I wish I could read/watch Psycho without knowing the secret buried in the heart of the story, but it's probably the single most well known twist to the tale in fiction.
Knowing the twist did mean that I could spot every time Bloch inserts another clue as to what's really going on, how innocuous all those little comments were, and how well hidden it all was in plain sight.
I know I would probably have reached part one of the reveal and would have been completely thrown. The way it's written is very clever indeed even if it's not particularly subtle. I don't know if I would have figured out the grisly detail from part one of the reveal. It's possible the number of rip offs from this story would have made it easy to spot. On the other hand, it really hasn't dated badly like some of Bloch's other fiction and it might have been one shock on top of the other. Without a mind wipe and a reread, there is no way of knowing.
I envy those first readers to pick this up with no idea of what was happening. The same goes for those first audiences for Hitch's great film. Hitch does stay reasonably close to the book and there are no massive diversions. I admit to still seeing Antony Perkins sat behind the counter despite Bloch describing Norman as fat, balding and quite pathetically middle-aged.
Which do I prefer? The book or the film? I honestly couldn't say. The film rightfully changed the way films are made, and set so many templates in place. It's one of the single most important films in horror history. The book has faded somewhat into obscurity which is a damnable shame. The book is every bit as cleverly done as the film. It's quite compulsivly readable and manages to build tension and shock despite how well known the story is.
I urge everyone reading this to check it out for yourself and read the origin of a piece of horror history. You won't be disappointed.
No comments:
Post a Comment