Funny how this book and my thoughts about it echo back to my experience with Madman's Tale by John Katzenbach. Both are early-mid 2000s books approaching crime and mental illness in a pleasantly nuanced way. Although this book doesn't reach the same quality and manages to have an epilogue that wound me up with frustration right before I was supposed to be going to bed. But I do have positive thoughts to share about what the book is trying to do.
CW: general dehumanization regarding mentally ill people and criminals (especially when they overlap), common use of ableist and homophobic slurs, a case of prolonged sexual abuse that isn't explicitly shown but is alluded to and is plot relevant; this book gets very horny at points that borders on explicit that is consensual but involves two mentally unwell women and a psychologist being tempted to take advantage of their overtures, though neither case results in sex.
Some general thoughts that will get a little spoilery:
- the book addresses just how messy it can be when cases involve awful criminal acts with mentally disturbed perpetrators. Is this person high-strung and paranoid because of a mental illness that needs further treatment, or is it because the prison environment understandably makes them feel unsafe (especially if they face abusive guards)? How well can a therapist actually predict risk of dangerous behavior once the patient is in an outside environment with unknowable variables? They have a program that measures that risk by considering age, education and class background, but that means a middle class man with a college education has better odds than a working class high school dropout despite committing the same crime. It also acknowledges that regardless of what the advising psychologist says, the parole board can make a decision influenced by media pressure and racial bias.
- I will say that while the book acknowledges the way racial background can affect police investigations/prison sentencing and there are multiple people of color in the supporting cast, it doesn't really get further explored because both David and Victor are white and it isn't a big impact on them (David is Jewish but doesn't seem to face antisemitism).
- I really like the scenes where David is talking with Victor, the way he tries to connect with him and treat him as a person, which is more than most of the staff does (especially Stevie Karp, who we will get to). He does struggle with boundaries, reflected in both dynamics with former patient and is desperation to prove Victor's innocence. His heart is in the right place and he has valid criticisms of the prison/mental hospital regulations but he very much wants to 'save' Victor to make up for failing his last patient.
- The Karp thing: Victor is left in solitary and, because he isn't known as a problem-causer or requires medication, is very rarely visited by the lead psychologist or other staff. But you know what that means? A trusted and experienced prison guard is able to visit him, emotionally and sexually abuse him for potentially years on end, and none of the staff are looking closely enough to notice.
David comes to suspect the abuse but has no concrete evidence and doubts Victor will reach for help if he thinks it will only make the abuse worse. This culminates in a fabricated mental breakdown that is enough for the lead psychologist to cancel the parole consideration, exactly like Karp wanted (obviously he doesn't want Victor to be able to leave or reveal the abuse). And then when David does try to complain to the warden, it doesn't go anywhere because the warden is friends with Karp! Heartbreaking as it is, I like what it does for the narrative and how it demonstrates that Victor has been consistently failed by the people around him and reflects real-life prison abuse.
So about that epilogue... SPOILERS
David discovers an old coworker of Victor's that had seen the actual killer following the victim with a kitchen knife in hand, could provide an alibi for Victor and a reason for him visiting the victim's apartment soon after, never approached the police because he was worried the actual killer would come after him, and then said nothing for 15 years. David gets all this on tape which he hopes will be enough for a retrial and get Victor out of prison. The story could have ended there on an ambiguous but hopeful note. But then we get the epilogue-
For the first time, we switch to Victor's perspective. Karp visits him with obvious intentions, Victor manages to distract him, then stabs him with the sharpened end of a paint brush and manages to sneak out of the prison unseen. First read, that was so frustrating that I wanted to throw the book at the wall. A significant point of the narrative is that Victor isn't a killer and everyone doubts he's capable of it; then he calmly murders someone (though it's very justified and I'd argue self-defense). Throughout the entire chapter, he is calm and methodical in a way that jars with his prior characterization. He's disgusted by Karp but he isn't desperate and afraid. He doesn't read as the neurotic and weak-willed man from earlier; this version could be read with sociopathic traits.
This ending could have worked if Victor assumed David had failed him and panicked lashing out was the only way to stop the abuse. But that's not what the epilogue does and book 2's description seems to suggest that Victor kills more people after his escape. That's a radically different story than the majority of part 1 and I don't think it's one I'm interested in reading.