Book Essay on Foxcatcher: The True Story of My Brother's Murder, John du Pont's Madness, and

Author's note: This essay was written for a school assignment.

“Foxcatcher: The True Story of My Brother’s Murder, John du Pont’s Madness, and the Quest for Olympic Gold,” or just “Foxcatcher” for short, is an autobiography novel written by the one and only Mark Schultz, and recounts both his amazing wrestling career, and how said career crumbles when he is taken under the wing of John du Pont. As such, there is no clear-cut linear path to follow in “Foxcatcher,” which makes describing a summary of the plot incredibly difficult (this is especially true in the setting: it constantly switches between tournaments, colleges, the du Pont farm, and so on). Though, in the way it is told, wrestler Mark Schultz takes us on a journey, recollecting his various memories and experiences of his NCAA wins, world championships, and his “quest for Olympic Gold.” Though after some horrible support and funds (which he was supposed to receive from his wins), he is forced to join with the likes of du Pont, and his downfall of his once stellar career only goes on from there, right up until du Pont murders his brother, Dave.

To analyze “Foxcatcher” is to analyze one single human being: John du Pont. No one will ever truly know for sure how du Pont really functioned, but Mark’s perspective is the best we are ever going to get. This disturbed man grew up relatively alone, despite having a few siblings. He lived nearly alone on his luxurious farm, only really communicating with his mother, which could possibly lend a hand to his inability to form normal relationships. Though the book doesn’t seem to present du Pont’s family as a whole, the whole situation inadvertently creates a whole other theme: sometimes, wealth is the thing that isolates people the most. You would think that wealth would expose a family to pieces (and with all of the gossip columns in full bloom, it certainly seems that way), but in some cases, this is not true. John didn’t need to go to school and make friends because of his money; he didn’t even need to leave the house. How can one know what is right if you can’t even see what is wrong?

There’s also another hidden theme, and to understand it, du Pont must be analyzed further. Mark calls his brother’s killer a “collector;” this is pivotal in comprehending the window into John’s soul. Since du Pont was sheltered his entire life, not having any healthy relationships, he tried to make up for it by buying things for himself (he even made corporations for the sole reason of awarding himself medals): this backfired horribly. Not only did he make himself more empty, but he wasn’t even true to himself any more. John du Pont wanted to feel happiness, to feel kind, to feel generous; but all he accomplished was creating an empty facade. The term “money can’t buy happiness” couldn’t more of an ultimate truth than here.

Mark Schultz was the exact opposite: he grew up entire pressure (of which he mainly put on himself), and he earned his confidence, loyalty, and, most importantly, brotherhood. The two were polar opposites, and they couldn’t hate each other more. While du Pont tried to buy his personality traits (and miserably failed), Schultz earned them through hard work, dedication, and immense amounts of stress. All John did was try to prove himself to others through the things he bought, and possibly even through the murder of Dave.

But what does this prove? What is the overall lesson of this novel? Well, for me, it was certainly the lesson of what it means for our society. The society we live in is obsessed with the rich; just take a look at a few random magazines or tablets. Though, through that empty layer can lie something truly horrible. We judge people constantly, but if a person comes from fame or wealth, we dismiss any lingering fears of danger; which is the exact cause of why such a senseless murder could take place. No matter how rich or poor, beautiful or unsightly you are, basic human conditioning requires relationships: we can’t function without them. There is no concrete part in “Foxcatcher” to define this; the book just is.

I did thoroughly enjoy “Foxcatcher.” It spent a bit more time on Mark Schultz’s career than I would have personally liked, but the novel is an autobiography, after all. It tells the tale of a person, and how he has his career ruined, told by a different perspective away from all of the newspapers and magazines. But, after all of that, the question still remains: why? Why was it meant to end this way? We’ll never truly know for sure, but we can do our best to try.