{"id":41899,"date":"2018-07-19T15:00:16","date_gmt":"2018-07-19T15:00:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/25yearslatersite.com\/?p=41899"},"modified":"2022-12-18T00:21:26","modified_gmt":"2022-12-18T00:21:26","slug":"the-awakening-of-a-mystery-true-detective-revisited-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/tvobsessive.com\/2018\/07\/19\/the-awakening-of-a-mystery-true-detective-revisited-part-2\/","title":{"rendered":"The Awakening of a Mystery: True Detective, Revisited (Part 2)"},"content":{"rendered":"
The Awakening of a Mystery<\/strong><\/p>\n Part 2: The Psychopathology of True Detective<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The etymology of the word psychopathology<\/em> is quite illuminating:<\/p>\n Psyche, meaning mind or soul;<\/p>\n Pathos, meaning suffer or grief;<\/p>\n Logos, meaning discourse, word, or logic.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Rather than imagining “psychopathology” as a dry, clinical term, we can define it as the speech of the suffering soul, the discourse of the grieving mind, the logic of the suffering soul. Personally, I find it more interesting to consider the possibility that the infinite number of ways in which the soul suffers exist in everyone, at least as potentials. It is also more humane than offhandedly diagnosing people and transforming their entire existence into a list of symptoms.<\/p>\n In this article, I examine Detective Marty Hart\u2019s psychopathology, partly from a psychoanalytic perspective. Then, I explore and reimagine the various children of True Detective<\/em>.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong>Broken Hart<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u201c<\/em><\/strong>People incapable of guilt usually do have a good time.\u201d – <\/em>Rust Cohle<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Detective Marty Hart has a fascinating and disturbing set of psychological defenses. Hart fears vulnerability and constantly postures as \u201cthe man in charge\u201d around his family, which continually fails. Hart\u2019s need for dominance eventually ends in divorce and leaves him estranged from his family. One of the most striking examples of his defenses against vulnerability is the scene in which Maggie confronts Hart about his affair without explicitly calling it one: \u201cWhat have you been doing, Marty<\/em>?\u201d she repeatedly asks. Hart lies, manipulates Maggie\u2019s affection, and slithers away from responsibility. In this scene, it appears as if they both already know the truth but are not ready to face it. Hart then maneuvers the emotional dialogue into a sexual encounter. Throughout the series, Hart repeatedly uses sex to avoid the reality of his life.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Hart\u2019s Disavowal <\/strong><\/p>\n Hart\u2019s avoidance of accountability and intimacy is a common psychological phenomenon, but I would describe another set of his defenses as being less common and more psychotic in nature. Unlike Rustin, Hart\u2019s rage emerges when he is emotionally distressed. Hart\u2019s behavior is sometimes psychotic, because once he finishes violently acting out, his knowledge of his actions evaporates entirely. To me, this resembles the psychoanalytic concept of disavowal, which is described as \u201ca repression of perception\u201d (Green, 1986\/2005, p. 124). As Rustin rightly pointed out, Hart seems to have no capacity for guilt or remorse, and when it is forced upon him from the outside\u2014like when Lisa confronts his wife about their affair\u2014he becomes violently angry. Hart cannot acknowledge the pain he has caused because he denies the very reality of his own behavior. Hart rages like a child instead of accepting responsibility.<\/p>\n One scene that illustrates this dynamic is when Hart drunkenly breaks into Lisa\u2019s apartment. Hart threatens to beat the man she is fooling around with until he finds out whether or not she has performed oral sex on him. When he finds out the truth, his body relaxes and his eyes look sane again. Immediately after behaving like a monster, he grins and says, \u201cI\u2019m not<\/em> a psycho.\u201d Hart appears to believe what he is saying, even though his behavior just communicated the opposite message: \u201cI am<\/em> a psycho.\u201d Hart\u2019s speech opened up the possibility of this interpretation, because his statement was so conclusive. Latching on to an extreme perspective often constellates its opposite, which perpetuates the conflict. Therefore, by stating \u201cI\u2019m not a psycho,\u201d Hart does not resolve the issue, but instead continues to feed it.<\/p>\n I have seen this episode several times and always find myself asking, \u201cWhy did Hart have to know whether or not Lisa had blown the other man? Why is he so desperate to know?\u201d I believe the answer is presented in a scene from \u201cSeeing Things\u201d (Episode 2), which is examined below.<\/p>\n Hart\u2019s Desire<\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\n