Work Cited
Aspinwall1, Lisa G., et al. “The Double-Edged Sword: Does Biomechanism Increase or Decrease Judges’ Sentencing of Psychopaths?” Science, Vol. 337, no. 6096, 2012, pp. 846-849. ProQuest, doi: 10.1126/science.1219569.
Berninger, Anja. “Temporal Experience, Emotions and Decision Making in Psychopathy”. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, vol 16, no. 4, 2016, pp. 661-677. Springer Science and Business Media LLC, doi:10.1007/s11097-016-9466-y.
Brown, Charles B. Wieland and Memoirs of Carwin the Biloquist, edited by Bryan Waterman, Norton & Company, 2011.
Jurjako, Marko. “Is Psychopathy a Harmful Dysfunction?” Biology & Philosophy, vol. 34, no. 1, 2019, pp. 1-23. ProQuest, doi:http://dx.doi.org.aus.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s10539-018-9668-5.
Maraun, Michael D. et al. “The Dimensionality of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, Revisited: Its Purported Multidimensionality Might Well be Artifactual”. Personality and Individual Differences, vol 138, 2019, pp. 24-32. Elsevier BV, doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.09.004.
I agree with several things you stated about Carwin being a sociopath, such as the fact that he overstepped several, if not many, social and legal bounties (e.g trespassing). I also agree that he is highly deceptive and manipulative in a sense that he lied about multiple things and impersonated different people throughout the novel, all of which he did for selfish motivations. However, I feel like Carwin lacks many characteristics that identify him as a sociopath. First aspect that is lacking in his personality (assuming he is a sociopath) is the violence (i.e causing harm or fighting others) considering that he never actually demonstrated any acts of violence, or even had the tendency to. The second lacking aspect is the being emotionless, or being reluctant to show emotions whether of guilt or remorse, which Carwin has done (this can be up for debate, as to whether he is genuine or not, but he nevertheless confessed his emotions). I think Carwin demonstrates many sociopathic traits, but he is not a sociopath; instead, a person with a machiavellian personality. In psychology, Machiavellianism “refers to a personality trait which sees a person so focused on their own interests they will manipulate, deceive, and exploit others to achieve their goals” (https://www.harleytherapy.co.uk/counselling/machiavellianism-psychology.htm) I believe Carwin orients more towards this type of personality rather than a sociopathic personality.
These are great questions — and I like Shamma’s above complication of adding “machiavellian” to the mix. We could ask these of the other confidence men we encounter in the course.
Your last question – “In this case who do you think is to blame, Carwin or Wieland?” – is one I struggle with each time I read this novel. I suppose that I think that each of them (and all the characters) have some “blame” to take for the series of events and its violent culmination. Though I would lay the heaviest responsibility on Carwin, I think they each have their “frailties” that allow him the space for his manipulations. However, while I would say that the whole Wieland family (and Pleyel) are victims in the novel, I find it really difficult to think of Carwin as a victim.
I enjoyed hearing your different (and passionate!) thoughts on this in Monday’s class.
This is such an insightful post. I had a hard time deciding how I felt about Carwin’s character, which I think is one of the strongest elements of the novel. I like how you apply the antisocial personality disorder to Carwin which would explain why he did not necessarily need any motivation to do what he was doing. Deceiving others because he could (by using his different voices) was enough for him.
Yet I do not view Carwin as a sociopath per se, because even though he is portrayed as an evil character in the novel and is described as such many times by Clara herself, in the end I do not see any vile intentions and motivations behind his behavior.
He was definitely a stalker who wanted to exercise the power and abilities he had to deceive others for his amusement. Nevertheless, I believe that the driving force behind his actions is not to bring them to ruin, destroy them or make them kill for him (which is one of the traits of a sociopath, as you mentioned). Even if he wanted to mess with their lives because he hadn’t made much of his own, or because he saw them as intriguing figures and wanted to test their integrity, Carwin also wanted to fit in, to belong to such a close community as that of the “family” of Wielands and Pleyels.
I however understand why Carwin can be viewed as the source of all evil and a destructive force. I think the novel does a masterful job in creating a mysterious Carwin, about whom we can never know for sure, by surrounding him in a veil of ambiguity and uncertainty enabling many different and complex interpretations.
I enjoyed reading more about the characteristics of a sociopath and what categorizes someone as a sociopath. I see what makes you link Carwin’s personality traits with the characteristics of a sociopath, however, if you scrutinize Carwin deeply in the novel he doesn’t necessarily fit the criteria.
Yes, he includes some characteristics such as deceptiveness in terms of how he manipulated Clara, Weiland, and Pleyel in ways different whether it’s Weiland killing his wife and kids or Pleyel believing that Clara has committed an unfaithful action. on the other hand, I agree with Shamma he does lack several aspects of being a sociopath ( he shows emotion and guilt regarding what he’s committed as well as does not hurt or harm any of them).
personally, my opinion regarding who the villain is in the novel is Weiland and has not changed. if anything, I think Weiland is the one with a psychotic disorder considering he was relying on imaginary voices and religion “to make a sacrifice for god” and kill his whole family.