Is AA Gill a psychopath?
OK, first up, let’s be clear about a couple of things. Although I have a Masters Degree in Psychoanalytic Studies, I’ve remained (as yet, anyways) in the academic side of the discipline. I have no clinical training or experience and am not professionally qualified to assess anyone’s mental health. I believe my grasp of theory is pretty strong by now, but diagnosis is its own unique set of skills and I make no claim to them.
Secondly, my entire knowledge of British restaurant critic, AA Gill, is gleaned from a single article in The Guardian containing but one or two direct quotations from the man. I’ve never read his writing as restaurant criticism doesn’t interest me in the slightest. So even if I did have the requisite clinical training, I don’t have anywhere like sufficient data to make a diagnosis.
I wanted to declare this because some of my regular readers, knowing my area of study, may assume that I’m making some kind of formal diagnosis here. That’s just not the case. On top of that, there’s a chance — albeit a slim one — that I may decide to pursue clinical psychoanalysis at some point in the future and I don’t want to be on record as doing anything so sloppy or unethical as making a public diagnosis of a person. Especially based upon such limited data. Even Freud himself, who was arguably rather cavalier about rushing to a diagnosis, would have balked at such a thing.
Nonetheless, when a person announces to the media that they have travelled to Africa and shot a baboon for the express purpose of getting “a sense of what it might be like to kill someone”, then they are pretty much inviting a public analysis of their behaviour. Such extreme, and I’d suggest spectacularly misjudged, pronouncements cannot be expected to remain unanalysed. Any semi-intelligent person who tells the world that they have an urge to be “a recreational primate killer” (his words) having already admitted that they were merely using the baboon as a stand-in for a human being, must accept that those of us in the field of psychoanalysis (whether academic or clinical) will inevitably view his comments through the lens of our learning.
And quite frankly, it’s a lens that does not show Mr. Gill’s claims and behaviour in a positive light. The Guardian article includes the following paragraph which — along with the “recreational primate killer” comment — reveals, I’d argue, a very dark aspect of his personality…
Gill admitted he had no good reason for killing the animal. “I know perfectly well there is absolutely no excuse for this,” he wrote. “There is no mitigation. Baboon isn’t good to eat, unless you’re a leopard. The feeble argument of culling and control is much the same as for foxes: a veil for naughty fun. I wanted to get a sense of what it might be like to kill someone, a stranger. You see it in all those films: guns and bodies, barely a close-up of reflection or doubt. What does it really feel like to shoot someone, or someone’s close relative?”
Those last four words are what lifts Gill’s statements out of mere testosterone-fueled bloodlust (which, sadly, we must accept is too common an element of human psychology to warrant classification as being extremely abnormal) and into something a little more chilling. The desire to kill is not itself psychopathic, but the specific urge to inflict the grief of bereavement upon a stranger’s family is certainly moving in that direction.
To then go one step further and act upon that fantasy suggests the sort of escalation in Gills’ “urges” that would almost certainly concern a psychiatrist or psychoanalyst if they witnessed it in one of their patients. It’s a cliché in fiction, but it is nonetheless true; violent psychopaths begin with fantasies of killing people, progress to killing animals, discover it doesn’t fulfill the urge they feel and, the worst of them, wind up going further. They often revel in — to the point of receiving a powerful sexual charge from — the suffering they have caused to those around their primary victim. It’s an extreme form of sadism.
Given this, one is forced to wonder whether perhaps Gill’s decision to publicly announce his sadistic fantasies might not be a cry for help?
“Stop me before I kill again.”
—
UPDATE 11:56: One commenter writes… “I’m gonna shoot AA Gill to get a sense of what it’s like to kill a baboon”. Well, it made me laugh.
I agree with you entirely, for the most part, and don’t dispute the disturbing impression left by Gill’s quote (Adrian, I believe his name is – do you suppose he affects “AA” as an homage to the creator of Winnie the Pooh?). However, I’m not so sure what he meant by those words “or someone’s close relative”: my initial reaction was the same as yours, but on reflection I tend to the opinion that he meant “a close relative of a human being” i.e. a primate. The ambiguity, I suppose, may have been intentional.
October 29th, 2009 | 8:53am
by Nick
Actually Nick, I had considered that interpretation (but it was late and I cut short my analysis). From a psychoanalytic perspective though, that very ambiguity coupled with the literal meaning of his words are — I’d argue — revelatory. Parapraxis and all that.
October 29th, 2009 | 10:24am
by Jim Bliss
do you suppose he affects “AA” as an homage to the creator of Winnie the Pooh?
If that is the case, Nick, one wonders whether or not he fantasises about stalking through The Hundred Acre Wood with a kalashnikov and, one by one, brutally shooting the inhabitants through the lungs whilst making public updates on his progress so he can feed off the lamentation of a million children.
“Looking down at the broken, bloodied corpse of Piglet I took a moment to caress my still warm rifle before photographing the grisly scene and uploading it to the Children’s BBC website…”
Or not.
October 29th, 2009 | 11:05am
by Jim Bliss
Having worked closely with non-human primates for a number of years, I believe the commentator whose words you quote (though certainly amusing) was insulting to baboons. They are highly intelligent primates, something Mister Gill is quite obviously not. But then, I’ve never known a restaurant critic who was, have you?
October 30th, 2009 | 12:11am
by R J Adams
What a complete disappointment you were on Any Questions. I read your food column for the preliminary comments which are usually quite pertinent. Your travel bits I discount because they’re all about you, not the place.But on Any Questions you were completely totally and utterly out of your depth, both intellectually and socially. You just can’t perform in the public arena because they don’t care about you. They wanted your opinions, which you didn’t give.I think that’s because you care for nothing other than yourself. The panel quite rightly put you in your place.
Also, more importantly, you’ve got the voice of a young boy which matches your extremely lightweight opinions, no weight, no substance, no convictions.Where do you go from here? Just carry on stuffing your face for free.
December 4th, 2009 | 8:46pm
by rita
I assume, Rita, that your comment is addressed to AA Gill directly? I’m afraid he’s unlikely to see it here. If you do want to express your disapproval where he might actually read it, then I suspect you’d have better luck at The Times website.
December 4th, 2009 | 8:57pm
by Jim Bliss
I read every Sunday Times restaurant review by AA Gill – not because I enjoy restaurant reviews, but because he is a brilliant writer.
I firmly believe there is no danger of AA Gill turning into some dangerous, violent people killer. He puts things out there on paper that others are afraid to – and he does it brilliantly and eloquently.
I read the article in question, and it was another of his witty accounts – never did I start analyzing his sanity…
I think, since you are a writer – you should read more of AA Gill’s reviews – as I truly believe you’ll appreciate his talent and candidness.
If after you get to know him a tad more through his writing you still feel that he could be a psychopath, then we can reassess…
Anyway – like your blog and love the name!!!
Cheers
Holli in Ghana
December 10th, 2009 | 6:03pm
by holli
Was this really written in 2009? Have you read Jon Ronson’s Psychopath Test?
August 14th, 2011 | 3:49am
by gary bryson
I know that this is a very old thread, but I think that you have misinterpreted AA Gill’s intended meaning in the last four words of the line “What does it really feel like to shoot someone, or someone’s close relative?”
You say “Those last four words are what lifts Gill’s statements out of mere testosterone-fueled bloodlust (which, sadly, we must accept is too common an element of human psychology to warrant classification as being extremely abnormal) and into something a little more chilling. The desire to kill is not itself psychopathic, but the specific urge to inflict the grief of bereavement upon a stranger’s family is certainly moving in that direction.”
As far as I can see, ‘or someone’s close relative’ refers to the fact that the primate is closely related to man genetically. There is no urge to inflict suffering on a stranger’s family. The urge is only to kill a person, or something closely similar to a person. Therefore I would argue that Gill has only the ‘common’ desire to kill and is not in fact a psychopath.
I think that his decision to announce his sadistic fantasies, far from being a cry for help, is merely an arrogant Clarkson-esque two fingers to non-millionaires who have actually matured with age.
January 19th, 2012 | 9:58pm
by Tom
Hi Tom, thanks for your comment. Actually Nick made the same point (in #1 above) and I responded to it in #2.
Basically I agree with you that he may have meant his statement in that sense. However, as a Freudian psychoanalyst I’m almost duty-bound to examine the literal meaning of his words and interpret them as possible parapraxis.
I’m not suggesting that is the only way in which his words can be interpreted. Nor that you are forced to accept the validity of a Freudian interpretation. But I’m afraid on this blog you’re going to get Sigmund Freud, Gregory Bateson and a whole bunch of anarcho-syndicalism (as well as the occasional music video and film review).
Similarly, while I agree with your final paragraph – in the sense that he consciously meant it that way – I also suspect there’s more to it than that. But again, that’s pretty much obligatory for Freudian analysis.
January 19th, 2012 | 10:13pm
by Jim Bliss
Anyone inclined to rationalize away Gill’s behavior as semi-normal should go on YouTube and watch the numerous videos of baboons being shot to death with bullets and arrows, often with the camera lingering while they struggle and gaps. It’s truly evil to see. Pick any random species and you’ll find no shortage of death clips passed off as “hunting” to sneak by YouTube’s lazy (or evil?) censors. Gill’s got to be as scummy as any of those wildlife serial killers, especially since baboons are a higher primate with little sustenance value. I never even knew people shot them (and iconic species like swans) until I saw YouTube snuff porn. It makes me very angry and sick of human nature. Why YouTube/Google allows such videos against their own guidelines is a mystery. They’ve been silent on the topic but I suspect ad revenue from white trash viewers is the motive. Yes, Gill is a form of white trash, lofty food critic or not.
“Beware the beast Man, for he is the Devil’s pawn. Alone among God’s primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother’s land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him; drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of death.” (P.O.T.A. 1968)
February 26th, 2016 | 11:41pm
by Jim C.