that was miserable. what a beautiful, thrilling "true" book. the scenes of perry and dick on the highway were some of the most extraordinary -- trying to hitchhike, picking up the little boy and his grandpa and picking up the bottles with them.
as for "evil" in the book, reading it, i wonder if a lot of how perry and dick are painted is just how much they were willing to talk to capote. perry and capote got on great, probably, and dick and capote not so hot.
it's funny. the story's so specific, so exactingly told (invented), that i feel like i've got no way to bring it into the world i know. no metaphors present themselves. i don't know how to extrapolate from it. it's like capote brings one too deeply into the story to have any perspective. all i'm left to say is that the story's amazing, that the characters are heartbreaking and terrifying, and that capote writes crazy beautifully.
Monday, June 23, 2014
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
on evil
am reading lots of books about terrible things people have done. i'm interested in that sort of thing because i'm interested in pacifism, and pacifism as i understand it falls apart if violence and evil and that sort of thing exists in a vacuum, unprovoked. and so wherever people have done something awful, i'm trying to find the awfulness done to them that led to it.
justice these days is based on the idea of deterrence. there are lots of intrinsically bad people out there, goes the thinking, and if you don't threaten them with punishment, and punish them when they're bad, then they'll kill everyone. the contempt for so-called "appeasement" in the run-up to world war two is rooted in this stuff. it's why we "arm for peace."
i've got this pie in the sky idea that pacifist resistance destroys peoples' will to do bad things. that if many are willing to die, offering up no physical resistance, not even some righteous self defense, that violence and oppression of the baddies cannot but wilt and die, that the badness needs and feeds off of the threat of their violent deaths.
so this calls for an examination of somebody like adolf eichmann. i mean, he wasn't on the front lines of the war, but he did lots of terrible stuff as a bureaucrat. the guy believed he was doing the right thing. eichmann in jerusalem talks a lot about the collaborationist jewish councils, who were trying to minimize harm, but ultimately made things a lot worse.
justice these days is based on the idea of deterrence. there are lots of intrinsically bad people out there, goes the thinking, and if you don't threaten them with punishment, and punish them when they're bad, then they'll kill everyone. the contempt for so-called "appeasement" in the run-up to world war two is rooted in this stuff. it's why we "arm for peace."
i've got this pie in the sky idea that pacifist resistance destroys peoples' will to do bad things. that if many are willing to die, offering up no physical resistance, not even some righteous self defense, that violence and oppression of the baddies cannot but wilt and die, that the badness needs and feeds off of the threat of their violent deaths.
so this calls for an examination of somebody like adolf eichmann. i mean, he wasn't on the front lines of the war, but he did lots of terrible stuff as a bureaucrat. the guy believed he was doing the right thing. eichmann in jerusalem talks a lot about the collaborationist jewish councils, who were trying to minimize harm, but ultimately made things a lot worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)