Psycho

In the wake of Norman’s arrest, Bloch offers a cynical glimpse into the sensational media and public relations circus that surrounds such scandalous events, even relating it to real-life events. Bloch writes,

AP and UP picked it up right away, and there was quite a bit about it on television. Some of the write ups compared it to the Gein affair up north, a few years back. They worked up a sweat over the’ House of horror’ and tried their damnedest to make out that Norman Bates had been murdering motel visitors for years (165).

This is the novel’s only reference to Ed Gein, whose arrest took place while Bloch was writing Psycho. The case would have still been on the public's mind at the time of publication. Bloch explicitly parallels coverage of Norman’s case to coverage of Gein’s, suggesting that the press furor over both sensationalized the cases at the expense of the humanity of those involved. This adds a new layer to the theme of Psychoanalyzing Norman Bates, as nonexpert analysis takes over, muddying overall clarity. For example, despite the assertions of the press, Bloch presents no evidence that Norman murdered anyone besides Norma, Joe, Mary, and Arbogast. Bloch delivers Dr. Steiner’s explanation of Norman’s motives and backstory through Sam, further suggesting a disconnect between the truth of Norman’s mental health and the understanding of the public at large. He deliberately chooses to skip over parts of Norman’s life story when he relays the information to Lila and admits that some of the things the doctor told him were over his head. Here, Bloch illustrates a lack of compassion and understanding for Norman on the parts of everyone who associates with him, from Norma to the motel’s customers to the people of Fairvale. Ironically, in the decades since Psycho’s release, Bloch's depiction of Norman's mental health has fallen out of favor for inaccuracy and insensitivity, many of the same problems he raises here.

The reaction of the people in Fairvale to Norman’s crimes emphasizes the theme of The Duality of Human Nature. Bloch writes, “it was beginning to appear that virtually the entire population…had been personally and immediately acquainted with Norman Bates” (65). This suggests members of the community wish to insert themselves into the narrative, either to feel important or to ease any guilt that one of their number could commit such acts undetected. Their morbid curiosity implies a need to rationalize the chasm between appearances and reality. Closely related is Norman’s personal story of shame, guilt, and repression, illustrating the theme of Shame and Repression. Norma’s puritanical attitude toward sex stunted Norman’s sexual development, causing him to feel shame and guilt for his natural urges, and to channel them in socially unacceptable ways, such as voyeurism and cross-dressing. Dr. Steiner speculates that Norman’s cross-dressing stemmed from wanting “to be like his mother, and in a way he wanted his mother to become part of himself” (168). Sheriff Chambers reveals that Norman’s walking in on Norma and Joe Considine having sex led him to poison them both, suggesting that the shame Norma inflicted upon her son was her undoing. However, once again, his shame takes over, and his shame over his hand in his mother’s death leads to his fractured psyche and repression of his own persona. By the end of the novel, Norma’s personality completely subsumes Norman’s. His obsession with her is so complete that he is unable to conceive of her hurting anyone. Instead, he takes on the guilt of Mary and Arbogast’s murders, “becoming” this completely harmless version of Norma: “How could she kill them when she was only watching, when she couldn't even move because she had to pretend to be a stuffed figure, a harmless stuffed figure that couldn't hurt or be hurt but merely exists forever?” (174). By the end of the book, Norman Bates is effectively dead. In Norman’s place is his twisted conception of his mother’s persona, a monstrous fusion of mother and son—the very embodiment of their twisted relationship.

It is important to note that the descriptions and explanations of Norman’s cross-dressing are products of their era and do not reflect modern understandings of this behavior. Norman is not a transgender person because he has no explicit understanding of himself as being another gender, and nor do his violent impulses reflect the lived experience of people who cross-dress. Rather, Norman’s cross-dressing reflects the schism in his personality and his desire to be his mother, the one woman in the world who was acceptable to him.