ENGLISH LITERATURE COURSEWORK

How the Horrific Element of the Prose Is Affected by the Point of

View in “Engleby” by Sebastian Faulks and “We Need To Talk
About Kevin” by Lionel Shriver
This coursework will serve to explore the narrative ways in which deranged characters and their
antisocial or transgressive acts are expressed in terms of madness and abnormality, and how the
perspective in the novel helps the revelation of their madness and adds to the sensation of eeriness for
readers, thereby disturbing the reader as they plunge into the protagonists psyche. These two novels in
particular draw attention to profound structures that underpin the way the notions of normality and
sanity are also defined in contrast, and how these points of view serve to explore this. Both novels
depict a protagonist who commits an extremely violent and seemingly mindless crime that is difficult
to contextualise and understand. “My name is Mike Engleby, and I’m in my second year at an ancient
university,” runs the opening sentence of Faulks’ ‘Engleby’. From its commencement, the novel
adopts a journal style, very intimate, and as said by Phil Hogan in 2007 “it’s from his journal that we
build a profile of his ‘otherness’”. With its strange blend of directness and concealment, its overtones
of formal therapy-speak, this brief auto-identification is more revealing than its blunt economy
suggests. Similarly, ‘We Need To Talk About Kevin’ begins with a letter style of introduction. “Dear
Franklin, I’m unsure why one trifling incident this afternoon has moved me to write to you.” The
novel adopts an epistolary form to create a one-way correspondence from Kevin’s Mother Eva, to his
father, who - the novel’s conclusion reveals - has been killed by Kevin, along with Kevin’s sister,
classmates, teachers and a cafeteria worker. The books is told through the letters from the killers
mother, Eva, to her absent husband, Franklin, the novel explores the trials of maternity and the
traumatic impact it can have on a marriage. The letters and the narrative of Eva’s visits to Kevin in a
juvenile detention centre with her maternal memories serve to track his life from conception to the day
of the massacre.

As one reads both novels, regardless of their different points of view, the madness in each is
transmitted in its own particular way. One might even remember Adam Phillip’s contention that we
are all crazy to some degree and that madness is actually part of the human condition, “it seems to me
that madness is another word for human nature.” However “normal” Phillip’s may assume madness
to be, the word nevertheless conjures up images of a disturbed and chaotic individual and its
associations with cultural, rather than medical depictions of psychosis, as well as its casual use in the
media, it is often perceived as a shocking and term which is heavily-loaded with insulting and negative
connotations in general. In both novels the madness is portrayed as a medical depiction of psychosis,
including the nature vs nurture argument in ‘We Need To Talk About Kevin’, (the representation of
the mental unease on both protagonists is ostensibly clinically correct, to the point where both provide
an accurate representation of the life and dealings with a mentally ill human being). In ‘Engleby’ the
so-called madness extends to a point beyond the norm, it is not the mere madness that is relevant to the
human condition that Adam Phillips discusses, but a deep rooted mental illness combined with
extreme narcissism and excessive drug abuse (which will exalt the mental issues that Mike Engleby
already fails to manage), places his psychosis on a superior standing of comprehension for the reader,
as they can fully fathom the personal characteristics of Michael Engleby’s mental unease. The author
manipulates the viewpoint to create a fully realistic portrayal of the mind of a transgressive and
perverse individual. On the other hand, ‘We Need To Talk About Kevin’ has a idea of madness that
reaches even the uncanny as the killer is a 15 year old child. It is not the direct definition of ‘uncanny’,
however, it contains extraordinary plot-line elements such as the young teenagers nearly demonic
thinkings and the mothers refusal to accept the guilt of his actions for not having brought him up in a
correct way, as she is represented as a independent-minded woman who gets pregnant to merely ‘have
something to talk about’ at dinner parties. This is the true meaning of the novel, the discussion
between nature and nurture that revels in the readers mind until they are as confused and disorientated
(as to what Kevin had done) as the mother. Similarly to ‘Engleby’ the perspective serves to
demonstrate this phenomenon, nevertheless this novel delivers the ‘other side’ of dealing with a
psychopath (a psychopath being defined as a manifestation of amoral and antisocial behaviour, with a
law of ability to love or establish meaningful personal relationships, combined with extreme
Page 1
egocentricity and a failure to learn from experience). However, complications arise in the application
of the term ‘psychopath’, which is the descriptor often applied to the perpetrator of this type of
ruthless crime in an ostensible attempt to denote its severity and to capture the extent of the depravity
that must necessarily be represented in the subject to attract the reader. Both Faulks and Shriver
examine the litigiousness of contemporary culture and the process of defining the impact of mental
disorder on a person’s legal accountability for their criminal actions. Where Engleby’s disorder is
clearly demarcated, Kevin’s is not. His psychopathy is culturally implied, and the implication of this
madness on the legal proceedings raises questions about the symbolic power associated with the mere
supposition of mental disorder that pervades contemporary social systems. Both these ideas
represented in the novels are aided by each of the book’s viewpoint, ‘Engleby’ , being in the first
person aids the demarcation of his mental disorder, however, the fact that ‘We Need To Talk About
Kevin’ includes letters from the transgressive individuals own mother, which serve to highlight the
culturally implied psychopathy that Kevin holds.

Both novels feature protagonists who are represented in terms of their psychological abnormality.
Their profound lucidity and insightfulness of each of the novels’ protagonists refutes traditional
notions of the mad individual - the novels are not depictions of the frenzied, nonsensical ravings of a
‘crazy’ person - which makes the definition and categorisation of the characters and their actions
increasingly more complex. All this is furthermore achieved by two different points of view. There is a
stark contrast between the voice in ‘We Need To Talk About Kevin’ and ‘Engleby’ however, they
both serve the same purpose and both achieve a viewpoint that serves to add tension and eeriness to
the novels. ’Engleby’ cannot be classified as a conventional mystery, its complexity and the cleverness
of the narrator is slightly odd, however Faulks makes it surprisingly painful for the readers to accept
this reality, this is mainly due to the viewpoint, what this does is it personalises the book and makes
the protagonist’s psyche significantly more accessible to the reader. In this novel, Faulks fictionalises
the town where he used to work, Reading, and gives vent to a particularly eloquent form of loathing
for it. We first meet Engleby as an intellectually precocious but socially ill-adapted student at
Cambridge in the 1970s. He is educationally “upwardly mobile” and somewhat troubled. On the other
hand, ‘We Need To Talk About Kevin’s’ narrative voice offers the revered perspective of a mother’s
insight into the deviant character and makes indirect claims to indicate that madness is an inborn
quality. For example, “I slapped him. It wasn’t very hard. He looked happy.”. This quotation serves to
demonstrate the incredibly disturbing nature of the child, Kevin. As a youngster he wants to provoke
violence in others. The reason for his happiness is not said directly, but as most ideas embedded in a
novel, it is implied. He relishes violence and we learn this in the early memories of him that Eva
herself recalls. The fact that violence is what he is trying to bring out from her is worrying and even
more disturbing since he is a child. The fact that he begins to enjoy and, as said earlier, relish violence
at such a young age demonstrates the deep rooted psychopath that is evident within his mental issues.
Having Eva’s perspective to introduce us to the innate violence in Kevin’s mind adds further to the
horrific element of the prose. We can take an example from ‘Engleby’, because that novel is in the
first person point of view the revelation of the protagonists violence happens after the denouement or
during, not before (this aids to build up the tension because the reader does not expect the character to
be as violent as such). On the other hand, ‘We Need To Talk About Kevin’ has a revelation of the
child’s violence since almost the commencement of the novel. regardless of the difference in literary
perspectives, both novels achieve an incredible imagery of violence that serve to enthral, shock and
scare the reader.

‘Engleby’ is voice-driven fiction, a big departure for Faulks, who usually writes epic-length war
novels about doomed love affairs. This one has more of the witty, caustic flavour of an Ian McEwan
novel, with added bonus of abundant historical texture from the 1970s and 80s. However, Phil Hogan
(2007) further discussed that “Faulks’ prose has a flat, stilted quality that is familiar to the modern
reader as a sign of moral vacuity”, and he believes that the tone is uninteresting, one may disagree
quite powerfully with this as his monologues and mini-speeches perfectly serve to demonstrate the
intellect, wit and mental flexibility that the author holds. This wit is present from early on in the novel,
its bland but it is there: “There’s probably a knitting group called Sock Soc.” This is a perfect
example of the insipid witticisms produced by Faulks in an excerpt where Engleby talks about Jennifer
Arkland.

Page 2
There is furthermore and air of dark humour in ‘We Need To Talk About Kevin’. However, rather
than tedious witticisms it tends more towards dark humour, as mentioned earlier. Literary resources as
such used in criminal novels and thrillers tend to both excite and almost traumatise the reader, creating
a strange and slightly awkward ambience that serves to enthral the reader and capture their attention.
In both novels, the point of view they hold is rather important to achieve this effect when regarding
humour (be it bland witticisms or dark humour) due to the fact thta, for example, in ‘Engleby’, this
type of humour is due to his nearly amniotic personality and constant controversial beliefs and
thoughts. On the other hand, in ‘We Need To Talk About Kevin’ the dark humour is achieved through
the mother’s, Eva, perspective of her son and his straight forward psychopathic replies: he would “do
it all again”, Eva replies, “I can see why. It’s worked out so well for you”. This reply is on the verge
of the sarcastic, the reader might even feel a slight awkwardness or a feeling of misplacement as they
read it. The section where he speaks about Jennifer Arkland is nearly claustrophobic and serves to
highlight the seeming obsession possesses Michael Engleby, the obsession might not be very obvious
to the reader due to the calm and easy tone that the protagonist achieves, however, this obsession
becomes clear even in the first few pages of the book, int may seem like a mere infatuation,
nevertheless, Faulks leaves inklings for the reader which become evident later in the novel when
Engleby plays with the partial revelation of the true story. The stately unfolding of the plot is mainly
due to the “holes” in his memory. “I have no memory of it… I’m big on detail, but there are holes in
the fabric.” This is the first section of the novel where Mike Engleby begins to explain that he has
shady areas in his memory, yet again, small details are given by the author, highlighting the
character’s drug use and sociopathic tendencies. This idea of missing pieces of the plot is a recurring
theme throughout both novels. As said by Shriver herself, the novel’s narrator, Eva, may be in strict
literary terms “unreliable”, however, she is definitely not a factual liar. As said by Lisa Gee (A Dark,
Witty Tale of Guilt and Redemption): “In these letters, Eva explores the background to, and
ramifications off her son’s killing spree. She does so in a way almost entirely devoid of self-pity”. She
is dispassionately analytical and inexorably honest. She further argues: “Although honesty doth not a
reliable narrator make (and Eva is an impeccably unreliable narrator), when combined with the
perspicacity and dark wit, it magics a not-particularly-nice person into a sympathetic character”.
Trying to come to terms with her son’s atrocity, she vacillates between self-excoriation and self-
expiation. This, regardless of the fact that there is a stark difference in both of the novels’ point of
view, what they have in common is that they are both unreliable narrators that serve to add eeriness to
the novel as the reader is never certain that what they are reading is necessarily true, for they both have
clear motivations and inclinations to obscure the truth.

Calling Engleby’s tone “uninteresting” (Phil Hogan 2007) is nearly insulting to other critics, such as
Terrence Rafferty, who believe that what is said in the novel is yet to be claimed as a true masterpiece,
a perfect interpretation of a narcissistic and sociopathic mind. On the other hand, there are quotations
where Mike Engleby’s thoughts to take on a nearly uninteresting tone: “my family’s poor”, here
Engleby talks very matter-of-factly about serious issues without showing any interest in them, he is
cold and calculating, yet again a slight foreboding is placed in the text by Faulks that highlights the
protagonists tendency towards the sociopathic. “ I wonder if we will ever know what it’s like to be
someone else’, this quotation furthermore emphasises the previous statement as it is slightly disturbing
when the revelation of the occurrences appear. At first glance one might simply interpret this as an
intellectual speculation of one’s self, however, as the revelation of his debauchery occurs and his
obsession develops we truly come to understand the meaning of this sentence. In his journey to find
this out he becomes (or reveals) that he is a narcissistic, murdering degenerate that attempts to
understand everything - impossibly - about Jennifer Arkland, concluding with her murder. This
speculation could be the cause of the murder, in a situation where he cannot comprehend what it is like
to be someone else, it would be very easy for the transgressive individual to lose control. Nevertheless,
the true story will never be fully revealed as the first person point of view and the gaps in his memory
will stop the reader doing so. Similarly to Mike Engleby there is a tone of disinterest from Kevin about
life itself. “I have never met anyone…who found his existence more of a burden or indignity.” Unlike
the usual love of life that children tend to have, Eva describes her child as seeng his existence as a
“burden”. This is mortifying and disconcerting to the readers as we expect the usual happiness and
joy a child has to be presented within Kevin. However, his psychopathy has extended to such a point
where he thinks of his life as a “burden” to himself, not others. This may lead to the question: Does he
think of other peoples existence as a “burden or indignity” as well? This is a troubling thought that
Page 3
may - more often than not - cross the readers mind whilst reading the novel. It would certainly explain
the root of all his anger and killings consequentially. in both ‘Engleby’ and ‘We Need To Talk About
Kevin’ there is a certain distaste for life tat is characteristic of psychopaths and sociopaths - which are
presented in both novels - that is actually presented early on in both books, these ideas of
dissatisfaction manifested by the killers serve as small inkling for the reader, in the case of ‘Engleby’
to find out the truth about the story and the protagonist, and as foreshadowing the events, as in the case
of ‘We Need To Talk About Kevin’. They both, nevertheless, leave the reader wanting to discover
more about the deviant protagonist.

Having a First Person narrative in a novel is often seen as quite limiting. This is due to the fact that the
reader only experiences one of the character’s feelings. Unlike a omniscient narrator, the reader will
only delve into one person’s psyche. This mode of narration provides a certain kind of immediacy and
tension within the text. This novel is not one of a fast-paced nature, such a pace stands in stark contrast
with the swift thinking of Engleby’s thoughts. By doing this Faulks achieves a nearly a divergent text
with a nearly sluggish pace by placing it next to the hyper promptly moving thoughts of a clinical
psychopath. Mike Engleby is the narrator and he definitely takes his time to progress into the
denouement, this could easily be a literary device used by Faulks as to impress the reader further with
Engleby’s fast paced thoughts.
The novel takes a turn for the curious when its mystery plot kicks in: Jennifer Arkland goes missing.
Engleby, with good reason becomes a suspect in her disappearance. For the rest of the novel, Faulks is
able to indulge in the unreliable narrator game of cunning ellipses and selective, gradual revelation,
which he manages brilliantly. This sudden turn of events allows other voices and psyches to come into
play and to be available to the reader in an otherwise nearly claustrophobic world.

The sense of claustrophobia is more pronounced in the passages from Jennifer Arkland’s diary, for
example: “If not to show it, then why write it? Do I have a ‘deep subconscious’ desire to be read- to
reveal and be shamed? Doubt it.” This is a perfect demonstration of how Faulks allows us to integrate
and understand the points of view of different characters. The passages from this diary are furthermore
incredibly personal, leaving an open window for the reader to at least try to understand Jennifer. Even
Engleby himself learns about Jennifer this way, even though she is not quite present in the novel itself,
her diary works as a voyage for the reader and Engleby, a voyage to discover the true Jennifer
Arkland. “Interesting how she started off with all that show-iffy stude stuff- ‘teleological’,
‘Hobbesian’ etc- but her later entries were much more about sex and drugs.” This, for example,
serves to demonstrate how Faulks shows the development of Jennifer’s character without even making
her extremely present within the novel. His thoughts on her diary are nearly analytical, showing the
true obsession that he had with her. Furthermore, it is present in interrogations conducted by skeptical
policemen, “‘What are you expecting to find?’ Peck didn’t say anything. He gave me a hard look as
though to say things were serious now.” This quotation shows how the protagonists consistently defies
and questions the authority of Inspector Peck. He is a smart-mouthed character that does not hold back
when expressing his thoughts. Through his viewpoint we are able to interpret for ourselves the
harshness and suspicion held towards Engleby by the inspector. However, most importantly the few
psychiatric evaluations that appear are reproduced with surprising precision,”My belief is that he
suffers from schizoid personality disorder (following criteria of DSM III-R) with elements of
narcissism and antisocial personality disorder” , this quotation from the notes of Dr. Julian Exley
demonstrates and highlights the overall character of the book, as it competently shows the odd poetry
that clinical language such as this can achieve, it could even be a metaphor for Engleby himself. It is
furthermore a mechanism that Faulks uses for the reader to understand the revelation made in the
novel, he is psychotic. Since the majority of the novel is conducted in a first person narrative it is
harder to really achieve an idea of the level of mental damage suffered by Mike Engleby, even though
the First Person narrative is normally quite insightful, Faulks manages to make the reader sympathise
with the psychopath and thus it becomes harder to fully understand the extent of his mental issue, due
to this Faulks adds these extracts of medical assessments conducted by psychoanalysts, psychologists
and psychiatrists towards the end of the novel, this is a gradual revelation of his mental unease that
leaves the reader baffled and somewhat impressed.

These brief scattered passages of ‘Engleby’ not dominated by the narrator are much surer and relaxed
than the great expanses of pyrotechnic verbiage surrounding them, it is almost poignant. This
Page 4
pyrotechnic verbiage is mostly expressed in his long monologues where he is not at all bashful about
manifesting his opinions. Engleby’s intemperate wit is of the sort that begs to be called scabrous,
“Hardly ‘Great Expectations’” shows how Engleby feels superior and as a result he scoffs at the great
classics. Every few pages he treats himself to a rant on literature, history or the general inadequacy of
mankind. Both books consider the fictional representation of the impact mental disorder has on
criminal responsibility and examining the point at which the legal system and psychiatric system are
forced to interact. In ‘Engleby’ this is represented more prominently as the argument of nature versus
nurture does not exist, this leads the book to unravel a criminally intense plot line that works slowly to
reveal the interaction of the mental disorder and criminal responsibility. On the other hand, ‘We Need
To Talk About Kevin’ represents this in a different way, as the book is not written from the
transgressive individuals point of view it is easier, maybe slightly more reliable, for the reader to see
the mental disorder that Kevin holds and the criminal responsibility that the child has to accept, as well
as his mother.

Modern fiction is full of insane monologuists, however, the novels that also showcase them work only
if the voice is at least minimally seductive, persuasive of even witty enough to lure the reader into
some sheepish complicity with the madman’s point of view.
Faulks must believe that Engleby’s mini-speeches and monologues produce just that sort of amused
yet appalled response in his readers. Even though his comic timing is shaky it’s hard to resist the
narrator’s splenetic witticisms and disquisitions, these date back to Faulks’s own stint as a Cambridge
undergrad in the early 70s. For example, take this quote of aesthetic theory, disgorged and dismantled
by Engleby: “‘Late works’. It’s just another way of saying feeble work. I hate it.” This passage does
have the authentic ring of blowhard student iconoclasm, but the flatness of the writing renders the tone
fatally uncertain. These are one of the unconventional aspects of our sociopath Engleby, and we are
only able to access them due to the first person perspective (a sociopath being strictly defined as a
person with a psychopathic personality whose behaviour is antisocial, often criminal, who lacks a
sense of moral responsibility or social conscience, however, contrary to the psychopath, the sociopath
is able to maintain a facade and integrate within society). In ‘We Need To Talk About Kevin’ the
monologuist, being Kevin’s mother Eva, contains a more persuasive and pitiful ambiance rather than
the seductive witticisms employed by Faulks. Shriver attempts to pull out the reader’s sympathy, be it
towards Eva - for having a mentally disturbed son - or be it towards Kevin himself - for having an
upbringing that consequently made him turn to the manifestation of his transgressive personality
- .This novel’s title draws attention to the need to “talk about” these issues present in the novel.
However, the process of ‘talking’ - of contemporary communications on these central topics too - is
one of the elements being examined in this coursework. The fact that the book is structured around
Eva’s letters to her husband brings further emphasis to the “talk about” factor mentioned in the title.
Contrary to Faulks, Shriver utilises an intense revelation from the very beginning of the novel, there is
no literary/psychological play on the reader’s minds by the author. ‘We Need To Talk About Kevin’
focuses more on the argument between nature and nurture, if the psychopathy that Kevin holds is a
result of ‘bad’ mothering or due to intuition and environment.

Bibliography
• Laura Miller, Unreliable oddball - but is he a murderer? (2007)
• Mallory Wober, Eye on Fiction: Dramas of Existential Inquiry
• Jane Shilling, The Inside of an Outsiders Mind (2007)
• Phil Hogan (2007)
• Alfred Hickling
• Terrence Rafferty, Cantabrigian Psycho (2007)
• Charlotte Allen, The Abnormal Mind: Representations of Deviance and Madness in
Contemporary Fiction (2015)
• Lisa Gee, A Dark, Witty Tale of Guilt and Redemption
• Sarah A Smith, Not Mad About The Boy (2003)
• Lionel Shriver, We Need To Talk About Kevin (2003)
• Sebastian Faulks, Engleby (2007)

Page 5