bạn bè, được đi học và làm việc... với nhiều người là không đủ để gọi là hạnh phúc, nên khi chưa đạt được điều mình mơ ước, họ cảm thấy không hài lòng- như thế không có nghĩa là họ tiêu cực, không nhận ra sự may mắn của bản thân.  

- Khi 1 người không hài lòng với cái họ đang có, họ có thể bị những người theo chủ nghĩa biết-ơn-và-suy-nghĩ-tích-cực xem là bi quan, nhưng chính sự không hài lòng sẽ là động cơ để họ phấn đấu và thay đổi. Trong khi đó, sự hài lòng lại có thể là chấp nhận 1 cách thụ động. 

- Trong 1 số trường hợp, sự hài lòng có thể rất nguy hiểm. Chẳng hạn, trong xã hội, có người nhìn thấy nhiều vấn đề và thấy đất nước mình không bằng nhiều quốc gia khác, nhưng cũng có nhiều người "quyết định" hài lòng, chủ yếu theo 2 cách, hoặc so sánh đất nước mình với những nước dưới mình chứ không nhìn lên, hoặc so sánh với quá khứ, để nghĩ "thế này là tốt lắm rồi, tốt hơn hồi xưa nhiều". Đây là cách nghĩ thụ động, làm trì kéo sự thay đổi và phát triển của xã hội.  

- Đôi khi, "tiêu cực" chỉ là từ 1 số người dùng thay cho từ "thực tế" hoặc "nghi ngờ, cẩn thận". 

- Suy nghĩ tích cực và lạc quan khi đưa ra 1 quyết định, đôi lúc, dẫn tới sự tự tin quá mức và chủ quan, không xét đến những hậu quả tiêu cực có thể xảy ra, nên có thể đưa ra quyết định khi không suy nghĩ thực sự cẩn trọng, và có thể gây ra nhiều hậu quả tai hại. 

- Khi thực tế, không quá tự tin, và nghĩ đến những tình huống xấu nhất có thể xảy ra, người ta có thể được chuẩn bị tốt hơn (cố gắng để nó không xảy ra, và đồng thời chuẩn bị tinh thần), nên hậu quả cũng nhẹ nhàng hơn.

- 1 số phụ nữ khi nhận ra chồng mình không tử tế vẫn tiếp tục cuộc hôn nhân và tự an ủi mọi chuyện sẽ khá hơn, chồng mình sẽ thay đổi... Đó có thể xem là suy nghĩ tích cực. Và dĩ nhiên, thái độ không tốt hơn những người suy nghĩ tiêu cực, nghĩ bản tính con người sẽ không thay đổi, rồi quyết định bỏ đi. 

- Những người nhạy cảm, khi quan sát và trải nghiệm, nhìn thấy nhiều bất công, sai trái diễn ra xung quanh, hay buồn và có thể có những suy nghĩ bị gọi là tiêu cực. Nhưng không thể vì thế lại gọi họ là những người bi quan, hoặc nói những câu đại loại như, thuyền chỉ chìm khi nước tràn vào nhấn chìm thuyền, bản thân ta không nên để những thứ tiêu cực chen vào mình, blah blah, như mỳnh thấy trên facebook, bởi thái độ như vậy nghe ích kỷ và rất ngớ ngẩn. 
- Đôi khi, cố gắng suy nghĩ tích cực làm người ta không nhìn thấy mặt trái của vấn đề. 

- Nhiều người theo chủ nghĩa lạc-quan-hạnh-phúc, hay ít nhất trong số những người mỳnh quen, có thói quen né tránh tất cả những gì họ gắn mác là "depressing". Riêng chuyện đọc sách chẳng hạn, 1 người vốn đã quen suy nghĩ tiêu cực, đọc những gì mình thích, có hứng thú, hoặc cảm thấy mình nên đọc, không có thói quen xếp loại tốt/ xấu, tích cực/ tiêu cực, cũng không cần xem nó sẽ tác động làm mình vui hay buồn... 1 người suy nghĩ tích cực, chỉ muốn nhìn thấy the bright side và chủ động né tránh những thứ "depressing", trước tiên phải phân loại, nên khi đọc sẽ thiếu sót so với người kia, và xét mặt nào đó, đang né tránh thực tế. 
- v.v... 

Nói tóm lại, nếu phải trả lời half full hay half empty, mỳnh sẽ không trả lời- mỳnh thấy cả 2. 
Suy nghĩ tích cực và biết ơn vì những gì mình đang có có mặt tốt, nhưng, cũng như mọi thứ khác, có mặt xấu. Nên cứ phải nghe nhai nhải những điều đó, như mỳnh đã viết ở đoạn trên cùng, mỳnh thực sự phát ngấy. 

Kevin and callous-unemotional children

On 30/3/2012 in the entry "2 films and 2 books" I wrote about "We Need To Talk About Kevin", a film I'd watched a few days earlier.

"... It's quite a painful and thought-provoking film, with some haunting scenes, and after watching it last Friday I still think a little about it, but my feeling now, after about 1 week, is different from how I felt that day. As you've probably known, I'm fed up with films and books about serial killers whose brutal and inhumane acts are simply explained, or decoded, by traumatic events in their childhood..."

"... I don't really like the creation of the character Kevin. It sounds simple. Why does he become a murderer? Because he has always been like that, evil, since birth? Isn't that boring? He has always had an instinctual aversion to his mother, which has no apparent reason, but is a reason for his acts. It develops over time. I of course like the message of the film that the parents should have talked about it and come to a solution before it's too late, because his inhumanity develops over time, because it's so often in real life that people just postpone important things and directly or indirectly cause something that should have been stopped, or changed, for a long time. But it's predictable..."

After 4 months, I've changed my mind.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/magazine/can-you-call-a-9-year-old-a-psychopath.html?_r=2&smid=FB-nytimes&WT.mc_id=TM-E-FB-SM-LIN-CYC-051412-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click

A rather long but very interesting piece.

1st we have to start with callous-unemotional traits: "Callous and unemotional (CU) traits are distinguished by a persistent pattern of behavior that reflects a disregard for others, a lack of empathy and generally deficient affect. The interplay between genetic and environmental risk factors may play a role in the expression of these traits as a conduct disorder (CD)." (wiki)

It must be clarified right from the beginning that those are traits. There are various levels, and having some callous-unemotional traits doesn't mean a child is a callous-unemotional child. (Just like we all have various levels of selfishness but not everybody is called a selfish person).

"Children with CU traits have distinct problems in emotional and behavioral regulation that distinguish them from other antisocial youth and show more similarity to characteristics found in adult psychopathy. Young adolescents with higher levels of CU traits were more likely to engage in direct and indirect forms of bullying. In general, children or adolescents with CU traits exhibit more severe and instrumental displays of aggression than individuals with non CU conduct disorder." (wiki)

Children and adolescents with callous-unemotional traits up to a certain level can be described as aggressive, insensitive, sadistic, who might inflict pain upon weaker kids or animals and enjoy it, for instance, but beyond it, they are more unlikely to change and have the potential to develop into psychopaths.

"Psychopathy is a personality disorder that has been variously described as characterized by shallow emotions (in particular reduced fear), stress tolerance, lacking empathy, coldheartedness, lacking guilt, egocentricity, superficial charm, manipulativeness, irresponsibility, nonplanfulness, impulsivity, and antisocial behaviors such as parasitic lifestyle and criminality." (wiki)

"The concept of psychopathy should be distinguished from the DSM-IV concept of antisocial personality disorder. While diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder is heavily dependent on a record of criminal behavior, psychopathy is more geared to the actual personality traits associated with criminal behavior. Such traits include callousness, superficial and shallow emotion, lack of empathy, irresponsibility, lack of remorse or guilt about harming others, and the tendency to exploit, manipulate and engage in predatory behavior towards others. Psychopathic prisoners commit more serious and violent crimes than non-psychopathic prisoners. They are also more likely to recidivate (commit another crime) after they are released from prison. Moreover, psychopaths are more likely to commit premeditated rather than impulsive crimes. In Michael Woodworth and Stephen Porter's 2002 study of 125 prisoners convicted of homicide, the 34 psychopathic prisoners were much more likely than the 91 non-psychopathic prisoners to have committed premeditated murders (93.3% vs. 48.4%)." (Psychology Today)

"The diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder focuses primarily on observable or documented long-standing patterns of behavior such as disregard for social norms, lying, impulsivity, irresponsibility, recklessness, cruelty, violence, law-breaking, lack of guilt or remorse, etc. Psychopathy or Dissocial Personality Disorder emphasize somewhat more subjective, qualitative and inferred traits like lack of caring or empathy, easily formed but superficial interpersonal attachments, low tolerance for frustration, chronically irritable mood, absence of conscience, failure to learn from negative consequences, and defensive projection of blame onto others." (Psychology Today)

Note: "The knee-jerk reaction of calling all violent offenders "psychopaths" is inaccurate, irresponsible, misleading and unethical. According to the Handbook of (Forensic) Psychology (2003), "there are many ways that someone can be at high risk for violence that are unrelated to psychopathy.. . . This is especially true," it continues, in cases of "spousal assault, stalking and sexual violence, where violence may be related more to disturbances of normal attachment processes rather than the pathological lack of attachment associated with psychopathy." Indeed, there are a multitude of mental disorders associated with violent behavior, including substance abuse or dependence, bipolar disorder, dissociative disorders, narcissistic and paranoid personality disorder, and psychotic disorders. Violent behavior is multi-determined, and cannot be simplistically reduced to or conveniently explained away by glibly dismissing all such offenders as "psychopaths."" (Psychology Today)

Of course, "The idea that a young child could have psychopathic tendencies remains controversial among psychologists. Laurence Steinberg, a psychologist at Temple University, has argued that psychopathy, like other personality disorders, is almost impossible to diagnose accurately in children, or even in teenagers — both because their brains are still developing and because normal behavior at these ages can be misinterpreted as psychopathic. Others fear that even if such a diagnosis can be made accurately, the social cost of branding a young child a psychopath is simply too high."

But, "The benefits of successful treatment could be enormous. Psychopaths are estimated to make up 1 percent of the population but constitute roughly 15 to 25 percent of the offenders in prison and are responsible for a disproportionate number of brutal crimes and murders."

In this article, 1 man says "This is uncharted territory. People are worried about labeling, but if we can identify these kids, at least we have a chance to help them. And if we miss that chance, we might not get another one." 

Callous-unemotional children here are defined as "those who exhibit a distinctive lack of affect, remorse or empathy — and who are considered at risk of becoming psychopaths as adults".

As written before, there's a difference between callous-unemotional children and children with callous-unemotional traits, which is clarified here:

"Currently, there is no standard test for psychopathy in children, but a growing number of psychologists believe that psychopathy, like autism, is a distinct neurological condition — one that can be identified in children as young as 5. Crucial to this diagnosis are callous-unemotional traits, which most researchers now believe distinguish “fledgling psychopaths” from children with ordinary conduct disorder, who are also impulsive and hard to control and exhibit hostile or violent behavior. According to some studies, roughly one-third of children with severe behavioral problems — like the aggressive disobedience that Michael displays — also test above normal on callous-unemotional traits."

"Most kids, if you catch them stealing a cookie from the jar before dinner, they’ll look guilty. They want the cookie, but they also feel bad. Even kids with severe A.D.H.D.: they may have poor impulse control, but they still feel bad when they realize that their mom is mad at them. Callous-unemotional children are unrepentant. They don’t care if someone is mad at them. They don’t care if they hurt someone’s feelings. Like adult psychopaths, they can seem to lack humanity."

"They’re not like A.D.H.D. kids who just act impulsively. And they’re not like conduct-disorder kids, who are like: ‘Screw you and your game! Whatever you tell me, I’m going to do the opposite.’ The C.U. kids are capable of following the rules very carefully. They just use them to their advantage." Or "Hot-blooded kids tend to act out very impulsively... Coldblooded, callous-unemotional children, by contrast, are capable of being impulsive, but their misbehavior more often seems calculated. Instead of someone who can’t sit still, you get a person who may be hostile when provoked but who also has this ability to be very cold. The attitude is, ‘Let’s see how I can use this situation to my advantage, no matter who gets hurt from that.’"

In short, their behaviour is "a mix of impulsivity, aggression, manipulativeness and defiance", among which the most significant is manipulativeness- they say what they know should be said and create a healthy, ordinary image of themselves to make people (who are not very observant) think that their parents have imagined/ exaggerated, or to convince psychologists that they've improved.

"In another study, the researcher Mark Dadds found that as C.U. children matured, they developed the ability to simulate interest in people’s feelings. They have no emotional empathy, but they have cognitive empathy; they can say what other people feel, they just don’t care or feel it."

So, such children do exist. Kevin perfectly fits the descriptions of callous-unemotional children:

- Defiance: resists toilet training; thought to be slow, dim-witted or hearing-impaired because he refuses to throw the ball back at his mother or count numbers albeit remarkably intelligent and perfectly capable of understanding the demands; continues to masturbate when caught by his mother, and glares at her defiantly. 

- Aggression: gets angry at times and might also be the one who does harm to his sister, though it isn't very clear. 

- Constantly full of contempt and hatred for his mother for no particular reason, in spite of her attempt to get close to him. 

- Possible sadism: as already said it's no more than suspicion and isn't revealed in the film, if it's true that he's the one causing his sister's blindness, he seems to take pleasure in hurting others. 

- Calculated calmness: terrifyingly calm in a calculated way. Talks in an icy cold tone. 

- Manipulativeness: appears healthy, ordinary and perfectly OK and reveals his true nature to his mother solely; touches the bandaged arm or the scar and looks intently making his mother follow his wishes; makes his father think of him as totally harmless. 

- No indication of empathy and humanity since a very young age. No indication of love for any particular individual. Later, kills father and sister. The person for whom he has some feelings is his mother, but it's complicated, ambivalent, hard to express in words.

And Kevin does officially become a psychopath.