![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
All the 20/20 hindsight revelations regarding Cho Seung-Hui, the shooter in the Virginia Tech massacre, are disturbing, especially for teachers. But... darkly violent and/or sexual writings by college students are common. Talk to any creative writing teacher, and I'll wager that they've had at least one student whose writings were so disturbing that they were worried -- even to the extent that Cho's teachers were worried. I have had them myself. Every other teacher I know has had them as well.
Yet none of them have led to anything like this. The truth is that the vast majority of such dark, violent writing is a sign of nothing of sognificance, and the very few that are more serious and indicate a genuinely troubled young person won't lead to mass murder. As a teacher, you try to do what you can. You try to help in any way you can, any way the student will let you. Usually, hopefully, it works, at least to some degree.
For that matter, I've published a fair amount of dark and violent fiction myself -- look at any of my "Puppetman" stories for the WILD CARDS series. But (believe it not) I'm not likely to go purchase a Glock 9mm and go on a rampage. Hell, I'm largely in the anti-gun camp.
The writing alone isn't a sign. You need to know not only the writing but the writer before you can make any kind of judgment. And even then, you might be wrong.
Dark, violent writing? Means very little, especially for teenagers and young adults who are filled with angst and are struggling to find themselves. What I fear is that we'll get a backlash reaction from this, with a public outcry and perhaps regulations about reporting 'violent' writing to authorities, or banning 'violent' literature and entertainment.
That would be a mistake.
It's easy, once something like this has happened, for everyone to look back and be the Perfect Psychologist and see all the flaws in the killer's personality. Everything becomes A Sign Of Trouble. We beat our chests and wail "Why didn't everyone see this before it happened?"
You can't see it because it's only there when you look backward. You can't see it because it's foolish to think that every little character twitch in someone you know means he's a mass murderer. You can't live your life in constant fear and suspicion... because if you do that, you've become them.
Yet none of them have led to anything like this. The truth is that the vast majority of such dark, violent writing is a sign of nothing of sognificance, and the very few that are more serious and indicate a genuinely troubled young person won't lead to mass murder. As a teacher, you try to do what you can. You try to help in any way you can, any way the student will let you. Usually, hopefully, it works, at least to some degree.
For that matter, I've published a fair amount of dark and violent fiction myself -- look at any of my "Puppetman" stories for the WILD CARDS series. But (believe it not) I'm not likely to go purchase a Glock 9mm and go on a rampage. Hell, I'm largely in the anti-gun camp.
The writing alone isn't a sign. You need to know not only the writing but the writer before you can make any kind of judgment. And even then, you might be wrong.
Dark, violent writing? Means very little, especially for teenagers and young adults who are filled with angst and are struggling to find themselves. What I fear is that we'll get a backlash reaction from this, with a public outcry and perhaps regulations about reporting 'violent' writing to authorities, or banning 'violent' literature and entertainment.
That would be a mistake.
It's easy, once something like this has happened, for everyone to look back and be the Perfect Psychologist and see all the flaws in the killer's personality. Everything becomes A Sign Of Trouble. We beat our chests and wail "Why didn't everyone see this before it happened?"
You can't see it because it's only there when you look backward. You can't see it because it's foolish to think that every little character twitch in someone you know means he's a mass murderer. You can't live your life in constant fear and suspicion... because if you do that, you've become them.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
*sigh*
and it makes me fearful too, of the backlash :-(
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
It's shallow thinking, but tempting because it seems easy and obvious and doable. Unfortunately, people are endlessly unique and are adept at presenting themselves as more 'normal' than they are. At the same time, others outside the person are just as good at rationalizing away errant behavior as eccentricity, as opposed to instability.
If there is anything I feel is hopeful about this incident, it is that Cho was recognized by his professors and other authorities as having some severe problems. The fact that they did not recognize the acute and explosive nature of his issues is tragic. I sincerely hope that he provides us all with the means of advancing one more step toward identifying these people before the next one goes boom. In something like this, every little bit counts.
From:
no subject
I don't think you really can identify those who are 'explosive' and likely to harm other. Those are the rarest types. I heard a psychologist being interviewed on NPR this morning who claims that we've no better than a 1 in 4 chance of identifying someone like Cho, nor can you force someone to undergo counseling or to take medication unless they're incarcerated. I'm not willing to toss four people in jail in order to stop one person from possibly, possibly doing harm to others at some future time and date.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Also, have you kept in touch with the ones who were turning out disturbingly violent work in order to confirm that none of them have ever been involved in violent crime or suffered psychological problems? For that matter, how do you know that they weren't suffering from psychological problems at the time you saw them in class? Medical confidentiality laws make it kind of impossible for you to know that, wouldn't you agree?
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Actually, the police can do nothing at all unless there's a direct threat. Doesn't matter how violent the writing is -- we have free speech here (which, by the way, I am fully in agreement with), and you can write stuff that's as violent in content as you want, but unless there's a direct threat to someone, there's nothing the police can or will do.
"It's only a problem if it's punitive. For example, if someone is expelled or punished based only on their writing..."
But it's not necessarily even a problem then. Most people, even certifiably mentally ill ones, don't go off on killing rampages. That's rare... thankfully.
"Also, have you kept in touch with the ones who were turning out disturbingly violent work in order to confirm that none of them have ever been involved in violent crime or suffered psychological problems? For that matter, how do you know that they weren't suffering from psychological problems at the time you saw them in class? Medical confidentiality laws make it kind of impossible for you to know that, wouldn't you agree?"
In some cases, yes I have kept in touch with those turning out violent work, because they'll take another class of mine. But not all, no. You're right, however, that privacy laws preclude a teacher from knowing if a student has been or is currently undergoing counseling or treatment. I know (because they've told me) that I've had bipolar students in class, or students being treated for depression. That's to be expected.
My point's not that the writing can't be symptomatic of trouble, only that a) the writing by itself tells you very little without also knowing (personally) the person doing the writing, and b) that you can't live your life being frightened or terrified of this kind of incident happening to you, because the odds are greatly in your favor that such will never happen to you. If I have a student who is a great enough problem that I feel he should be removed from class, then I want the administration to do that... but I don't want rules and regulations that I have to report every student who has violent content in his (or rarely, her) writing.
In my syllabus for every class, I have a statement that gratuitous violence is not permitted, and that the decision as to whether something is gratuitously violent is mine alone to make. That gives me leverage to pull a student's work if necessary. I've only have to invoke it a few times...
From:
no subject
By this, I meant responding to violent writings is only a problem if the response is punitive. There have been cases where students were expelled on the basis of a story they had written. In my opinion, that is never okay and only exacerbates any potential problem. If it is a concerned response, and no punishments are associated with the writing, then I think it is actually good to respond to what you see or think you see in the story. Whether to respond, and the level of response, should be at the discretion of the teacher. I think at heart, it is an issue of a gut feeling. There is no list of words or phrases that you could point to that would separate a monster from a regular person. And that works both ways. You can't make an assumption that a person is okay based on a casual relationship. You also can't assume they are sick from something they have written.
From:
no subject