posted
In a recent thread, we were discussing personal injury. This type of tragedy breeds its own deep injuries. I, for one, am saying a silent prayer for the families of the victims, and all of the students who were affected.
Posts: 3687 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate to break the silence, and my sympathy to the victims and their families---and, I gather, one of the victims is the son of a prominent science fiction writer---but one element that came up in news reports struck me, as a writer, as disturbing. It was said that the shooter handed in something in Creative Writing class, which the professor found so disturbing the shooter was referred to counseling.
Now, the guy was almost certainly a classic headcase...but I would've thought knowing this kind of referral could happen would discourage Creative Writing students from handing in anything actually creative. I don't think I would take too kindly to that. I might be a sullen loner but I would think I have the right to write what I see fit.
posted
I agree that to censor any CREATIVE writing is bad. Just because someone IMAGINES the worst possible scenario (or evil plot, or insane justification) doesn't mean they intend to perform it. Through writing they have already dealt with it.
Red-flagging students based on their prose has a cliche sci-fi element to it, anyway. I don't think I've ever seen or read a scenario in which people were persecuted for their opinions; creative thinking; or any differences that has been portrayed as beneficial. Though, I know of a few extreme examples of the opposite.
That's as bad as the moral qestion posed by MINORITY REPORT: If you stop (arrest, kill) an offender ahead of time, are they still criminals?
If you could kill Hitler before he came into power, would you? Even if he was the wide-eyed, innocent young man that joined the nazi party out of hope for economic rebirth, prior to WWI?
I don't think that what Cho Seung-Hui wrote was indicative of who he was. If so, there would be an existing proven pattern by now. Of all the known mass-murderers, how many were red-flagged for creative writing? I know that many of them had aspects of their personae suppressed, or otherwise condemned, but how many aspiring novelists? How many people that were red-flagged have gone on killing sprees? I'd be interested to discover the basis of the profiling for this procedure of red-flagging, anyhow.
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited April 19, 2007).]
posted
I'm going to disagree. First, his writing was never censored, he was simply referred to counseling. There is a difference. It may have made him feel bad, but there was no attempt to prevent him from writing and no attempt to destroy what he had already produced. Second, from what I have read, his behaviors were also quite disturbing, enough to get him permanently removed from one class. Third, professors are notoriously liberal, and are as concerned about creative expression as any of us. They are not going to make a referral unless they really think something is going on with a student, and I'm sure are trained to watch for specific patterns of behaviors. P.S. I read two of his plays that somebody posted on the internet. They are not the ones that caused his referral but there is a lot of anger in them. Edited: Somehow I lost some sentences. It's a bit short.
[This message has been edited by Sunshine (edited April 19, 2007).]
[This message has been edited by Sunshine (edited April 19, 2007).]
[This message has been edited by Sunshine (edited April 19, 2007).]
[This message has been edited by Sunshine (edited April 19, 2007).]
posted
It is tragic and very sad. It's also too familiar. Sorrows will be expressed and soothed. Accusations will be traded and the blame will be tossed around in a pathetic game of "tag". Some will say "you should have known" - others will counter with "how could we possibly have known?" Networks will use it as fodder for the ratings mill. True believers will blame our wickedness, we have lost our way, these are the last days they will say. The "shrinks" will point to an alienating society. The obligatory hot air will be exchanged by politicians who scream for gun control while others rail against it. A professor who survived the holocaust, one who survived the insanity of an entire nation, rushed a single gunman and is killed while those around him fled for their lives. The pain is searing. The griefs are leaking. Ultimately time will lessen the pain. Memorial meetings and vigils will dissipate. The flame of the candles held by mourners, like the lives of those remembered, will be extinguished. Lives will return to some sense of normalcy and the candles will be put away - only to be trotted out the next time.
[This message has been edited by nitewriter (edited April 19, 2007).]
[This message has been edited by nitewriter (edited April 19, 2007).]
posted
The issue inadvertently pressed one of my buttons. It came up once in an episode of Nickelodeon's "As Told By Ginger." The teacher begged a character to contribute something to a literary contest, I recall. The character did, a poem. The teacher found the imagery (a girl longing to disappear who then does) disturbing and referred the character to counseling. The character, predictably, was cheesed off. The issue, and the possibility, stuck in my mind.
I'd have to see "referring to counseling" as censorship. ("Write something that disturbs us, and we'll send you to sensitivity training. So don't do it.")
Now, I don't want to go into one of those "mind of the killer" post-mortem examinations. It's not really an appropriate subject for our writer's forum. (Besides that, and besides the usual agendas-to-address and axes-to-grind, not all the facts are in.) But the issue---counseling, censorship, and encouraging-or-discouraging one's creativity, is of concern.
quote: I'd have to see "referring to counseling" as censorship. ("Write something that disturbs us, and we'll send you to sensitivity training. So don't do it.")
I totally agree.
And I'll go a step further: I personally KNOW of a few students that have been subjected to suspensions because of a creative writing assignment that offended the teachers or faculty. The school cited columbine as an explanation. These kids were in grades 5 - 7, and were writing about ninjas or Star Wars-related subjects. Explusion, suspension, and having students escorted off of the school property for violence in fiction is ridiculous. Even Bambi has violence.
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited April 20, 2007).]
posted
I think there may have been some difference in what this person was writing and other circumstances. I don't see it mentioned that he was writing about disturbing things about his classmates in that class, but that is what I understood from one news article I read. (Wish I could find it again.)
My understanding is the poems were accompanied by images taken of other students in class, taken with his cell phone. The reaction was due, at least partially, to the reactions of other classmates. I read that several students stopped attending class due to fear for their safety.
I think there is a difference between what might be a disturbing story or poem and what might be a threat. I think the teacher was reacting to what he or she thought was a threat, not just some disturbing creativity.
posted
I think the underlying mistake here is one of statistics. People tend to forget that a strong correlation doesn't in-and-of itself indicate a causal relationship.
Example: People with bigger heads tend to score higher on tests.
Therefore headsize determines test competency, right?
Wrong. Age determines test competency, among other variables, it just so happens that age affects headsize, age also affects test skills. So, there is a relationship. But we're biasing our conclusion by picking the wrong variable "headsize" for the cause of our results. (Which is a common mistake.)
If there is a correlation (like how good students tend to be better drivers then bad students) it doesn't mean the two are necessarily related.
So, even if some people are violent murderers (who happen to write violent stories) that doesn't mean that all people who write about violent murders or play violent video games are liable or even capable of performing those atrocities.
I think, like our head example above, that, rather, violent fiction and violent video games tend to appeal to both our murderers and our normal people, for different reasons.
The fact that it appeals to both of them (for independent reasons) can be suggested by a model of my own.
87% of violent murderers enjoy pizza 75% of my Price Theory class likes pizza Therefore the majority of my class is at high risk for causing violent murder...
[This message has been edited by Zero (edited April 20, 2007).]
posted
I should have added to my last post that, whereas that episode of "As Told By Ginger" was funny, this life-imitates-art example is not.
A similar example came about in my Internet Fan Fiction days. Around the time I "entered the field," so to speak, one of the most talked-about stories dealt with one character being raped and nearly murdered. I found the story, and the subject, valid---but there was a firm group within our group that equated writing about rape with the act of rape itself. There was no argument that could budge these people from their position...whatever was conceded did not make them retreat from their original position. (I should have taken that as a clue when we got down to serious political discussions.)
I don't think I'd take comments from a Creative Writing teacher and college students as necessarily indicative of the mental state. They might testify that they felt "threatened" by what someone wrote---but that might be true of anything turned in. (There's obviously more to it than just than that in this case.)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
