In Preparation for Tuesday's Book Club - Featuring 'The Silent Patient'

 

November was for Alex Michaelides 

The Quarantine Book Club has been going strong for several months now, and as we're coming to a close, holiday activities are being confirmed and planned for the future and we're all very excited to convene in a few short days, via Zoom, to discuss the happenstances of Alex Michaelides' 'The Silent Patient.' Personally, I'd heard lots about this thriller through my GoodReads feed, and honestly the reviews were right, because good golly was this a book to be read. I read it so quickly, that realistically had to go back a few pages when the big twist showed itself, to make sure I was reading it right. 

I, for one, always cheer for the female lead, no matter if she's pinned to be the antagonist. There's just something that dings in my head about women always being right... or "I'm with her.." I'm not sure, but I always root for the women in these books, and who would have known that I was right. Oh, snap. SPOILERS are definitely ahead. In an attempt to refresh my memory before Tuesday's meetings, I'm going to go ahead and do a little one-on-one workshopping with myself and answer the Discussion questions below... So if you haven't yet read this book, scroll away and check back later. I'd hate to ruin this plot for you! 

'The Silent Patient' by Alex Michaelides  - Discussion Questions 

1. The Story begins with the revelation Alicia murdered her husband. Why do you think the author made the admission at the very start? 

I somewhat like narratives that are told where the obvious is stated right off the bat. I'm not dumb. I can read the back of the book's cover to see what the book is about, and clearly it's titled 'The Silent Patient.' There is a patient and they are being silent, so that much is known. Discovering who is who is pretty important right from the jump, so there isn't too much confusion. Also, seeing as though she is silent, we clearly aren't going to be hearing from her for a while, and with her Alicia's husband being the one who is dead, we aren't going to hear from him either, so the mysterious "I accomplished this feat" narrator right from the get-go felt appropriate... well as appropriate as this story could be told, at least. 

2. Alicia's diary plays a key role in the book. What purpose do you think it serves? And does your perception of Alicia change the more you read? 

Since Alicia is Silent... There isn't really any other way we would be able to hear from her. The diary is her vessel for which we are able to learn deeper into her brain and what makes/made her tick. Her constant paranoia begins here allowing her to project her feelings into this book, where she can feel validated and heard. I definitely rooted for Alicia at the beginning, because we didn't know everything from the get-go, but as we learned more from the diary... I began to open up to her even further. 

3. Alicia's silence is related to the Greek myth of Alcestis. How do you feel about the story of the myth? Why do you think Alicia is silent? 

As the tragedy is told, Alcestis, the wife of Admetus, sacrificed her life in order to bring her own husband back from the dead. The parable tells of a very gallant notion that she performed to bring life and happiness back to her village, even if it meant she wouldn't get to continue living. In the book, it seems we see the exact opposite narrative happening. Alicia kills her husband and she keeps on living... and then goes on to paint the word Alcestis onto a painting, remaining silent for the time to come. 

Given the ultimatum and information that Theo presented Alicia with at the climax of this plot, perhaps she felt this was the only choice she could make and she sacrificed herself and her voice to save face for her cheating husband. She sacrificed her freedom so that he could go on "living" and being remembered for his highlight and not his low points. 

4. Theo's motives to work with Alicia are complicated. Do you think he wanted to help her? 

I really thought this at the beginning. After learning his true motives at the end, however, I really do think he was just seeing how far he could push her until she reached her breaking point, and spoke. For fun. I think he was doing it, obviously for revenge, but he took the joke way to far! Like allowed it to consume his profession too far... Clearly he broke so many patient/practitioner confidentiality laws, HIPAA would have a field day if they were aware of half of this book's events. He didn't care for Alicia, he wanted to see her fall, and what a better what to do that than to literally torture her day, upon day, while she's under the influence of heavy-narcotics and no way out? 

5. Both Alicia and Theo had difficult childhoods. Early on, Theo says no one is born evil. That who we become depends on the environment into which we are born. By the end of the novel he appears to change his mind, saying that perhaps some of us are born evil, and despite therapy, we remain that way. which do you think is true? 

I don't really think anyone can be born evil. I believe that we become the people that we are today, based on our learned behaviors or actions that rub off on us. Theo had an abusive father, so whilst he was cowering away from his physical and emotional beat downs, he was also absorbing a lot of those languages and behaviors, subconsciously. So, whether he liked it or not, or really even recognized it, he was adding those mannerisms to his arsenal for later on. 

I do think that therapy helps if you really take it seriously. I don't know why you wouldn't. After insurance, therapy appointments are like $89 dollars a pop for me... I can't afford to not take it seriously. I do think that some people fear being hated or judged by their therapists, so they will fabricate some information, but then that defeats the whole point of therapy. I did struggle with the idea of Ruth, Theo's therapist. Parts of me felt that she wasn't real, but rather a figment of Theo's parental trauma... for Ruth was like the motherly figure that he could depend on, but never actually had with his own mother, so he created her within his mind. I could have totally spiraled there, but that's where my mind went. 

6. Weather plays a large role in the book, such as the heat wave during the summer. What purpose do you think the description of the weather serves in the novel? 

Ooh, a dark and stormy day at the Mental Hospital? Isn't that how Halloween started out as Michael Meyers was attempting to escape??? Suffering heat waves and deadly thunderstorms seem to be at opposite levels of the weather range. They are extremities. Assuming that there isn't a middle ground that this novel exists within makes things feel rather uncomfortable, right? 

7. Do you think the world of a psychiatric unit was convincingly portrayed? How do you feel about Diomedes and the other psychiatrists? 

I would say so. Diomedes to me is/was an ass. A "look at me, I'm educated" ass, but he's flailing because the Board of Trustees is on his back, and the future of his unit isn't known, so he really doesn't have any place being such a tool. No footing to stand on. The other psychiatrists are pretty hardcore... but I guess they have to be pretty prepared for the worst to happen, so I'm sure their demeanors are so rugged, because they can't trust their patients who could be suffering from the most mentally-deteriorating illnesses. 

8. We never enter Kathy's mind in the book. Do you have any sympathy for her? 

I guess because I've known so many people who've gotten cheated on and lied to over the course of their relationships, I don't really have any sympathy for cheaters. I don't know how Theo could have been so confident in their relationship, because they both literally cheated on their partners to begin dating each other. Once a cheater, always a cheater... is that the phrase? I feel like we can see enough into Kathy's mind by how we observe Gabriel treat Alicia. He's very dismissive with her and always working late or out at business proceedings... So you get the notion that he's got secrets as well... Which he did. 

9. What do you think happens at the end of the book? The last line is ambiguous...

"And I went to catch another one." I feel this is most locally referencing that Theo meant to go catch another snowflake, but I almost wonder if there's a hidden meaning here. He stays with Kathy in the end, like they moved out of Central London and went back to Surrey (where Theo grew up), but what if he still doesn't trust his wife, and knows that in good time she'll cheat again and he'll have to find those perpetrators in the future, and that's what he means by catching something again??? 

My husband and I did just finish watching Season 3 of You on Netflix, so maybe I'm already in that frame of thinking when it comes to motives, but that's kind of where my head went initially. 

10. It's a psychological thriller with a twist. The author has said he was influenced by Agatha Christie. Did you feel this was simply a detective story or are there other influences you can spot?

I could definitely see some Agatha Christie in Michaelides' writing patterns, and yes I'd have to agree that the twists and turns felt more psychologically released than they did a detective novel. It's a play on words, because from the get-go, the author enables us to think that Theo is acting as the "investigator" what with his calling family/friends of the accused/convicted and referencing leads as much as possible, but once we get midway through, it's evident to see that WE are the investigators, flipping through page after page only to find out that Theo was technically behind a lot of this chaos, all along. 

For Alex Michaelides to place Theo as the main narrator of the book grants Theo with some additional narcissistic qualities, because he knew the outcome all of along, but he rather wanted to locate the nature of our reactions, breaking the fourth wall of sorts, to have his story be told. Playing true to most serial killers, like your classic John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy, who are sick enough to want everything displayed, get caught, and then assume they'll get away with it, but in the end they don't. 

I truly don't think that Theo was ever found out by the law. The way the structure of the psychiatric unit was crumbling from the beginning meant that they had bigger fish to fry, and looking into the stability of one of their willing but newer counselors probably wouldn't have even crossed their mind. They just wanted funding and butts in seats, rather.