Just finished The Silent Patient and have only one nagging question… *contains spoilers*

Submitted by playboypink t3_10kts0d in books

I sincerely really enjoyed this book. I know the split timeline was a controversial point, as I’ve seen lots of people say they thought it was a “cop-out” due to there being almost no detectable clues throughout the book until the big twist. I personally thought it was fantastic, and because I usually am pretty spot-on with my predictions, I truly didn’t expect to be so surprised when it was revealed who was really watching Alicia all that time. Now knowing the ending, I realized the author threw out TONS of red herrings and a lot of the characters felt they had no real purpose in the story, ultimately. I feel this was an obvious ploy (in retrospect) to throw off the reader, which I can mostly appreciate.

However… there is one point in the book that I just can not figure out. In one of Alicia’s journal entries, she talks about the night she went to see Alcestis with Jean-Felix. When she’s leaving at the end of the night, he insists that she shouldn’t trust the people around her, and refuses to elaborate. Alicia assumes this is Jean-Felix’s way of manipulating her relationship with Gabriel. But as more becomes known about Jean-Felix, we find out that he ultimately cared more about her art than he did her (i.e. only visiting The Grove after she’s in a coma to retrieve her painting, the way he stored her art at the gallery, his anger towards her leaving, etc.). So my question is, WHY did he say this to her??? Was he only saying this out of his disdain towards Gabriel? Did he know Gabriel was cheating? Was he really just trying to manipulate Alicia into staying with his gallery? Was this an oops by the author, adding in a plot point that potentially fell short? I refuse to accept that he actually cared for her, so I don’t even consider that an option. The conversation is brought up once, and then never again. This really bothered me because I felt it was important to the story, and then nothing ever came from it.

So what do you guys think?

As a side note: I also wonder why Paul lied to Theo about not taking money from Alicia when he was in gambling debt, and how it was relevant to the story when literally nothing came of it. This doesn’t bother me as much as the Jean-Felix hole, but still.

2

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

llentiesambpernil t1_j5v8iqk wrote

good question but honestly i overlooked every loose end except the ones concerning the 2 main characters, because every other character was a red herring with no narrative value.

What bothered me the most about this book is how nonsensical Theo’s and Alicia’s actions are, especially after the big reveal. The plot twist did nothing for me except make me question their behavior, which in itself is a huge plot hole… Because if Theo is the one following Alicia all this time and he is the perpetrator from the night Gabriel died, then WHY THE HECK did he infiltrate her asylum and risk being outed by her?

WHY was he trying so hard to make her speak, knowing what she would say?!

The whole book is put into motion by Theo’s motivation to re-enter her life and make her talk, which makes no logical or literary sense. After he seemingly got away with it, why would he try putting himself in the spotlight again? And why didn’t Alicia tell anyone that it was him, why did she allow this psychopath to become her therapist?! And how could she possibly write all that down in her diary (moments before dying) and hide the diary in the painting? Why did she choose to expose him ONLY after she is dying, and not before he killed her and he got away with it again?

Honestly nothing makes any sense to me, this whole book is a big hole, so I wasn’t even surprised at the minor loose ends. Edit: i’m curious about your opinion or if you have any answers to this as it seems like you enjoyed the book!

6

playboypink OP t1_j5wa13g wrote

I completely agree with your point that the main characters actions were confusing and hard to understand. But, I do think I can explain some of the instances you mentioned!

So from what I understood, Theo’s entire goal (both before and after the murder) was to “help Alicia understand” what had been happening in her relationship with Gabriel. There is a part towards the end, after the reveal, where he’s talking about how he didn’t expect Alicia to remember him. He said he changed his voice and that he had been wearing a ski mask when he broke in, so he thought presumably after six years, she wouldn’t be able to tell. I get this part. The part that’s tricky is, like you said, WHY did he go back?

I think he did this for two reasons. The first, he genuinely thought that he wanted to help people as a psychotherapist. I think this is evident when he talks about his prior career and his old therapist, who he seemed to respect very much. The second, is that I believe Theo may be a sort of narcissist. Or at the very least, has a severe savior complex. I think his motivation to help others, was purely to help himself. HE was the one who had never been able to cope with his childhood trauma, and as an adult, compensated for this by teaching others how to cope with theirs. I think he went to see Alicia specifically, not only “to help her”, but his own need to feel powerful. If he can get her to talk and understand the connection between Gabriel’s murder and her childhood, that means he’s done something nobody else was able to. And if she doesn’t recognize him, even better for him! He can be close to her and always have the upper-hand in the relationship. He mentions at the end that he never expected Alicia to kill Gabriel, but that it never would have happened had he not done that to her. Maybe he feels guilty as well, but I sort of doubt it.

As far as Alicia’s motives go, I think it’s a lot more straightforward than Theo’s. We know that Alicia recognized him by only their second session when she attacked him, and she says that she wished she could kill him. After Theo helps lift her sedation, I think Alicia wanted to see how far she could push him, or if he’d admit to what he’d done. She wanted to flip the script and have the upper-hand. If she had told the police about Theo any earlier, she’d then have to admit her own guilt in killing Gabriel, which I think may have been impossible for her. And who’s to say that they would have believed her, considering there wasn’t proof of him being there that night. The only solid proof she had was Theo trying to kill her in the end, and if she’s going to die anyway, might as well tell the truth.

As far as her somehow writing 10 journal pages and hiding it all while literally dying goes, I’ve got nothing. LOL that was just very silly to me but I tried not to dwell too much on it. There’s a lot you could point at that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense but I can appreciate the story the author was trying to tell at the very least!

4

llentiesambpernil t1_j5wsutf wrote

wow thank you so much for your comprehensive reply, your perspective really helped in understanding their motives, especially Alicia’s. you’re right she tried to test him and get the upper hand, as i believe she told Theo a different story of not fully remembering the person who broke into their house when in reality she did recognize him!

also i totally see your explanations; and maybe if Theo hadn’t come across to me as such a callous psychopath, it would’ve been plausible that he felt guilt/remorse in causing Gabriel’s death so that could explain his involvement in a more wholesome way lol. tysm!

2

SaiharaRen_ t1_j67x1em wrote

Laura is a little kid in kindy. One day, Laura finds her mothers favourite necklace on the dressing table and decides she wants to take the necklace to school and impress all her friends. While playing on the field, Laura realises her necklace is missing. Laura is so scared of what would happen if her mother finds out she took the necklace, so when her mother questions her about it, she lies. Yet, Laura still helps her mother look for the necklace around the house. One day, her mother confronts her about it after a friend from Laura’s class returns the necklace. Laura might lie, Laura might try to deny it, but once the moment passes, Laura also feels relief from the burden lifted of her shoulders now that she longer needs to hide the truth.

I think, to a certain extent, that this describes Theo’s relationship with guilt. I agree that Theo acts like a narcissist, but the more I study his character the more he seems like a person who has a level of self awareness that he refuses to confront. He doesn’t register his guilt which leads to him expressing it in incredibly odd ways. I believe that one of the other reasons Theo began working at the grove was to deal with his suppressed guilt. Like how Kathy is said to have unconsciously left the laptop open for Theo to see, he unconsciously does a lot of stuff because he wants someone find out about what he’s done so he can let go of the guilt. That’s what the last chapter is all about. That snowflake scene at the end of the book represented him letting go of his guilt (and also finally moving on from his trauma) and being free. It’s a little bit odd, but I’ve come to learn that there really are people who act like that. They want others to confront stuff for them. The suppressed guilt lingers in the back of your mind and makes you listen more to instinct than reason.

Btw, (I’m adding this part for the sole goal of annoying you both even more) when the cops turned up at the crime scene they should’ve found an extra chair, some extra wire, oh and also some marks around Alicia’s wrists and ankles. And what did they decide to do with that information?? NOTHING. Hell, half of the characters in the novel knew how to get in the house without a key. If just one officer considered the possibility that she was bound and perhaps someone else was in the house literally everything could’ve been avoided. And don’t even get me started on what would happen if an officer got their hands on the diary. Since most of the characters are designed for the sole purpose of being a red herring this case would’ve been all over the place.

2

Dismal-Canaryz t1_j5txycd wrote

I did notice a few holes or cheesy moments in this book, but overall enjoyed reading it.

I took this moment as Jean-Felix trying to isolate Alicia and keep her reliant on him as a support system. I didn't think he new Gabriel was cheating or anything at this point.

3

playboypink OP t1_j5v3lu1 wrote

I think you’re right, that is the most plausible explanation. I just really disliked the way it was done, and felt it came at an odd time in the book for it to not be explored further! IMO Jean-Felix should have been made out to be more manipulative if we’re supposed to assume/believe that he’s trying to control her in that moment

1

Dismal-Canaryz t1_j5vdovh wrote

Yeah.. that's a good point, it is a rather cheap way to build tension in that moment.

2

PlathTheSalt t1_j5uyhai wrote

Did he care for her? No. However, I believe he did this to try and make him the only person Alicia could trust. I don't recall if she picked up on his lack of caring for her, but, it was a form of manipulation to keep her close, so she could continue involving him in her art.

Also, I didn't mind the twist, but hated the idea the implication that it was all going to work out in the end for the villain. I'm not opposed to bad people winning in stories, but with the evidence that is found at the end, it would at least be enough to investigate them. But, the author makes it seem like the villain doesn't have a care in the world about that.

And, I caution you against Michaelides' second book. It was awful, I quit after only a chapter or so.

2

playboypink OP t1_j5v2t1l wrote

This is a good explanation, and the only one that makes real sense for the story, so I’m sure you’re right. It just is so frustrating that it seemed really important and then completely fell short. I usually can move past a red herring, but this one was irritating to me due to the timing of him telling her this.

I also felt confused about the way it ended, because while Theo is being confronted by the investigator for what happened, it just didn’t seem like a big deal? Alicia’s journal proved that Theo was practically a sadistic mastermind, but the investigator just comes over to his house like “hey guy, listen to this fun story I read about you” lol

And THANK YOU for the warning, I considered getting it and was on the fence so that’s really good to know!

2

PlathTheSalt t1_j5vmdyu wrote

Doesn't Theo go outside and catch snowflakes while the investigator reads the journal?

The one part of the book which was a dead give away for me was the neighbor that was always in everyone's business. Michaelides tries to discredit her, so I figured he was trying to direct attention away from her story.

3

playboypink OP t1_j5w4hpi wrote

Theo didn’t go outside to catch the snowflakes, the investigator came inside the house and they sat down at the dining table (?) and Theo opened the window next to it. Still, a bizarre thing to do!

That’s a great point actually, I had thought Barbie to be an irrelevant character but now that you mention it, she was the only person who believed Alicia about seeing the man, so of course the author would try to make her seem untrustworthy and Theo would go to see how much info she had on him! I hadn’t even considered that.

2

CriticalNovel22 t1_j5sxb80 wrote

He said it becauae the book is stupid on every level and the writer has nothing but contempt for the reader and the craft so just does whatever to make this dumpster fire of a book seem cleverer than it is.

1

playboypink OP t1_j5sxqvy wrote

Well I respectfully disagree, I think the story was pretty compelling and while it definitely could’ve been laid-out better, it was the guy’s first book. Saying he has nothing but contempt for the readers and craft might be stretching it a bit IMO

5

CriticalNovel22 t1_j5syba9 wrote

I'm glad you enjoyed it.

But there is zero attempt to make a well crafted plot. People only act the way they do because the author needs them to, which is why there are countless loose ends. The author needed something suspenseful or a red herring and just chucked something random in and, as you said, never resolved it or weaved it into the story.

So, again, glad you enjoyed it, but I don't think there is any deeper meaning behind any of it than "the author needed this to happen, so it did"

1

playboypink OP t1_j5szkq4 wrote

I definitely understand why you think that way and can agree about him throwing certain things in for convenience, but isn’t every move a character makes in a book written solely for the author’s need for them to do so? I’m not trying to convince you to change your opinion on the book itself, just wondering how we as the reader can say that the author is only writing the character for their needs when that’s essentially what fiction is.

I will say, in regard to my original question, that this probably was a loose end that was just left out to dry. But I think it’s fun to speculate when there’s no true answer!

2

CriticalNovel22 t1_j5t156q wrote

That's a valid point, so I'll just clarify what I mean.

>isn’t every move a character makes in a book written solely for the author’s need for them to do so?

Yes and no.

On the most obvious level, it absolutely is.

The problem comes when a character does or says something that they have no reason to do or say other than the author needs them to.

So, in this example, the character says something because the author needs to create tension. That's fine. But what a competent author would do is give the character a reason for saying it.

Actions should be driven from character and/or story, not just a bunch of random stuff happening because it is convenient for the author. Because not only is this bad writing, but it is contemptuous to the readers.

This is the main problem I have with this book (aside from having the stupidest plot twist in all known literature). The whole world and everyone in it only act the way they do because the author needs it. Their actions aren't derived from character and the way things work (such as everything in the mental hospital) are set up to be convenient to the author.

Sure, people are free to take liberties, but if you're going to write about something, there needs to be at least some level of plausibility, which this completely lacks.

Honestly, I was so excited for this book and am a big fan of the pulpy, twisting mystery thriller, which is probably why this was such a massive let down. It wasn't even the hype (I picked it up randomly in a second hand book store), but it was such a poor effort on any other level than needs to be twisty that I couldn't help but be appalled.

4

playboypink OP t1_j5tshul wrote

You make a fair point and I respect it. The author definitely should have reason to back up their choices, but I do think it could be up to interpretation, as the author may say “oh well actually, I did this because blah blah blah”. I’m sure this author would say there was a reason for everything he wrote, when that’s obviously not true. Ultimately because I’m such a sucker for a mysteries, I’ll admit that sometimes I don’t care too much when there are holes if they’re small enough (which is why I only mentioned two in my post, when there were quite a few lol!)

Thanks for your explanations, you gave me something to think about on this one for sure!

1