The Interpretation Of Murder (26 page)

    'Come,' said Freud, changing the
subject, as we walked through the park on our way from Brill's to the hotel.
'Let us hear how you are getting along with Miss Nora.'

    I hesitated, but Freud assured me that
I could speak as freely to Ferenczi as to himself, so I recounted the whole
story at length: the illicit congress between Mr Acton and Mrs Banwell,
glimpsed by the fourteen-year-old Nora, which Freud had somehow foreseen; the
girl's tantrum in the hotel room, directed against me; the apparent recovery of
her memory, identifying George Banwell as her assailant; and the sudden arrival
of Banwell himself, together with the girl's parents and the mayor, who
provided Banwell's alibi.

    Ferenczi, after declaring his
revulsion at the nature of the sexual act Mrs Banwell performed on Harcourt
Acton - a reaction I found hard to understand, coming from a psychoanalyst -
asked why Banwell couldn't have attacked Nora Acton even if he had not murdered
the other girl. I explained that I had quizzed the detective on the very same
point and that there was apparently physical evidence proving the two attacks
were carried out by the same man.

    'Let us leave the forensics to the
police, shall we?' said Freud. 'If the analysis should help the police, well
and good. If not, we shall at least help the patient. I have two questions for
you, Younger. First, do you not find something strange in Nora's assertion
that, when she saw Mrs Banwell with her father, she didn't understand at the
time exactly what she was witnessing?'

    'Most American girls of fourteen
would be ill-informed on that point, Dr Freud.'

    'I appreciate that,' Freud replied.
'But that is not what I meant. She implied that she
now
understood what
she had witnessed, did she not?'

    'Yes.'

    'Would you expect a girl of seventeen
to be better informed than one of fourteen?'

    I began to take his point.

    'How,' asked Freud, 'does she know
now what she didn't know then?'

    'She suggested to me yesterday,' I
answered, 'that she reads books explicit in content.'

    'Ah, yes, that's right, very good.
Well, we must think more about this. But for now, my second question: tell me,
Younger, why did she turn on you?'

    'You mean, why did she throw her cup
and saucer at me?'

    'Yes,' said Freud.

    'And hit you with boiling teapot,'
added Ferenczi.

    I had no answer.

    'Ferenczi, can you enlighten our
friend?'

    'I am also in the dark,' Ferenczi
replied. 'She is in love with him. That much is obvious.'

    Freud addressed me. 'Think again.
What did you say to her just before she became violent with you?'

    'I had just finished the touching of
her forehead,' I said, 'which failed. I sat down. I asked her to complete an
analogy she had begun earlier. She was comparing the whiteness of Mrs Banwell's
back to something else, but she broke off. I asked her to complete the
thought.'

    'Why?' asked Freud.

    'Because, Dr Freud, you have written
that whenever a patient begins a sentence, but interrupts himself and doesn't
finish, a repression is at work.'

    'Good boy,' said Freud. 'And how did
Nora respond?'

    'She told me to get out. Without
warning. And then she began throwing things at me.'

    'Just like that?' asked Freud.

    'Yes.'

    'So?'

    Again I had no reply.

    'Did it not occur to you that Nora
would be jealous of any interest you showed in Clara Banwell? Particularly in
her naked back?'

    'Interest in Mrs Banwell?' I
repeated. 'I've never met Mrs Banwell.'

    'The unconscious does not take such
niceties into account,' said Freud. 'Consider the facts. Nora had just
described Clara Banwell performing fellatio on her father, which she witnessed
at the age of fourteen. That act is of course repugnant to any decent person;
it fills us with the utmost disgust. But Nora does not display to you any such
disgust, despite implying that she fully understands the nature of the act. She
even says she found Mrs Banwell's movements appealing. Now, it is quite
impossible that Nora should have witnessed that scene without deep jealousy. A
girl has a hard enough time bearing her own mother: she will never allow
another woman to arouse her father's passion without bitterly resenting the
intruder. Nora, therefore, envied Clara. She wanted to be the one performing
fellatio on her father. The wish was repressed; she has nurtured it ever
since.'

    A moment ago, I had inwardly
chastised Ferenczi for expressing revulsion at a 'deviant' sexual act - a
revulsion I, for some reason, did not exactly share, despite Freud's remark
about what all decent people feel. I had just been telling myself that every
lesson taught by psychoanalysis undercut society's disapproval of so-called
sexual deviance. Now, however, I found myself awash in a similar feeling. The
wish Freud imputed to Miss Acton revolted me. Disgust is so reassuring; it
feels like a moral proof. It is hard to let go of any moral sentiment anchored
by disgust. We can't do it without setting our entire sense of right and wrong
a-tremble, as if we were losing a plank that supported the whole fabric.

    'At the same time,' Freud continued,
'Nora formed a plan to seduce Mr Banwell, in order to avenge herself on her
father. That is why, only a few weeks later, Nora agreed to join Banwell alone
on a rooftop to watch the fireworks. That is why she also walked with him alone
by the shore of a romantic lake two years later. Probably she encouraged him
with hints of interest all along, as any pretty young girl can easily do. How
surprised he must have been when she rejected him - not once, but twice.'

    'Which she did because true object of
desire was her father,' Ferenczi put in. 'But still, why does she attack
Younger?'

    'Yes, why, Younger?' asked Freud.

    'Because I stand in for her father?'

    'Precisely. When you analyze her, you
take his place. It is the predictable transferential reaction. As a result,
Nora's unconscious desire is now to gratify Younger with her mouth and throat.
This fantasy was preoccupying her when Younger approached her to touch her
forehead. He told us, you will remember, that at that moment she began to undo
her scarf. This gesture represented her invitation to Younger to take advantage
of her. Here, I may add, is also the explanation of why the touching of her
throat succeeded, whereas the touching of her forehead did not. But Younger
rejected this invitation, telling her to retie her scarf. She felt rebuffed.'

    'She did look offended,' I put in. 'I
didn't know why.'

    'Don't forget,' Freud continued, 'she
is naturally vain about the injuries she has received. Otherwise she would not
wear the scarf at all. So she was already sensitive about how you would react
if you saw her neck or back. When you told her to keep her scarf on, you
injured her. And when, shortly afterward, you brought up the subject of Clara
Banwell's back, it was as if you had said to her, "It is Clara in whom I
am interested, not you. It is Clara's back I want to see, not yours." Thus
you unwittingly recapitulated her father's act of betrayal, provoking in the
girl her sudden, otherwise inexplicable fury. Hence her violent attack -
followed by a desire to give you her throat and mouth.'

    'Irrefutable,' said Ferenczi, shaking
his head in admiration.