In Defense of the Characterization of Eddie Kaspbrack

When I first started preparing for our premiere episode, I thought I would be absolutely spoiled for resources on the characterization of Eddie Kaspbrack. I mean, there is so much depth there, from the book to the mini-series to the movie adaptations, that I thought my analysis would be a drop in the bucket. So imagine my surprise when I found next to nothing - and I checked JSTOR guys, JSTOR has everything (if you know, you know). So while I feel that I got to my main points in the podcast (if you haven't heard it yet, I recommend giving it a listen before diving in here), I want to take this opportunity to expand on Eddie’s characterization across Andy Muschietti's adaptations of IT Chapters 1 and 2, rooted in his disorders as a result of childhood trauma.

*First and foremost - a disclaimer. I am not a mental health professional nor have I had any medical training. This analysis is a synthesis of what I have seen floating around in the IT analytical sphere and my own interpretations based on personal experience with an anxiety disorder similarly centered on medical trauma.*

It’s almost without question that Eddie, beginning in childhood and carrying on through his adult life, suffers from a degree of hypochondriasis. Hypochondriasis (more commonly hypochondria) is defined by Merriam-Webster as “morbid concern about one's health especially when accompanied by delusions of physical disease” and can be comorbid with a number of other anxiety and depressive disorders. There is no shortage of textual examples of Eddie displaying symptoms of hypochondriasis, from the running gag about grey water and staph infections to his pharmaceutically stocked fanny pack-turned-medicine cabinet. The prevailing interpretation is that Eddie's neuroses and subsequent disorders are a result of from Munchausen Syndrome by proxy, now sometimes referred to as Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another, which is “a mental illness and a form of child abuse [wherein]...the caretaker of a child, most often a mother, either makes up fake symptoms or causes real symptoms to make it look like the child is sick (Medline Plus).” The movie interpretations allude to this time and again, imbuing Eddie's scenes with his mother with the same tension-wrought, just-before-a-jump-scare pacing as they do the quiet before an encounter with the clown, a subtle reminder that a demonic circus-themed fear beast from space is not the only root of the Losers' trauma.

With that background in mind, I want speak specifically to his reactions as an adult in IT Chapter 2. While the hypochondriasis settles into subtler forms of anxiety as an adult, it is still present and central to his character and motivations. I'm not going to lie - it would have been gratifying to see him remember those 27 years, and that brave moment when he chucked his fanny pack across the yard in a symbolic break from his mother. The way it panned out canonically, however, is heart-wrenching more realistic. How many of us have had fanny-pack-hurling moments of liberation, a momentary clarity that things need to change and you can change them. But a spark of inspired rage and decision is rarely enough to ignite a total life change - not without some intensive work and outside help, something that 27 years of memory loss unfortunately deprived Eddie of.

It's not surprising, then, that adult Eddie struggles with many of the same issues as he did when he was a child. A life with his wife (so similar to his mother as to be played by the same actress) has beaten out some of the fire he had in IT Chapter 1. Several times throughout both films, the viewer see Eddie demonstrating extreme tendencies towards self-preservation. It’s seen in the first movie where he refuses to enter the sewers ( “I don’t want to end up with Georgie, I don’t want to….go missing”) and then later, and most prominently, when he freezes up when Ritchie is attacked in the house on Neiboldt (James Ransone with a heartbreaking “Please don’t be mad Bill, I was so scared” that was so vulnerable it was difficult to listen to) and once again when Beverly is pulled underwater in the sewers (“I feel like crying”). Jules brings up an excellent point in the episode (which may or may not have had to be edited out in post - the raw file was roughly an hour and a half long) that Stan, as the only Loser to be completely alone in the sewers with IT and subsequently getting his face munched on by the woman from the uncanny valley, was by far the most traumatized by the events in Derry. I would argue with the same criteria that Eddie (along with Beverly, but that's a different extended blog post) comes in at a close second from his near-miss with Pennywise after breaking his arm in Neiboldt. Based on that alone, the sudden visceral reaction of being reminded of that experience could trigger the flight, fight, or freeze instinct.

He doesn’t follow the others into the water, he doesn’t want to follow the others into the sewers, but he’s not proud of that fact - not concerned with self-preservation in a selfish way but with a marrow-deep paralytic instinct that makes him ashamed. The complete lack of bravado usually present in the genre during these moments is unsettling, some going so far as to say that Eddie was characterized as weak and inconsistent with the first installment of the series. However, I think that demonstrating that vulnerability - especially in adult men - is extremely important. Furthermore, these reactions are not only reasonable given what we know of his trauma but reflect the larger theme of his characterization. It's easy, here, to draw a parallel to daily life.

Anxiety and its related disorders create a roadblock for people doing mundane tasks - talking on the phone, putting in a load of laundry - that seem simple to everyone else. For people who process the world in such a way, everyday tasks that are automatic for many people feel insurmountable. There are days when even the smallest task feels like hurling a fencepost into the mouth of a giant spider-clown. To have Eddie dive brashly into danger without a second thought would not only be a disservice to his characterization, but a disservice to his narrative arc that is so important to so many viewers. The important things to note is that, despite these moments of weakness and indecision, in the end he does it anyway. He goes into the sewers, he goes into the house, he throws the fencepost when it counts.

Obviously the characterization of Eddie was not perfect, but when you weigh the highs and lows in the balance there is consistency and care on the part of the director, writers, and actors that can’t be overlooked. There’s something to be said for the death of the author in this interpretation. While I have a strong suspicion that what I am reading into the text was put there intentionally, any good communications major will tell you that the encoding and decoding process of media can be messy and intent metamorphoses in translation. But, that doesn’t make the narrative any less important to the people who see themselves reflected in it. And to anyone reading this today armed with their own fencepost - you’re braver than you think.