I have some thoughts on intellectuals'/academics'/artists' fascination with
criminals. Though it is never my intention, my own work tends to come out
quite violent both in form and in content so I've spent some time reflecting
...
first I think the examination of shadow aspects is helpful and that being
silent about that with which we are uncomfortable is dangerous- it's not the
same type of danger as what we refer to as crime but it may (or may not) be
even more truly harmful to the larger social psyche-- if we allow ourselves
to create an image or idle of how we'd like to be (e.g. I have identical
reactions to each person. I have never been influence by race, color,
social status, or gender. ((or)) I have never slapped my child. and so
forth) -- we are denying ourselves the opportunity to understand that
behavior which we would rather edit but are (for whatever reason) unable to
edit... this is after all the basis of much of psychoanalysis. now, it's
possible that what is appropriate for psychoanaysis is not appropriate for
literature but I tend to think that they are both only aspects of the same
spirit of examination
when this thinking is applied to writing about criminals --
I think there are a number of very good reasons why we are drawn to do so.
one is instinctual protection. you try to understand because you'd like to
understand how to avoid the treat. This is perfectly natural. The only
thing that is questionable is our guilt over this basic survival instinct.
we need to be aware of crime because we need to protect ourselves from it.
We need to protect ourselves from becoming victim to it and we need to
protect ourselves from acting it. At the risk of generalizing, I'll say
that everyone has, at some moment, become aware of their power to be
dangerous (the topic of the poem we've been discussing). these are the
moments when big, though often undramatic, decisions are made. For
instance, you pass a fatal accident in the road.
You try not to look, but you look. And with looking you are deciding. I
should be more careful... that could have been me... I could have been the
one who made that mistake... It's just a thought that you're having but it's
a powerful honesty and it's a decision on the most fundamental level
the larger, looser point is that if our intuition draws our attention
somewhere there must be a reason. the assumption is that we are not random
beings.
Now for an entirely different argument. There is something even within what
I was saying previously that sets the capital "C" Criminal aside as an
"other." It dichotomizes. this is why we are surprised that the murders
mentioned previously in this thread were reading poetry. "They" are not
one of "Us"- what are they doing reading what we read. I think there is
much more continuity between perspectives (i.e. people) than we are willing
to allow ourselves to see. Every human act is an act of humanity. Whether
the act is further categorized as criminal or missionary almost misses the
point when the aim is to understand humanity. Or maybe by writing we wish
to influence or change humanity, not to "merely" understand. I think there
have been many influential books and I don't think it is Fascist to want to
help if we feel we see an aspect of society which needs help. The fascism
comes when we neglect to understand that societies, like people, change by
being heard and in order to be heard they must speak. And not just speak of
that which they are comfortable. Change does not come about by persuasion
but by understanding (this, I feel, is where much of the feminist movement
fails). Of course society does not have a singular voice to speak with.
And, in a way, it is such a non-linear entity that it probably shouldn't
have one. What is does have is its artists. It may be the function of the
writer to be society's voice- which is no compromise on being our own
individual voices as long as we are true to that which we are drawn to to.
If wešre not being true than we are not truly being ourselves and we are not
truly being a social voice. We must speak with compassion about that which
we would rather not speak at all. It may be the only way to escape the
dichotomies which block us from change.
As for the highlighting of American artists as particularly involved with
criminals, in my mind Genet is the writer whose embrace of the "criminal
world" was most enthusiastic. While Billy the Kid is certainly celebrated
by popular American culture I don't think any American has ever gone as far
as to claim that Billy the Kid holds that same sort of urgent, necessary
social position that Genet's criminals do.
Now that I've said all of this, if you're still reading, I'll add that,
despite the tone, I'm not sure about anything I've said. I hope this is the
right use of discussion, to work these things out.
Andrea
> From: "Jon Corelis" <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 09:25:00 PDT
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: "He's good-bad but he's not evil..."
>
>> From: Peter Howard <[log in to unmask]>
>
>> Curious. I can't recall any posting in the discussion that idolised
>> criminality, or came close to doing so.
>>
>
> Well, I may well be reading too much into this and won't press the
> point in reference to recent threads here. But since I've brought it
> up, I'll add that I think in general the phenomenon of
> intellectuals/academics/artists being fascinated by criminals is pretty
> well attested in America at least, and is a particularly late twentieth
> century characteristic. Norman Mailer is the classic case, and also the
> clearest example of the psychic mechanism behind this fascination. In
> America, to be an artist is not to be a man; it is to be a limp-wristed,
> daffodil-sniffing sissy. This admiration for hard guys is a reaction
> formation rooted in the American artist's necessarily uncertain
> masculinity. It's deeper than that though I think. Fundamentally this
> is part of the great American dichotomy, which I am concluding at last
> is the key to understanding this country: Nature=Man/Culture=Woman.
>
> ====
>
>
> There ain't no sanity clause.
>
> -- Chico Marx
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
> Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
> http://profiles.msn.com.
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
