Silence of the Lambs 2

Last time, we just started to think about the ways in which Lecter offers us a particular imagining of the Psychiatrist, perhaps born in part from the anti-psychiatry movement of the 60s and 70s.  Chilton also offers a portrait of the professionally trained therapist.  How would you say one or both of these doctors  presents the profession to readers of the novel?

6 thoughts on “Silence of the Lambs 2

  1. Kati Daczkowski

    I think that as a reader I was most frustrated with Chilton’s character, and believe that his version of the profession was presented most negatively in the novel. Mostly, he came across as a bumbling fool – especially when placed in contrast with Starling and Lecter. As others have stated, Chilton strives for credit and takes detrimental action (with regards to the investigation and the escape of Lecter) to achieve such. Weirdly, I kind of like Lecter as a character, probably because he at least carries self-awareness of how terrible he is – he’s a villain, and proud of it. Although considered to be “insane,” Lecter seems to represent the trope of madness allowing one to reach some sort of higher, superior existence within the world, or access to a higher power because of how much significance he carries in the novel. So perhaps his version of the mental health professional is that of one too self-absorbed and arrogant to understand what a patient needs. He is able to unpack the inner-workings of a patient’s mind, but so much so that he ends up breaking them – often using them to serve himself.

  2. Chloe Ferrone

    One thing that I think is worth mentioning is that I think Chilton and Lector fall on the same side of the coin: both are sexist, slightly (or wholly) deranged, and focused on the science behind psychiatry. Both appear to be “by the book” sort of practitioners, citing common behaviors and neuroses from the perspective of one who has been exposed to all the contemporary medical literature. I agree with everyone’s comments about how this casts psychiatry in a negative light–but I think maybe we could take that idea one step further and posit that Clarice (young, female, and decidedly not a psychiatrist) is a foil to both characters, acting as that opposite side of that coin. The example that really made me think about this comes on page 75 of my edition, when Clarice asks the local police to leave the room so she can examine the body. She is described as having a “special relationship” with the body, and Crawford observes that she “was heir to the granny women, to the wise women, the herb healers, the stalwart country women who have always done the needful, who keep the watch and when the watch is over, wash and dress the country dead.” Here, Starling is represented as extremely feminine, but also very strong, wise, and the opposite of Lector and Chilton. The two psychiatrists are older males, taught by the books, have no personal ties with their patients, and are both terrible people. Clarice is young, female, empathetic towards the people she helps, and represents the idea of natural healing as opposed to official psychiatric practice.

  3. Janka Hlinka

    I think the dynamic of Chilton and Lecter is very interesting in that even though Lecter is mentally deranged, it is Chilton who seems like the one who is not in-tune with the world around him. Professor Newbury mentioned the other day in class a quote that describes insane people as the rational ones in an insane word and that speaks to the characters of Chilton and Lecter. While Lecter is creepily in tune with the world in the way he dissects Starling’s personality, he still understands how and why people act the way that they do. Even from the beginning, he apologizes to Starling for Migg’s behavior when Migg’s throws semen on her, showing qualities of decency. On the other hand, there is Chilton who disregards many events that go on around him and does not seem like a good fit for his job even though he is supposed to be the one that is not behind bars. He does not take responsibility for his actions and disregards the people that he is supposed to be working with as seen when he blames Starling for Lecter’s escape. There definitely is a sort of role reversal in that the mind of Lecter (without the cannibalistic intentions) should be in Chilton’s body and vice versa. This character dynamic brings about a new view on those that deems society insane and the people that are deemed normal.

  4. Katherine Brown

    I agree with you, Nina. Chilton seems totally unprofessional or blithely ignorant to the immense threat Lecter poses. He believes he can outsmart everyone to catapult himself to fame and be lauded as the man who ‘cracked’ Lecter, in a sense. What’s interesting to me is that both Chilton and Lecter seem to share a desire to be regarded as the smartest or most perceptive people in any given situation. Chilton believes he can outsmart Lecter, Crawford, and Starling, despite sufficient evidence to show all three character are immensely intelligent. Crawford’s intellectual hubris is his downfall, and ultimately spells his implied death. Chilton overestimates his own intellect, which is a comment on the arrogance of psychiatry. Why do these doctors believe they are superior to everyone else? And if, like Chilton, they are wrong in that assumption, what harm can they inflict under the auspices of their profession? Lecter, in a way, is like Chilton in that he prides himself on being brilliant. The difference is that he actually is brilliant. However, the fact of his brilliance does not make him any less harmful to those around him. His brand of intellectual hubris breeds his utter lack of compassion or humanity. He’s a serial murderer, in part, because his arrogance makes him unable to value human life other than his own. With these two characters, Harris shows that psychiatry appeals to those who believe themselves to be so smart that they can play God with the lives of others. As a profession, psychiatry is inhumane and ultimately harmful in society.

    1. Hannah Morrissey

      I think that your point is important, Katherine, that both figures strive to be the smartest one in a room, but that only Lecter has the brilliance that warrants that label. As Nina mentioned, Chilton is inept and unprofessional to the extent that I often viewed his actions as some sort of relief from the otherwise suspenseful novel, although not quite comic given the stakes. When he plants the audio recorder under Starling’s desk, for example, the blatant disrespect for the investigation and other professionals made me mostly disregard him as a character. Later in the novel, when his transfer of Lecter has failed and Lecter has escaped, he turns to Starling to pass on the blame about Lecter’s handmade key. Chilton was so easy to discount as a meaningful presence in the investigation that I found he contributed less to the book, in terms of complexity and the narrative, than did Lecter.

      However, upon reflection, he does contribute to this critique of psychiatry. Lecter’s form of psychiatry is almost too skilled. It is more of an art than a science when you see him dissect the details of one’s life such as he does with Starling. This offers a strong contrast to Chilton’s approach to his job which is much more by-the-books and seems to be based on pride rather than skill. I think this is strongly exemplified in how their two characters harm others around them. While he is a violent character, Lecter also is able to harm people from the inside-out. The psychological effect he has on Crawford shows the more tame side of this effect which is fully manifested in Migg’s demise. Simply using his words and knowledge Lecter can harm others. On the other hand, Chilton only harms others out of his own pompousness or negligence. His incompetence in handling the Lecter negotiations and transfer led to the deaths of Pembry and Boyle. Lecter represents the potential amplification of psychological disorders while Chilton represents the illegitimacy of the profession.

  5. Nina Colombotos

    Although through both Lecter and Chilton we get a negative sense of the profession, Chilton is particularly interesting to me as he presents a contrast to Lecter in the ways in which the profession is problematic. Where Lecter is creepily good at figuring out other people, Chilton seems pretty largely inept and unprofessional. He compromises the investigation in an attempt to get the credit himself, making him appear sloppy and immature. (And his inattention ultimately leads to Lecter’s escape.) Of course there is the sexism – maybe a little more commonplace than Lecter’s, but equally disturbing.
    I wonder what is accomplished by having these two very different, but equally problematic, images of the profession. As I’ve been able to think about it right now, I can certainly say that having them both gives a more complete picture to the flaws of the profession; the novel can cover more ground in its argument about psychiatry. And the commonality of pronounced sexism seems particularly pointed. But I’m curious if other people have any ideas about what exactly Chilton’s role is and how he plays into the novel’s argument that we touched on briefly on Tuesday; I’m having trouble figuring that out for myself.

Leave a Reply