You should listen to this, lest someday you won’t be able to
I heard this on weekend edition and I stopped in my tracks Sunday morning. It is a piece on by Diane Roberts who is a creative writing Professor at Florida State regarding the prose containing graphic violence. This was recently highlighted by the media and pundit focus on VT shooters writings.
For me it reinforced my steadfast beliefs to be careful jumping to conclusions and there is no simple answer. Drawing that line between what is valuable and non-valuable is like defining beauty - it is in the eye of the beholder.
Have a listen and comment away.
The set up was predictable if you know anything about classic literature. I knew that the professor was relaying Shakespeare and Faulkner to make her point (which is a good one) within the first few seconds. We don’t need to “Fahrenheit 457″ the creative writers of this world—we shouldn’t be policing the mind and the creative writing process.
What I think people should be articulating (but they’re not) is that the writings offer hindsight when *combined* with his accusations of stalking, his lack of friends, his lack of eye contact, his lack of vocal intonation, his lack of anything resembling life. This kid was essentially dying inside right in front of everyone. The writing alone could not have predicted the massacre. But last I checked, Faulkner didn’t refer to himself as “question mark,” I don’t think Sylvia Plath was accused of stalking, and Shakespeare didn’t refuse to speak to others. Those are the signs that could have predicted madness. Now the folks who didn’t force him to be committed may be washing their hands over and over, ala Lady Macbeth. (Just a little literary continuity, not trying to place blame.)
The set up was predictable? Really. Well not to me. I take the first part of your comments as a general slam (not a personal one) directed at the professor that I don’t think is warranted. That said - where did 457 come from - a combination of Bradbury 451 and Heinz 57?
I was thinking beyond VT when I heard the piece. My thoughts focused on judgment and leaping to conclusions and all the all the “simple” solutions we are urged to adopt. Take the current library debate what and who decides what is banned? Take gun control - the stereotypical left says ban all guns, the stereotypical right says arm everyone (the D&C printed Cal Thomas’ column who made that argument) the answer of course is in the middle. The D&Cs Tobin (and others) are railing against Rap as if that is the sole cause of violence. Video games - the sole cause? Flag burning? If only we respected the flag, then again Minarik says if only we say the Pledge of allegiance in schools all will be right with the our moral compass.
People speak and offer simple definitions to problems and solutions that really don’t solve the problem. Problems don’t need sound bytes, they need root cause identification and long term commitment to solving those root causes. Yet we focus on what we can get done in the short term.
We need a society that recognizes everyone isn’t equal and has different abilities yet also recognizes that everyone has value and can contribute to general society. It is difficult but worth it
How could no one see “This kid was essentially dying inside right in front of everyone.” We are more focused on individualism than interdependence. I think individualism leads to isolation which is why someone can be dying in front of us and we don’t see it. Many chose not to see it
Ok that’s enough and more than I wanted to say.
stlo7,
No, not a slam, I am sooo into literature and so the device the professor was using, call it a construct if you want, was very obvious to me. Professors of literature often will begin a course by quoting something and you think it’s from an entirely different source, and then it will be someone like Gandhi or Schweitzer, and you start to rethink the meaning and the lack of harm in words. I loved your piece. Sorry that didn’t come across. I just am hard to throw off track with literary quotes because that’s my thing. I also knew the pieces she chose to use and that was a giveaway, so a lot of the ooomph she was going for won’t work for English majors or people who love literature, like I do.
As far as gun control, I personally am nervous around them but I know many ultra responsible gun owners and I am a moderate on this point. I have no qualms with hunting but I don’t believe we need AK47s and the like to take down a deer—they’re not Super Deer, able to deflect bullets. I think we are in agreement on this issue.
I also believe that we are overly focused on individualism to the detriment of a loving, connected society. I’m all for personal rights and freedom but the phrase “no man is an island” resonates with me. Remember that commercial from the 1970s, or are you too young? I am dating myself here!
I try to help people every chance I get. If you look at the Republican platform, the underlying principle seems to be “every man for himself.”
I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear in my meaning. I agree with you about root causes, which is why I’ve been pouring over statistics for a week now to try to understand the state by state laws and differences in crime rates, etc.
Oh, type-o on the 457.
I figured. You could used your creative literary background to channel Dirty Harry as part of the new English teacher thought police. I believe that was his caliber of choice as well. (actually it was a 357 but it is the thought that counts)
Great retort. I really don’t think we are far off - conversations via blog posts is a bit like playing chess my mail - the delay doesn’t help.