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.
Anybody have an opinion about that angle of 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).]
[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).]
[This message has been edited by nitewriter (edited April 19, 2007).]
[This message has been edited by nitewriter (edited April 19, 2007).]
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).]
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.
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).]
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.)
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009977