- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Up until last year and high school graduation my daughter did public speaking (called Forensics here.) I was surprised at the number of students who performed shock/violence readings from recognized authors. Sometimes much better non-shock presenters lost to the shockers. The judges were high school and college teachers. (I'm fine with examining the underbelly when it's not provocative.) Shock is one of today's fads. Perhaps it's encouraged by role models.
That said, ambivalence: We see the clues left behind after the mass shooting. The shooter thought they were a billboard, a Superbowl ad, screaming, "STOP ME!" But we'd barely noticed; except for a few people. The trick is to pick up on the clues, and we're getting better at it. Unfortunately, mass murderers may be bad writers, and solipsistic, and proudly, self-protectively, indirect. In general, a mess. But note that they are ambivalent. Part of them wants to kill us all and part of them knows they're nuts and need to be stopped; and maybe even that life doesn't have to always be so miserable; even, that there's some love, and meaning.
So they scatter the clues around - the stalking, the inappropriate photos, the rude silence, the suicide threat, the non-compliance with treatment, the speeding ticket, the staring into space, always eating alone in the dining room, zero friends, the fire in the wastebasket, the gun purchase, and, yes, the creative writing. That's where I came to understand Cho's rage, from Nikki Giovonni saying, "I've seen crazy and I've seen mean, and he was MEAN!" For most, creative writing is creative writing. For some, it's a red flag, and he's waving it in front of us, screaming for us to do something or die.
Best,
Monty Johnston
(more, for free: google "Rabid Fanatic" +"Monty Johnston")
