I recently read Emmanuel Carrere’s The Adversary cover-to-cover in one night. It’s the true story of a man named Jean-Claude Roland who takes a terrible path.
Roland missed an important exam at the end of his second year of medical school, but never rescheduled it. Impulsively, he told his parents that he had passed. Roland pretended to continue his studies. He married and had children, convincing everyone in his life that he was a high-ranking official with the World Health Organization. He paid the bills by defrauding his parents, in-laws, and friends. He told them that he was investing their money, or sold them worthless cancer treatments. He managed this way for eighteen years. Eventually, on the verge of being uncovered, he murdered his wife, his children, his parents, and made a (strikingly half-hearted) effort to kill himself.
I find his story fascinating for a number of reasons, but I’ll single out one: it was utterly irrational. On the stand, the judge asked him why he didn’t just reschedule the exam, and he wasn’t able answer. “That’s the question I’ve asked myself every day for eighteen years,” he said.
He could have just rescheduled the exam he missed. He could have gotten a job, rather than spending his adult life reading newspapers all day. He could have confessed, and taken his lumps- he knew all along that he’d come to a bad end sooner or later. Finally, if he was so concerned and embarassed about what he had done, he could have killed himself, and left his family alone.
I’m really not doing it justice; there’s a lot of food for thought here. Highly recommended.
I read a great deal about this story—I’ve been interested in reading the book. It’s enjoyable?
Sounds like a ripper of a read. Someone I know recently started down this path: this Spring he failed a course in his last semester of college, leading to his not graduating, but because his whole family was coming to attend graduation, he didn’t tell anyone, accepted lavish gifts from them in order not to disappoint, etc., and the bigger the lie became, the more difficult it became to extract himself. I’m not sure if he has yet, and he was telling everyone he was going to start grad school in a couple weeks.
This book might make a fine gift for him.
I told a friend of mine about this book, and she told me that her sister had gotten out of an exam by telling everyone that her father had died. When he came to visit, she had to hide him.
Ross, I agree with Jeremy; this kid could be screwing his life up in a serious way.
Oh, sorry about that. He wouldn’t have missed the exam if I hadn’t stepped on that butterfly…
I remember this story. It was made into a film a couple of years ago with the suitably hang dog Daniel Auteuil playing Roland. It’s pretty opaque, but worth a look nonetheless.
Here’s a link to the DVD - sorry, I don’t know what the English title was.
Duh, sorry, of course it’s called The Adversary in English…
I couldn’t find any English translation of it on Amazon.ca.
Any ideas?
The story sounds like a profound existentialistic trap for the soul.
What’s interesting (she said, pointing out the obvious) is the solipsism of it all. He doesn’t want to be embarrassed so all these other people have to be killed, so that he won’t be embarrassed. Kind of acting out Hume’s ‘it is not contrary to logic to prefer the ruin of the whole world to the pricking of my little finger’ or whatever it was. I mean - he must have thought the other people didn’t exist at all except as things that affected him. Bizarre way to think - and yet probably quite common.
There was a film made a couple years ago called Time Out (actually “L’emploi du temps”, a French film). It was a dramatic version of this story, and a movie I would highly recommend. It actually ends up being a bit less dramatized than “real life” (which is surprising), to excellent psychological effect. Worth seeing.
“Highly recommended.”
The book or the life-path?
“He could have gotten a job, rather than spending his adult life reading newspapers all day.”
He could have done both.
That’s me done.
Ophelia,
I think it may be even more common than you think—not just as a force for Evil, but for Good. I think a lot of moral behavior may come from a desire not to embarrass yourself—not to be called out in front of others.
But then, I’m much more likely to put off something I ought to be doing once I think I’m already embarrassingly late doing it. And the Millgram experiments sound kind of similar to me; the subjects may have (so they thought) tortured someone to death because they didn’t want to make a scene in front of the scientist who seemed to know what was going on.
Cf. also the reaction to Joseph Darby.
Ophelia: that’s astonishingly solipsist, isn’t it? It’s hard to imagine that many people could be that truly solipsistic.
Hmm. But it’s not truly solipsistic, when you think about it. It’s just necessarily very selfish. It’s isn’t necessary that he think of those people as only extensions of his person, but that he recognizes their autonomy but values it less than his being in a shame-free emotional state.
I see the existentialist element here, though: if we are left to make our own (im)moral way, what is to block us from being motivated by something as pathetic and universal as the fear of embarrassment?
Ophelia wonders at how other people could exist for this man only insofar as they thought well or poorly of him.
This reminds me of an argument I made to a friend last night, that most people surely would behave the same regardless of whether they believed in a deity or not.
Most of us don’t refrain from murdering each other just because we’re afraid of an old bearded man’s throwing us in hell, or even just because we fear the police; we realize that other people exist for purposes beyond our own convenience, so even if it would be simpler to have them dead, we don’t do it.
For Roland, however, there apparently was fear of neither God nor Government to restrain him, and no sense of other people as more than his audience. So he killed them when it became too difficult to avoid embarrassment through obfuscation and deceit.
Ophelia, Keith: Surely if he were a solipsist then he wouldn’t care what other people thought, believing that he could simply re-imagine them as more admiring. Roland sounds less philosophical than tv-confessional (antisocial personality disorder), doesn’t he? No impulse control, no ability to delay gratification or accept disappointment (or shame), not enough regard for others to, as Ted says, kill himself and spare the others.
Ross, help your friend to get some help, he’s not alone, though he probably feels like he is. I doubt he’s like the guy in the book though.
Ran into this cnn review/summary back in 2001 when I was reading several books on the topic of self-deception. It’s fascinating, not because the story is incredible, but a lot of us can identify with a lie, often to bolster our image, that turns into an elaborate web just to remain consistent, simultaneously wildly inconsistent with less tall tales your other friends know about you. And by chance you all happen to collide one day…
I’m suspicious of the single incident that turns someone to a life of crime… Reminds me, in an admittedly weird way (I’ve taught and tutored mathematics), of people who claim they can’t understand math because they missed a critical lesson on fractions in the third grade and never caught up.
it was utterly irrational
well, maybe not quite utterly; there could be a reason :D
btw, there was a nice guardian interview with carrère a few years back!
also, the onion liked the movie! (i thought it was okay :)
oh, and it’s romand…
The “true story” is indeed worthy of contemplation. Unfortunately, Carrere’s treatment of it is painfully trite and obtrusively self-involved. For me, it chiefly served as a reminder that Patricia Highsmith’s prose deserves more credit than it gets.
Ophelia - that degree of solipsism has a name. It is called “being a psychopath”.
The only thing that doesn’t fit is that psychopaths tend to be utterly shameless. Still, I expect they still try to avoid being found out.
This thread ties to the current search for Lori Hacking, the missing pregnant jogger whose husband was allegedly going to North Carolina to attend medical school. The police have found out that he had never applied. Life mimics fiction….
This thread ties to the current search for Lori Hacking, the missing pregnant jogger whose husband was allegedly going to North Carolina to attend medical school. The police have found out that he had never applied. Life mimics fiction….
This thread ties to the current search for Lori Hacking, the missing pregnant jogger whose husband was allegedly going to North Carolina to attend medical school. The police have found out that he had never applied. Life mimics fiction….
I didn’t read the book, but just watched the film, The Adversary - the one with Daniel Auteil. What a story. And aren’t the French so good at telling this kind of unsettling stuff in very ordinary ways, it makes it even more haunting.
I don’t know how faithful the film is to the actual events, but while it leaves you with uneasy questions, it does a very good job of giving you glimpses of how the protagonist viewed his own actions as inevitable. His choices were insane and destructive but you do get to see hints of how he justified them to himself. You get to see his own self-serving logic.
I really think the missed exam was only a pretext. It could have been anything else. He chose to miss it, chose to never take it again, chose to start this massive deception… but he never fully admits he made those choices.
The main impression I got is exactly what Ophelia said above - the solipsism, how other people were there for him as puppets in his play. Even as he seemed to care for their reaction and feelings, all he cared for in the end was that they didn’t interfere and that he could use them to prop up his act.
Also, he constantly played tricks with them to somehow shift (in his own mind) the responsibility for the hardest decisions on them.
Like when he starts telling the truth to his best friend, then somehow lets him derail the conversation - that was masterful, the way he did it. You could imagine him thinking, “there, I tried, I tried, but he just wouldn’t let me”.
And when he tries and convince his mistress that he can’t “invest” her money… he is not trying at all, even here, but he is pleading, “please don’t me make do it!”, as if it was her call. As if he was somehow condemned by others, or by fate, to do what he did.
It’s very fascinating, how he manipulated these situations to serve his self-justifications.
The other unsettling thing is indeed the role of other people. The question you don’t want to ask but feel compelled to is how on earth could those who were so close to him not pay due attention to his weirdness. When the police is nearly hassling his doctor friend with that question, you feel sorry for the guy, you see he is truly shocked and of course he has nothing to be blamed for. But while you feel annoyed by the policeman’s questions, you do see he has a point, you want to ask those questions too, not to blame anyone else, but just to try and understand, and imagine “what if they could have stopped him earlier”… That’s very tricky, also because you basically end up thinking like the protagonist there, you nearly fall in his trap on that very question. In the film, it’s a good trick because it does make you see things from his angle.
You can see how his deception mechanism was something that he viewed as inevitable, even if it was of his own making. He avoided acknowledging any responsibilities so he built something that would allow him to think of himself as trapped, and justify anything he’d do, and avoid responsibilities, and keep up the deception - all in a perfect loop. He liked to think he couldn’t stop lying, because what else was there apart from lies? nothing. It was easier to kill people than kill his own lies. If he didn’t kill them, and they exposed him, that would have made his whole construction pointless, to his own eyes. He couldn’t bear that. He couldn’t kill himself, either, as long as his family was alive, because that too would have exposed the lies, and made his deception pointless… so he felt trapped. By killing them, he did something so evil that it somehow justified in his mind all he had done up til then. That was the most inevitable outcome, in his mechanism.
He “had to” take decisions that were increasingly worse so that they could somehow vindicate the pointlessness of the initial one.
Totally insane, but with is own relentless inverse logic. It’s like he was addicted to that feeling of inevitability, even as he took the worst possible decisions, they had to appear inevitable to him, not his own choosing. Maybe that’s why he says even prison is more tolerable - the quote in that CNN review shai linked to. His own lies were not a perfectly self-enclosed mechanism, they were still open to that intolerable choice of the alternative, telling the truth. Prison is total inevitability with no alternatives, and no future choices to make. So paradoxically in prison he’s “free” and happy… It’s the ultimate in self-serving lies.
Oh well, maybe this is flattering the character too much with all this pseudo-existentialist reading, and the real killer was likely a lot less complex or interesting than the film (or novel) makes him look like. Auteil is just so good. But as a story, as a narration, it does haunt you with those questions, even at much more trivial and less tragic levels.
note to cherylb: it’s life (perhaps) imitates life not fiction. the hacking case is still ongoing, of course, but the parallels are frightening. at least, the couple’s parents are unharmed, physically, but romand, the subject of the adversary, may have inadvertently done his parents a favor by murdering them & sparing them the pain of learning what their son/son-in-law’s been up to.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review