I am an old English major, a published author of crime fiction, occasional teacher of writing workshops, and thus many strange pieces of writing have come my way. I also happen to have some study of human behavior in my background, in the form of clinical psychology.

I'm concerned that what we're seeing here with the killer I call Young Cho goes very deep into American culture. It's not just that he was a disturbed young man who turned in some writing that may have been indicative of his disturbance. It's that when he crossed over into psychosis (as several commentators have now pointed out, his videos show clear signs of psycotic thinking), the actions he took were so very, well, American.

Our fiction today reflects a culture that has gone too far in the direction of violence. I myself have had manuscripts rejected for not being explicit enough, violent enough, scary enough -- it was one reason I went to writing historical suspense. The prevalence of violence is all over everywhere; it runs a continuum from the language of gangsta rap on one end to what Young Cho did on the other.

Teachers can help draw a line, say Enough is enough. Writers can do the same. And when teachers think their students may have crossed into mental disturbance, the school administrations should have a policy that forces treatment. Not just recommends it.

I am a semiretired, published mystery/suspense author and I am also a reviewer of the same type of books, for one print magazine and one online fan-readers site. I'm more than familiar with everything that's been said here so far, from all sides. My main concern right now is with the young people who aren't reading. Those teenage boys (and girls) would be more likely to read for their own pleasure if some tech company would get its act together and successfully market an attractive e-book reader device. I can't understand why the schools haven't pushed for an electronic substitute for textbooks, why parents (who surely must hate those heavy backpacks on their kids) haven't done it too, and why publishers don't see this as the next big-money market. When there's a "cool" (or whatever the current word for that is) way to present the content -- I mean as cool as an iPod -- then the boys will read for pleasure.

Dianne Day

Robin, from an informed vantage point as a hospital chaplain, asks what is to be gained by a woman suffering through up to 20 more weeks of pregnancy, followed by birth, when it is known that the fetus/child cannot survive? And Robin says the question is not rhetorical, so I'll attempt to answer it, knotty as it is.

The only answer that comes to mind is: Any value that might come from such an awful situation depends on whether or not you believe suffering has value in and of itself for human character. Traditional religions would say suffering does build character. In fact, it's quite possible that religions came into existence, in part, to explain why life is often hard and unfair.

But that is all beside the point, I think, in this case at hand. The real question should be whether or not the government should be making decisions about these things in the first place. The Founding Fathers said NOT. They lived in a time of, and were strongly influenced by, the Enlightenment. A time when philosophy was loosening the stranglehold of religion on people who could read, and when literacy was becoming more common. That's our heritage, where we come from as a country. However much some people may deny it, we have that in common with France.

I am a former Catholic woman who cannot return to the Church because I came to understand all too well the Church's attitude toward women. I miss the ritual and the music more than I can say, more and more as I grow older, and wish I could have what is generally called "the consolation of religion." I can't, because I simply do not believe so much of what the Church teaches. In fact, when it comes to women and human sexuality, I believe what the Church teaches is flat wrong and has caused all kinds of trouble for centuries.

We humans have long turned to religion to find a basis for our morality. Now with the major religions losing their hold, it appears some otherwise intelligent people believe it is proper for the government to step in and take up the slack. I can't agree with that, either.

It's a considerable conundrum.

Reading this interview with Wolpert made me feel like I was back in academe at some late-night party where people who were brilliant in their own estimation had been talking for way too long.

The man's a crock. End of story.