Rating: 
Summary: Maybe I misread this
Review: When I first read this book, I wrote a glowing review, to wit:"This is my first Stephen White book, and I approached it with trepidation. I can't claim to know the whole genre, but often, in my experience, psychologists in murder mysteries are quite unrealistic. In my admittedly limited experience, at best they reflect the notion of psychologists as people of science, who have vast knowledge of how people work. If real psychologists knew nearly as much as murder mystery psychologists are portrayed as knowing--well, the field would be about a hundred times further along than it is. "White's character, though, is a breath of fresh air. This is very realistic, right down to his completely failing to realize that his patient--oh, I can't say, or I'd be spoiling part of the plot. "The Lucy character is perfect--a functional person with a dissociated, monstrous rage operating out of awareness. How she feels about Jason "Ramp" Bass forshadows brilliantly what we learn about her as the resolution unfolds. "Perhaps I am reading too much of my own beliefs into it, but I really liked what seemed to me a severe indictment of "professional ethics." Note one sentence where Gregory's mentor asks him how long the "profession would survive" if people behaved as Gregory is thinking of behaving--and as it befomes all too clear he should have behaved. If I read this correctly, White is making the point that much obvious nonsense passing as "professional ethics" mostly serves to protect the interests of the profession. The conflict between being a functional human with normal passions and allegiances and obligations versus being an "ethical professional" is sharply drawn. "This is a very good thriller, a very sophisticated portrayal of psychotherapy, and very well crafted writing." But after writing that, I read a couple more of the authro's books, and I've begun to wonder whether I didn't misread this book. You see, the author seems actually to believe the nonsense about "profesional ethics." And in the other books, it comes clear that the main character is just an uninspired, very pedestrian therapist with no great insight into anythig psychological. So maybe this book doesn't have nearly the subtext, or the wry ironic commentary on the state-of-the-art, that I thought. Oh, well.
Rating:
Summary: Maybe I misread this
Review: When I first read this book, I wrote a glowing review, to wit: "This is my first Stephen White book, and I approached it with trepidation. I can't claim to know the whole genre, but often, in my experience, psychologists in murder mysteries are quite unrealistic. In my admittedly limited experience, at best they reflect the notion of psychologists as people of science, who have vast knowledge of how people work. If real psychologists knew nearly as much as murder mystery psychologists are portrayed as knowing--well, the field would be about a hundred times further along than it is. "White's character, though, is a breath of fresh air. This is very realistic, right down to his completely failing to realize that his patient--oh, I can't say, or I'd be spoiling part of the plot. "The Lucy character is perfect--a functional person with a dissociated, monstrous rage operating out of awareness. How she feels about Jason "Ramp" Bass forshadows brilliantly what we learn about her as the resolution unfolds. "Perhaps I am reading too much of my own beliefs into it, but I really liked what seemed to me a severe indictment of "professional ethics." Note one sentence where Gregory's mentor asks him how long the "profession would survive" if people behaved as Gregory is thinking of behaving--and as it befomes all too clear he should have behaved. If I read this correctly, White is making the point that much obvious nonsense passing as "professional ethics" mostly serves to protect the interests of the profession. The conflict between being a functional human with normal passions and allegiances and obligations versus being an "ethical professional" is sharply drawn. "This is a very good thriller, a very sophisticated portrayal of psychotherapy, and very well crafted writing." But after writing that, I read a couple more of the authro's books, and I've begun to wonder whether I didn't misread this book. You see, the author seems actually to believe the nonsense about "profesional ethics." And in the other books, it comes clear that the main character is just an uninspired, very pedestrian therapist with no great insight into anythig psychological. So maybe this book doesn't have nearly the subtext, or the wry ironic commentary on the state-of-the-art, that I thought. Oh, well.
| 
