Synopsis: Marina Andros is certain that Edward Fosca is a murderer. But Fosca is an untouchable Greek tragedy professor at Cambridge University. Fosca is the head of a secret society of female students known as the Maidens. Mariana, a group therapist, becomes fixated on the Maidens when one member, a friend of Mariana’s niece Zoe, is found murdered in Cambridge. She becomes convinced that despite his alibi, Fosca is guilty of the murder. When another body is found, Mariana’s obsession with proving Fosca’s guilt threatens to destroy her credibility as well as her closest relationships. But Marina is determined to stop this killer, even if it costs her everything – including her life.
Cited as another “dark academic” canon, Michaelides The Maidens, is a lesser Secret History. While, Michaelides does an excellent job with the plot twist – the richness of the overall story is lacking. However, understood in its own right – The Maidens brings to the forefront the ability and consequences of one’s ability to convince themselves. Simply put, has there ever been anything that you have been certain to be true making it such that all other possibilities cease to exist? Even if consequently you turned out to be wrong. Michaelides excellently captures such a motif and integrates it well within the plot. Join me in exploring this motif and following it to its logical ends.
The human mind is capable of many amazing abilities – some of which are still unknown to us today. One of its astonishing abilities is to convince us of the contrary while still noting contradictory evidence. Thus, the mind is capable of information gathering – but some would say that it is the “will of the mind” that is concerned with how such evidence is put together. Or, in other words – it is solely the minds automatic job to gather evidence, but it is the will that utilizes logic and posits the respective conclusion derived from the input. However, others might argue a further point. If one has already convinced themself of a certain conclusion, namely X, then when gathering information regarding X, the mind has the ability to filter through “relevant” information and thus overlook said information before deliberation even begins.
However, even with the additional point added, a faulty conclusion can still be reached. Thus, the distinction between the function of the mind and will is irrelevant – at least at first glance. But the distinction is extremely important with regards to correcting the errored conclusion. If it is such the case that information is noted objectively by the brain, then one must reflect on the will of the brain to ensure that the conclusion reached is objective as well. If it is the case that the brain only notes information already relevant to the pre-conceived conclusion, then one must, by the will of the brain, dispose of the preconception to ensure that the conclusion will not be reached in error. This discussion captures the ancient problem of the perception of the mind and the conclusions we draw from such. Moreover, out of the philosophic debate has arisen a famous quote by the Objectivist, Ayn Rand. “Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one if them is wrong.”
Philosophers from Aristotle to Locke and so on have debated whether or not we can rely on what we perceive in reaching valid conclusions. This notion of doubting does not stop at external input however. Psychologists have termed errored thinking as “cognitive distortions.” In essence, cognitive distortions deal with our errored logical reasoning. One may either overgeneralize, filter, polarize etc. Thus, the problems surrounding the truth hood or falsity regarding our conclusions have always been subject to debate and doubt. But this raises a further problem – when does one stop doubting as to deal with the practicalities of life? Many would argue that at some point we have to take the world around us and our perceptions of such as given so that adverse consequences do not follow. Others would argue that until the truth of the matter is resolved we ought not stop doubting. For there is no higher value than truth for the sake of truth.
Which side of the debate do you support? Should we ever stop doubting? If so, at what point and why?
— Yours Truly,
Michael A. Westbrook
Ivory Tower 