Comments on: Is AA Gill a psychopath?

By: Jim Bliss

Jim Bliss — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:13:47 +0000

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.

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 21:58:21 +0000

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.

By: gary bryson

gary bryson — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 03:49:40 +0000

Was this really written in 2009? Have you read Jon Ronson’s Psychopath Test?

By: holli

holli — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:03:43 +0000

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

By: Jim Bliss

Jim Bliss — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 20:57:05 +0000

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.

By: rita

rita — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 20:46:00 +0000

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.

By: R J Adams

R J Adams — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:11:36 +0000

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?

By: Jim Bliss

Jim Bliss — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:05:51 +0000

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.

By: Jim Bliss

Jim Bliss — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:24:35 +0000

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.

By: Nick

Nick — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:53:03 +0000

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.