Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.99 AVERAGE
3.99 AVERAGE
dark
tense
medium-paced
Sleek, chilling and effective. I was interested to see how Bloch would resolve the big twist at the end, but it was handled well. A little too expositional with the psych analysis at the end, but still an effect Halloween read.
dark
mysterious
sad
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
N/A
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Unfortunately for Psycho, like The Strange Case Of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde before it, the twist is SO FAMOUS (and now that I think about it, it's the same twist) that you'd be hard pushed to find someone who didn't know it. It's a part of pop culture, more than that, it's almost a part of our social consciousness. You don't even need to have seen the movie to know all about Norman Bates. But the novel is structured entirely around this being a really big shocking reveal at the end, so before you even open the poor thing, it's already been declawed.
Again, like Jekyll and Hyde, you can still enjoy the read, but you'll always be left wondering what WOULD it have been like to read this when it was new? It must have been something.
So, what can I say about the book other than someone/everyone/pop culture/Hitchcock spoiled the ending for me? I thought it was pretty well written. In fact, I think I like it better than the movie. The movie felt very old-fashioned when I saw it (it's been a few years mind) whereas if I didn't know better, I would never have guessed the book was written in the 50s - it felt modern. Or at least 80s/90s - Thomas Harris must have been inspired by this when he wrote Red Dragon. His mentally ill characters think the exact same way. Or maybe that's just because both Bloch and Harris write about terrifying misogynists. There's quite a few clever little nods to the upcoming twist along the way, and it's an interesting idea to have Norman so interested in psychoanalysing himself when he's so unaware of how utterly deranged he really is. I could have done without the really unpleasant side that rears up every so often - I don't think I've seen the word 'bitch' written so many times on one page before. It's at these times when you really want to get the hell out of this character's head.
Each chapter of Psycho is the perspective of a certain character. We start with Norman, which surprised me, but I settled into it, and so then I was surprised when the next chapter was from Mary's POV. We stick with her until the inevitable and then we're back to Norman. Later on we get Sam, who frankly isn't a fascinating hero. Since I had already formed an attachment to the tragic Mary, it's rather jarring to meet Sam, the man she loves, and find that he doesn't even like her very much. From then on, we cut between Norman and Sam. Until the third to last chapter, when very clumsily we suddenly enter Lila's perspective. This is only here so we get the shocking scary surprise ending, but since we haven't once heard Lila's thoughts in the majority of the novel, it just feels out of place and shoved in. And since Sam shared all his scenes with Lila, and since she is a much more interesting character, why the hell wasn't the other perspective hers all along? Following this, we get a random bit of omniscient almost satirical narration from no one in particular, leading into Sam telling Lila what a doctor told him about Norman, full of 'we'll never really know's. This is not a satisfying way to end a story! The reader knows more than the characters do, and they're supposed to be telling us new information.
So, a good (creepy) read, unfortunately weakened from being too famous, and let down by a rushed and clumsy ending. Also, really wish the word 'mincing' had been cut.
Again, like Jekyll and Hyde, you can still enjoy the read, but you'll always be left wondering what WOULD it have been like to read this when it was new? It must have been something.
So, what can I say about the book other than someone/everyone/pop culture/Hitchcock spoiled the ending for me? I thought it was pretty well written. In fact, I think I like it better than the movie. The movie felt very old-fashioned when I saw it (it's been a few years mind) whereas if I didn't know better, I would never have guessed the book was written in the 50s - it felt modern. Or at least 80s/90s - Thomas Harris must have been inspired by this when he wrote Red Dragon. His mentally ill characters think the exact same way. Or maybe that's just because both Bloch and Harris write about terrifying misogynists. There's quite a few clever little nods to the upcoming twist along the way, and it's an interesting idea to have Norman so interested in psychoanalysing himself when he's so unaware of how utterly deranged he really is. I could have done without the really unpleasant side that rears up every so often - I don't think I've seen the word 'bitch' written so many times on one page before. It's at these times when you really want to get the hell out of this character's head.
Each chapter of Psycho is the perspective of a certain character. We start with Norman, which surprised me, but I settled into it, and so then I was surprised when the next chapter was from Mary's POV. We stick with her until the inevitable and then we're back to Norman. Later on we get Sam, who frankly isn't a fascinating hero. Since I had already formed an attachment to the tragic Mary, it's rather jarring to meet Sam, the man she loves, and find that he doesn't even like her very much. From then on, we cut between Norman and Sam. Until the third to last chapter, when very clumsily we suddenly enter Lila's perspective. This is only here so we get the shocking scary surprise ending, but since we haven't once heard Lila's thoughts in the majority of the novel, it just feels out of place and shoved in. And since Sam shared all his scenes with Lila, and since she is a much more interesting character, why the hell wasn't the other perspective hers all along? Following this, we get a random bit of omniscient almost satirical narration from no one in particular, leading into Sam telling Lila what a doctor told him about Norman, full of 'we'll never really know's. This is not a satisfying way to end a story! The reader knows more than the characters do, and they're supposed to be telling us new information.
Spoiler
Not to mention of course that while Norman's constantly changing thoughts are intriguing while you're reading them, the very 'neat' dissociative identity disorder described at the end doesn't really ring true. In fact, I'm still a little lost - Norman was raised to hate men, and he wanted to be like his mother, so how come it's women that he spends the novel hating? I guess because he also hates his mother for abusing him into hating men and himself in the first place or because his mother punished him for exploring his sexuality and since he's attracted to women, he blames them for that punishment, but then which personality was that? It doesn't fit with any of the three we're told exist.So, a good (creepy) read, unfortunately weakened from being too famous, and let down by a rushed and clumsy ending. Also, really wish the word 'mincing' had been cut.
A lifelong horror fan, reading the original novel of “Psycho” has long been on my to do list. I am a huge fan of Alfred Hitchcock’s film adaptation, which forever altered the course of horror film. And I am so glad I finally got around to reading this.
As genius as Hitchcock’s film is, the novel is equally a literally masterpiece of thriller and horror. While yes, Norman is described as overweight and the polar opposite of the devastatingly handsome Anthony Perkins, virtually everything else from the novel makes it into the film— and translates so brilliantly. The creeping horror of the Bates House, the shower scene among others, are written as brilliantly as they were filmed. I would absolutely list this among the all time great book to movie adaptations.
No, this is not a perfect novel— while some psychological aspects herein are extremely forward thinking for the 1950s, there are portions of this that are severely outdated today by what we know of psychology, trauma and gender identity. And one character has a line toward the end of the book that is so out of character and comes out of nowhere I’m glad it didn’t make it into the film.
Still, this is a tight, amazing piece of horror and thriller fiction that holds up as suspense-filled as does the film. The use of point of view, especially when it comes to Norman and the twist, is genius, and adds great dimension to the film’s final scenes. I would be very interested in the sequels Bloch wrote, which apparently differ greatly from their film counterparts.
As genius as Hitchcock’s film is, the novel is equally a literally masterpiece of thriller and horror. While yes, Norman is described as overweight and the polar opposite of the devastatingly handsome Anthony Perkins, virtually everything else from the novel makes it into the film— and translates so brilliantly. The creeping horror of the Bates House, the shower scene among others, are written as brilliantly as they were filmed. I would absolutely list this among the all time great book to movie adaptations.
No, this is not a perfect novel— while some psychological aspects herein are extremely forward thinking for the 1950s, there are portions of this that are severely outdated today by what we know of psychology, trauma and gender identity. And one character has a line toward the end of the book that is so out of character and comes out of nowhere I’m glad it didn’t make it into the film.
Still, this is a tight, amazing piece of horror and thriller fiction that holds up as suspense-filled as does the film. The use of point of view, especially when it comes to Norman and the twist, is genius, and adds great dimension to the film’s final scenes. I would be very interested in the sequels Bloch wrote, which apparently differ greatly from their film counterparts.
3.5 stars probably.
One of the most famous books ever, in large part because of the Hitchcock movie. As a result of that, it's probably impossible to go into this book without already knowing the "twist". Still, an enjoyable read. Not amazing writing, but not terrible either. Reminded me of The Collector by John Fowles, both in themes and writing quality. They both deal with psychosis and murdering protagonists. I have the beautiful new (2023) Suntup Press edition.
One of the most famous books ever, in large part because of the Hitchcock movie. As a result of that, it's probably impossible to go into this book without already knowing the "twist". Still, an enjoyable read. Not amazing writing, but not terrible either. Reminded me of The Collector by John Fowles, both in themes and writing quality. They both deal with psychosis and murdering protagonists. I have the beautiful new (2023) Suntup Press edition.
It all began with Robert Bloch’s 1959 novel "Psycho" a seminal work for the horror genre.
Bloch paints Norman Bates as a sympathetic character, dealing with issues that seem beyond his full understanding; thus the reader has a sense of sadness affixed to Bates.
Mary Crane steals a large amount of cash from her employer and drives out of town making her way to her fiancée, Sam Loomis. She ends up in the worst possible place: The Bates Motel.
With the constant internal voices that plague him, Norman takes to drinking, and finds himself quite conflicted, as he eyes Mary getting in the shower, through a peephole he himself has aligned, eventually losing consciousness. At this point readers are subjected to the brutal murder of Mary. Unlike the film Mary isn’t stabbed to death in the shower: she’s decapitated.
Believing Norman's mother Norma is responsible, he cleans up the murder and disposes of the body in a swamp. Mary’s sister Lila, accompanied by Sam launch their own investigation, with the help of hard-nosed investigator, Milton Arbogast. After extensive search, Arbogast is able to follow Mary’s trail straight to the steps of the Bates Motel, and the socially awkward Norman Bates.
Psycho is told from third-person omniscient point-of-view with different chapters adhering to different characters' perspectives. Bloch does this extremely well giving us access to the thoughts and emotions of each character. The events form a beautiful mystery, filled with intrigue, suspense, and revelation, so there are many questions that remained unanswered for large portions of the novel. As an example, is there a strange incestuous connection between Norma and Norman? It is alluded to in the story, but Bloch never hits readers with cold hard facts, but Bloch certainly lays a strong enough foundation to build that theory.
dark
tense
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Content Warnings
Moderate: Death, Mental illness, Death of parent, Murder, Schizophrenia/Psychosis
Interesting read given the differences from the movie, primarily to do with Norman, who has none of the charisma Anthony Perkins gave him. Book Norman is fat, unattractive, and prone to rage. It’s hard to know how readers would have reacted to the sexual abnormalities alluded to and violence realized in 1959, but I found no indication of outrage or scandal online. Ultimately the movie is better, how could it not be, and the plot is the same, but it was very cool to see what Hitchcock took away and what he left behind. Hitchcock’s monster next door had a much better disguise.