Talk about a creepy close call.
Holy shit. That must have been a mindfuck. I loved the way that the writer was able to explore the event and so honestly. I've always found it weird that in movies and even in cartoons, many people are presented with this bumbling, inept portrayal of evil, of people who wish to harm others, but somehow just don't quite cut it, while the "good" characters and heroes are always smarter than the bad guys, but never really that smart, even if they are supposed to be geniuses. Furthermore, the baddies are rarely ever charismatic, unless it's in a cartoonishly evil way. I don't know that I've ever encountered a truly evil person in my life, though I have run into people doing really, really ugly things, generally triggered by some kind of emotional event, but from what I've read about serial killers, they generally seem to be very charismatic and very intelligent people who are quite capable in a number of ways. I know that sociopaths are often characterized as incapable of feeling emotion and yet, charisma functions largely on empathy. I read recently that the more empathetic someone is, the more able they are likely to be able to excel at manipulating people. I'm not drawing any conclusions, just putting things within a frame. Anyway, it's interesting to think about.
It's a function of stereotyping and shorthand. Either you have a tale "against evil" or you have a tale of "finding evil." Rarely is there time for both. if the former, the antagonist must be demonstrated early and often. If the latter, the "what is evil" question is the structure of the film. Consider THE USUAL SUSPECTS. The other thing is "evil" isn't exactly universal. In most stories, "evil" is "evil to YOU." Very few people aren't heroes in their own minds; that includes Pol Pot, Hitler, Genghis Khan, you name it. In order to understand the true power of righteousness one need only study the evolution of religion. I have encountered true, unadulterated evil exactly once, and I count among my high school acquaintances two murderers. By the time I knew how evil the guy was, he was out the door… and all I can point to as way as an indicator is a vaguely uncalibrated sense of right and wrong. We were sitting down to dinner with two friends. She went to school with my wife; he fell in love with her in the Navy. She had a drink or two and started bitching about psychiatry and how they knew nothing; after all, two different shrinks had accused her of "sociopathic tendencies" so what did they know and in our heads something went click and it all made sense. It's not that she didn't feel emotion. It's not that she didn't have empathy. It's just that it didn't affect her. Her emotions were primarily about her and her empathy was in terms of her. Stephen King described a sociopath in It in a very memorable way; there's a kid that just doesn't believe anyone else in the world is real. She was a lot like that. It's not that we were all there for her entertainment, it's that we just didn't count.I've always found it weird that in movies and even in cartoons, many people are presented with this bumbling, inept portrayal of evil, of people who wish to harm others, but somehow just don't quite cut it, while the "good" characters and heroes are always smarter than the bad guys, but never really that smart, even if they are supposed to be geniuses.
I don't know that I've ever encountered a truly evil person in my life, though I have run into people doing really, really ugly things, generally triggered by some kind of emotional event, but from what I've read about serial killers, they generally seem to be very charismatic and very intelligent people who are quite capable in a number of ways.
I know that sociopaths are often characterized as incapable of feeling emotion and yet, charisma functions largely on empathy.
In your mind, is this shorthand a function of audience expectation or something else? Also, under what circumstances would that shorthand change? When it's broken down like that, I see what you mean about the two kinds of evil tales. That makes sense in regard to this article. I've been wondering why the killer would bother to have a partner, since it seemed like his sexual needs were met and fed by his "activities" and being a known homosexual with a partner doesn't seem like it would throw people off of thinking he was out seducing marines, especially given the time period.It's a function of stereotyping and shorthand. Either you have a tale "against evil" or you have a tale of "finding evil." Rarely is there time for both. if the former, the antagonist must be demonstrated early and often. If the latter, the "what is evil" question is the structure of the film. Consider THE USUAL SUSPECTS.
It's not that she didn't feel emotion. It's not that she didn't have empathy. It's just that it didn't affect her. Her emotions were primarily about her and her empathy was in terms of her. Stephen King described a sociopath in It in a very memorable way; there's a kid that just doesn't believe anyone else in the world is real.
She was a lot like that. It's not that we were all there for her entertainment, it's that we just didn't count.
It's a function of psychological narrative. We want to know who the good guys and bad guys are in Syria. We want to know who the good guys and bad guys are in Congress. We want to know who the good guys and bad guys are on Wall Street. All of these narratives are necessarily self-serving; Alawites love their children, too. The narrative might change in non-fiction. It still boils down to two choices: 'this is the bad guy" or "who is the bad guy." "kink" isn't an either/or proposition. People with lovers often adore their spouses. I had a close encounter with a known NM serial killer - my mom picked him up hitch hiking and another friend - whom I met years later - almost went back to his trailer. I thought it was this guy but the MO is wrong. Either way - the guy my mom ran across had a girlfriend who helped him; the Toy Box killer was helped out by girlfriends and his daughter.In your mind, is this shorthand a function of audience expectation or something else? Also, under what circumstances would that shorthand change?
I've been wondering why the killer would bother to have a partner, since it seemed like his sexual needs were met and fed by his "activities" and being a known homosexual with a partner doesn't seem like it would throw people off of thinking he was out seducing marines, especially given the time period.
Oh, I'm not complaining, just remarking on it. I am incredibly glad that the world is so full of surprise, even if I do sometimes wish for more clarity in certain aspects of life. I will say that it bums me out that some people get so overwhelmed by it that they get locked into a way of living and perceiving, but on the whole, yeah I agree that it is better.
Vaguely relevant:
When I was growing up, one of the neighbor kids was sadistic, in the literal sense. It literally gave him pleasure to see others in pain. You could watch a movie with him, and he'd laugh any time anyone got hurt. Horrific stuff, like Saving Private Ryan. It wasn't just that. It's hard to describe, but it was hard to miss if you spent a little time with him. He'd take any excuse to hit anyone. But it wasn't about bullying. You could tell he did it because he enjoyed causing pain. People talk about power. "Rape is about power," serial killers want to feel the power over their victims, etc. Not this guy. Observing and inflicting suffering on other living things gave him pleasure. I don't think it was anything more complex than that. My best guess is that some wires were crossed in his brain. I've met some crazy rednecks with guns, and I've met a whole lot of people whose only morality is their own self-interest. But I've never met anyone else like him. I don't know that he ever killed anyone, but he definitely has the capacity. It was truly frightening. I'm honestly surprised his younger brother didn't disappear, or have an "accident." You know how you ask kids what they want to be when they grow up? He wanted to be an Army Sniper. I don't keep in touch, but I heard he failed the physical exam. Probably a bad thing. Better a sniper than a serial killer, right? The article is about a spider-and-the-fly kind of serial killer. This guy was clever, but not the same kind of emotional genius. He seemed more like the slip-something-in-your-drink kind. But his dictionary-sadism was still frightening beyond all reason to witness. It still creeps me out thinking he's out there.
Amazing story and so well written. It is like a journal - the author is writing to release and relive and move on. Catharsis is the word, I believe, which results in an intriguing and voyeuristic read. Thanks for sharing.