David Bergen’s novel The Time In Between emphasizes on the concept of madness through one of the main characters’ Charles Boatman. Charles a veteran of war suffers from the mental ailment of PTSD (Post Traumatic Distress Disorder), however this becomes the significant link to the concept of madness. Madness in Bergen’s novel is depicted as a pathological tension between the rational and irrational, that consequently tears the person apart. Charles simultaneously displays this tension due to his ability to deductively reason as a practical individual. However, he also demonstrates symptoms of PTSD, due to the textual cases of temporal confusion, his repetitive compulsion to internally repeat memories, and emotional dissociation (Buckingham
…show more content…
This is when the conscious mind becomes engulfed in unconscious thoughts. The first form of this is demonstrated when Charles dwells on the young boy he killed in Vietnam. The depictions of these mental images are fragmented at first, yet becomes clearer each time the memory is repeated. These mental regressions often return to the imagery of the young boy and animals Charles shot in Vietnam. However, the boy appears in different details, page 26, is when the boy asks Charles “why” (26). The effect of this dream reflects on Charles trying to understand why he did what he did, which then set him to comprehend and understand his unconscious mode of thinking. Whereas the forms of regression in pages 42, to 45 is a demonstration of Freud’s compulsion to repeat (198). This is when the agent mentally replays the same traumatic event in their head to relive the event to comprehend it (Buckingham 38). a reoccurring incident is the act of justifying his action that the boy was dangerous. The first incident is when he says the boy may have had grenades on him (42), the second fragmented memory depicts the entity he shot was not a boy, rather an “It”, and left it ambiguous from there (43). The reason Charles memories are depicted the in this fashion is so he can dehumanize what, or who he killed, and try to assert his humanity. The last repeated memory is depicted the clearest in detail. “He saw a shape and the shape moved and he raised his gun and at that point he saw it was a young boy and the young boy appeared to be asking him a question but Charles shot and killed him” (45). In effect, through each fragmented memory, Charles becomes further able to construct an accurate representation of what happened. However, this is also what drives Charles in to the state of madness, because he becomes determined to understand the ambiguity of the past. Consequently,
This is when the conscious mind becomes engulfed in unconscious thoughts. The first form of this is demonstrated when Charles dwells on the young boy he killed in Vietnam. The depictions of these mental images are fragmented at first, yet becomes clearer each time the memory is repeated. These mental regressions often return to the imagery of the young boy and animals Charles shot in Vietnam. However, the boy appears in different details, page 26, is when the boy asks Charles “why” (26). The effect of this dream reflects on Charles trying to understand why he did what he did, which then set him to comprehend and understand his unconscious mode of thinking. Whereas the forms of regression in pages 42, to 45 is a demonstration of Freud’s compulsion to repeat (198). This is when the agent mentally replays the same traumatic event in their head to relive the event to comprehend it (Buckingham 38). a reoccurring incident is the act of justifying his action that the boy was dangerous. The first incident is when he says the boy may have had grenades on him (42), the second fragmented memory depicts the entity he shot was not a boy, rather an “It”, and left it ambiguous from there (43). The reason Charles memories are depicted the in this fashion is so he can dehumanize what, or who he killed, and try to assert his humanity. The last repeated memory is depicted the clearest in detail. “He saw a shape and the shape moved and he raised his gun and at that point he saw it was a young boy and the young boy appeared to be asking him a question but Charles shot and killed him” (45). In effect, through each fragmented memory, Charles becomes further able to construct an accurate representation of what happened. However, this is also what drives Charles in to the state of madness, because he becomes determined to understand the ambiguity of the past. Consequently,