Skip to main content

Switching to alters at Columbine (7 April 2009)

re: "For systematic change, I also suggest honoring those who get up everyday and go to work, even if they don't like it. It takes toughness to do that. The thugs on street corners and the killers in schools aren't tough enough to go to work everyday." (bigguns, response to article, "What you never knew about Columbine." Salon. April 6, 2009)

Would need some work, but it could draw them in - -especially if the working world regresses to "Organization Man" manliness (and maybe that's where business is headed -- certainly "Revolutionary Road" understood the draw of such for men; so too Apatow and Ferrel; so too "Mad Men") and away from JPod effeminacy. But it would come at the cost of empathy towards, and understanding of, delinquents, which would not be so okay.

Personally, it was when I understood that much audacious behavior that can strike one as brave or even heroic, is accomplished by bullied people who have switched into a different brain state -- an “alter,” not so susceptible to “disabling” emotions like fear (and empathy) -- that I learned not to be impressed by the audacity and accomplishments of righteous loners. People who are bullied when they are young, dependent, so very impressionable, know the awesome power of angry terror -- threats of abandonment, strong displays of aggression, are writ large and become nothing less than threats of absolute annihilation to the self. They integrate this “voice,” this personality, and it essentially becomes Freud's punitive super-ego, a voice which normally functions to school one away from doing presumptuous things, but which can readily accomplish the horrifying but also audacious and imposing, when it fully takes over in pursuit of righteous punishment of "guilty" others.

Link: What you never knew about Columbine (Salon)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...

The Conjuring

The Conjuring 
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it, but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the affordments of that time are going to make them have to work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from 2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...