A tangent.
Apr 18th, 2007 by B.
This is an isolated, yet to me important, thought surrounding the VA shootings. I realize when something like this happens people feel the need to look for flashing neon signs pointing to why. It’s human nature. Still, I find it disturbing that the shooter’s creative writing teacher would in the first place even report him based on a play she felt was overly violent. I’d be interested in knowing how many students she’s reported through the years and, statistically, the percentage that turned out to be hardened criminals or mass murderers.
I guess I worry about anything that would lead to stifled creativity. What happens in the next creative writing class in small-town usa when a random student writes a random play about chopping the heads off random victims? I mean, imagine being a young, up & coming Stephen King and trying to float a Carrie-esque short story these days. Would he be reported as troubled? Worse, would the police show up on his doorstep (1984 anyone?) wondering why he’s writing about trapping an entire student body in a gymnasium and then burning it down? And hey, Stephen turned out a-ok…
Or what if you’re a Quentin Tarantino or Wes Craven or Roberto Rodriguez wannabe and you’ve just written this killer play about co-eds being stalked by an insane RA who likes to torture, kill and consume women in his ultimate quest to become one himself. Post Va. Tech, could this be construed as potentially criminal? And really, should it be? Should it ever be? I’d like to think the answer for most people is “no”. Just like I used to like to think that post 9/11 people of middle eastern descent wouldn’t be singled out and scrutinized in airports and at public events.
Caution is a good thing. Diligence is too, but there’s a line that we’re best not to cross or we’ll end up with some new (yet eerily familiar) strain of McCarthyism. Because what it all boils down to is… you never really know what goes on in another person’s head. And while it’s super easy to play armchair quarterback after the fact… sometimes… and more often than not… a cigar is just a cigar. But when you’re a right-wing politician, it’s a hell of a lot easier to issue a call-to-arms over the ability of faculty/employers/government to further scrutinize people (hey, why does anyone really need privacy anyway unless they’ve got something to hide… ) than to risk pissing off the NRA by suggesting tougher, more stringent gun control.
I guess I can just so see this going the other way… and eventually a lot of extremely brilliant, creative people being afraid to step beyond the cookie-cutter mold of what’s ‘appropriate and acceptable’. Because as far as I’m concerned The Matrix wasn’t responsible for what happened at Columbine, Grand Theft Auto isn’t a training ground for future criminals, and Chuck Palahniuk’s novel isn’t the equivalent of an anarchist’s bible. They’re all just unique forms of entertainment brought to us by equally unique individuals… and not a killer in the bunch.
On this day..
- Lost in Lost. - 2007
- Mad World. - 2006
Or heaven forbid you seek mental health care at any point … part of your permanent record … possibly suicidal ? … another Rorschach ink stain on your permanent record … but it’s ok ’cause we have legal drugs to fix you so you conform to that which is acceptable.
In this ever-more watched world we cannot be ourselves …
…it’s all smiles and business these days …
You have no idea how happy it makes me when someone breaks out Ben…
Your point is a good one. Our country has become a place where we all must “be on alert” and “look for anything unusual,” which leads high school English teachers to get freaked out when a kid writes a short story about sticking a fork in his brother’s eye. Maybe the kid just has a strange sense of humor. As a writer, free speech and creativity are sacred to me.
Having worked at a university, however, and also having lived through a school shooting (when I was in tenth grade, a ninth grader at my high school killed a teacher and shot our vice principal in the middle of the school day - I was just around the corner in the hallway so didn’t see it but I heard it), I believe it’s also important to allow teachers to care for their students and trust their instincts. An experienced teacher/professor knows the difference between a genre writer and someone who needs help. College students go through a lot of emotional crap, some of them express cries for help through their writing or art, and they’re lucky if their teachers will help them out.
It’s unfortunate that this creative writing teacher (likely inexperienced in speaking with FOX News reporters and their ilk) is being painted as the person who “Told You So.” I imagine that, as a writer, she’s probably a free speech advocate herself, but saw something different in this student’s work, and is now (justifiably) wigging out. But in the current climate, this sends a message to be sure to report all the potential crazies out there, because they might go buy a gun.
(How about we make it harder for them to buy a gun? But this comment has gone on long enough!)
I’m 100% with you on making it tougher (if not impossible) to buy a gun… that was my initial reaction to hearing what happened.
i agree with you completely… and just last week i had a conversation where i mentioned the return of mccarthyism in this country… with racist being the new communist… a different point, but the same really… this administration is responsible for a dying freedom of speech… and that simply isn’t acceptable.
Ah, yes. Just what I thought, too. What about Stephen King, Quentin Tarantino, etc? Just because one writes psycho doesn’t mean they ARE psycho. In high school I wrote lots of bloody suicide poems (just life sucks, “the shining metal to my wrist” type of stuff). Teen angst, ya know. I wasn’t suicidal, just liked to write dramatic stuff. What if I had directed the poems to a more outside source? Would I have ended up in a mental instution listed as homicidal? It’s a dangerous line to cross from assuming it’s just a twisted imagination to believing it’s predicting the future. I mean, Quentin Tarantino hasn’t killed anyone for real. (Um, that we know of …)
I was going to say along the same lines of what Blythe said. I think there is a major difference between someone writing a creative violent piece of writing like Quentin Tarintino (used to in 1996) and writing what this kid wrote. He was talentless and in need of major help. If what he wrote was creative and imaginative and violent I think the teacher would have not reported him. Instead what he wrote was less along the lines of Pulp Fiction and more along the lines of Grindhouse and he should be reported for writing that crap.
i’m not quite sure how to take that… if tim is making some cheeky commentary on his opinion of tarantino’s talent… ok.
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”
What I wrote was mostly a comment about Tarantino’s talent descent, but I believe what I said. I hate the term “cry for help”, but what he wrote was as much of a cry for help as anything I’ve read before. The play was nothing more the F words and violent undertones. His writing was way more based in anger than creativity. Palahniuk has written some of the sickest things I’ve ever read, but there’s not anger behind what he writes. This kids two plays are pure anger. I don’t blame the teacher for reporting him.
I got reported by my English teacher in high school and had to visit the county psychologist. I was a big Stephen King/Anne Rice fan as a teenager and wrote a lot of stories about mutilation and mass murders, but I turned out all right and wasn’t messed up at the time anyway (any more than your average teenager). Talking to the psychologist didn’t hurt my creativity, so I guess it’s how the issue is handled. If they just want to have you talk to a skilled professional for assessment, I think it’s okay, if they immediately label you as a problem, that’s different. I did end up hating the English teacher and thinking she was out to get me though.
B, I read your latest this morning before work, & have been thinking of it all day long. I really want to articulate how I feel about what you wrote, & I’m just hoping that it’ll be taken as just a different view on it…..
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
Lisa - The danger with what you write is… who decides who\’s criminal and who\’s creative? Do someone else get to decide? Do I? Because their view of what\’s sickly dangerous and mine might be off by miles. As I said in my post, it\’s easy to play armchair quarterback after the fact. And yes, in this instance we can look back and say \”Well yeah, but the teacher was right all along\”, but there\’s a real danger in paying that one forward.
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.
Interesting article about this topic on Salon today:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/04/20/creative_writing/
B, thanx for responding back, I do very sincerely apologize for using Robbie as an example, I never meant any harm by it, I was only trying (maybe badly??) to make a point
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
So I\’ve read the articles about the shootings, and about the student.
I\’ve read many opinions about what should\’ve been done or what should be
done or how this may have been stopped. But my first reaction to that
is: This couldn\’t have been stopped. Maybe he could have been booted
out of VA Tech, but would that have stopped him from going to the
nearest shopping center or parking lot or anywhere else? Maybe…
Maybe not. I lean towards maybe not. It seems many instructors thought
it was their duty to inject themselves into his life and he was sent to and
recommended for counseling several times. Now in the wake of the events
that have passed, most people would say that wasn\’t enough. But if we
strip back his actions from a few days ago, what legal basis exists for
any of this? People were concerned about his writing, but his behaviors
didn\’t really give him criminal status. He committed no crimes, and who
is to say that all this \’intervening\’ didn\’t just piss him off all the
more?
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.
Thanks, B. for telling the truth.
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 ;).