The sad (?) fact is that the choice comes down to two options:

1) Censonring thought and writing, being suspicious of everything out of a very narrow norm and viciously cut off most of what makes the human experience unique. This way, we might prevent some 50% of tragedies like Colmbine, Virginia tech et al

2.) Do NOTHING. This way, we might lose a couple of lives here and there, but hey, this is what this existence is about, It can’t be avoided. We still drive cars, even though they directly kill some 1000 people in germany each year.

Needless to say, I vote for Option 2. Some people might believe that the above chioce is a false dichotomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy). I dare them to tell me how ;).

Let\’s strip away the emotion and play a numbers game here for a minute.
I\’ll ask the questions and then assume the numbers are large and then
base my decisions on that. How many universities are there in the US?
(A lot) How many english and/or writing instructors are there at these
institutions? (Again, a lot) How many students have been referred to
counseling based on their writing? (More than Mr. Seung-Hui I\’d be
willing to bet)
Now comes the serious part. Out of how many hundreds of millions of
people living in the US alone, can anyone be expected to stop one man
from killing 32 people based on some violent creative writing he has
submitted in class? The simple answer is: You can\’t. Prior to his
actions a few days ago, he committed no crimes and did nothing that,
barring violating his rights, could land him in jail or a mental
institution. Let\’s all face the reality that if you can\’t stop one
suicide bomber from entering parliament in Baghdad, a city where there
is ever-present military and police specifically looking for these types
of people and actions, then you would never pick Cho Seung-Hui out of a
crowd of even a 1000 people and be able to prevent him from acting on
the thoughts in his head. There\’s no such thing as a \’Pre-Crime\’
division a\’la Tom Cruise in \’Minority Report\’

I could go on an on about this, but the end result is, no matter which
side of the fence you stand on, you\’re not going to like the answer you
get.
1. There will be no sweeping gun control changes. Far too many people
(and lobbyists) believe they have an innate right to \’defend themselves\’
or hunt or shoot lead slugs through pieces of paper to prove they have
skills. The NRA is too strong and the constitution holds up under
attack for the right to bear arms. Even if the reasons for it\’s
inclusion into the Bill of Rights have long since changed.
2. Though teachers and instructors will continue to submit questionable
work from students for evaluation by persons more qualified. No real
change will come about. You still can\’t punish someone for a crime of
thought. You can\’t do a damn thing until they act on it, and by then
it\’s too late. The statistics are stacked against any individual who
thinks they could have, before the fact, predicted what Mr. Seung-Hui
did.

Also consider for a moment that private institutions and / or laws are
changed to require psychological evaluation for anyone whose writing is
deemed \’disturbing\’. Aside from potentially stifling creativity, anyone
smart enough would just not write about the disturbing prose prior to
their action. After all, why draw attention to yourself until you\’re
ready to make your move? There just aren\’t laws or regulations that can
protect the general population for the criminal thoughts of others. Any
steps made toward attempting to do this would only create a false sense
of security.

I also agree that it’s not good to be overly alarmist or a Sally Sensor, but in this case, I just think that this guy really managed to slip thru some very big cracks until it was sadly too late to stop him

Clearly the shooter was a sick twist and we all would have benefited from him never being part of the gene pool to begin with, and I in no way condone his actions, but getting to what I think the heart of your question is… I\’m not defending what he wrote per se, but I am defending his right to write it.

You say with great confidence that there\’s a difference between his essay and the writings of a Tarantino or a King… go back and read the screenplay for Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs. Or hell, the entire Fight Club novel. They\’re all disturbing… each & every one of \’em. Yet the authors to date haven\’t taken out a mini-mall in Sarasota as far as I know. But if you\’re Sally Sensor and suddenly on \’high alert\’ and some guy named Bob submits a screenplay similar to Grindhouse or Texas Chainsaw Massacre in a creative writing class, don\’t we owe it to ourselves and to Bob to calm the hell down and really think it through before calling in guys in white coats?

I\’m trying to make the point that I can see (because of what happened & because of an ongoing effort to stamp out dissenting opinions… don\’t like the current regime, speak out at your own peril… wouldn\’t want to get dixie chicked!) many perfectly normal, talented people who want to write horror becoming less and less inclined to do so. All because they\’re afraid they\’ll find themselves involuntarily checked into a mental facility for \”observation\” thanks to a paranoid academia or even a fellow student with a moral compass set to the high end of tight-ass.

The core point I was trying to make might be best summed up by a very famous paraphrasing of Voltaire: \”I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it\”. As in… yes… this man was a nutjob. And of course it\’s easy to see that after the fact, but please, let\’s not have a knee-jerk reaction and start labeling every creative writing student who has a penchant for the macabre as \’suspicious and in need of observation\’… because most likely s/he isn\’t. This dude was one very bad apple in a barrel of good… potentially great… apples. Paranoia only allows him to do more damage than he already has.

Lisa, you\’re a friend and I naturally never expect (or want!) everyone to agree with me. This is a divisive issue. But using my child \”facing down the barrel of some sickos’ gun\” to drive home your point was completely out of line, and I\’d appreciate it if you didn\’t do it again. Other than that I wasn\’t bothered by anything you wrote, and I always look forward to (and still will look forward to) hearing your opinion.

The thing is, I just can’t see how this obviously deranged, sick person can be compared to people like Stephen King, Roberto Rodriguez, Quentin Tarantino or any of those people, I absolutely do not believe he was a wannabe….There is a profound, I think, difference between creativity & mass murder. He knew exactly what he was doing & he was extremely methodical about carrying out his evil plans. His actions & anti social behaviours made him stand out to all kinds of people, not just his creative writing teacher. There were red flags about him at every turn.

I don’t want to misunderstand what it was you were trying to get across, so please correct me if I am wrong, but it almost sounded as though you were coming to his defense of his writings in his class. I hope to God that’s not the case, because, I believe it’s completely wrong to give what he did any legitimacy by even remotely suggesting that maybe his creativity was stifled. God forbid if one day, Robbie (just using her as an example-I’d never wish it on anyone ever) would be the one to face down the barrel of some sickos’ gun & that would be the last thing she sees.

There are probably many, many creative writers out in the world who write about scary, morbid stuff but would never resort to the kinds of things that this guy did.

In response to something Remus said — In this ever-more watched world we cannot be ourselves…it’s all smiles and business these days—I don’t think there’s anything wrong w/ being yourself, unless you pose obvious signs of danger to others or exhibit anti-social behaviour, if we didn’t have protections in place, wouldn’t there be a lot more anarchy?

Anyway, this certainly does make for really good discussions at any rate

but if serious… i think it just goes to prove the point as to part of the problem. “creative and imaginative is fine… as long as i personally approve… as long as it meets my standards”