28 Jun 12
Originally posted by karoly aczelBradys whole argument from what i can discern is partly based on the fact that the
Yes.
The book (s) of 'Chopper'. one Michael Brandon Reid has become a bestseller in Australia.
I've only seen the movie and I give it 5 stars. (And I dont hand out stars easily)
I have found many various people fascinated by "chopper" and his tales.
(The film notoriously mentions at the start that it is only a dramatization and narrative liberties have been taken. I say "crap"!! It's as close to the truth as you could get. )
media has a somewhat morbid fascination with serial killers, yet the killer himself
has no voice in popular culture. Added to this is the idea of state sanctioned killers,
in which certain types of murders are acceptable under certain circumstances
although what these are I cannot say, not having read the thing. He probably refers
to assassinations like the killing of Osama Bin Laden, a state sanctioned killing.
These types of killings are not only sanitised but celebrated in the popular media. If
you get the chance read the book, Shantaram, its a semi autobiographical, semi
fictional book about a convicted killer who escapes from a maximum security prison
in Australia and ends up in the slums of Mumbai. One of the most compelling books
i have ever read.
28 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI think it would mean we had taken morbid voyeurism to new level. I can see why certain professionals would be able to employ those kind of insights, but how is It going to help me with my chess rating?
Why? If the book were any good, wouldn't brisk sales indicate that more and more people have an understanding of why serial killers kill? Isn't that a positive outcome?
Also what about the risk of the enormity of these sorts of crimes becoming lessened by our familiarity with them?
Is there a risk that our natural tendency to empathise might be distorted into a relaxation of some of the taboo's around these sorts of crimes, I don't think this is a issue for the average reader but what about the borderline sociopath?
I am not advocating any kind of censorship of what someone can say, I think the most useful thing the perpetrators of these crimes can do for themselves and society is explain their motivations.
However I will also defend my right not to listen to the raw material, whilst keenly awaiting the results derived from it's analysis.
28 Jun 12
Originally posted by kevcvs57No one is claiming that being interested in serious non-chess related matters is going to have an effect on your chess rating. Your "morbid voyeurism" thing sounds interesting because you can brandish it condescendingly against people who take an interest in something you're not interested in, while at the same time purporting to be open minded and above the fray. 😵
I think it would mean we had taken morbid voyeurism to new level. I can see why certain professionals would be able to employ those kind of insights, but how is It going to help me with my chess rating?
28 Jun 12
Originally posted by kevcvs57What "taboo" are you personally likely to "relax" because of the "natural tendency" you say you have? Could you give me an example of one of these "taboos"?
Is there a risk that our natural tendency to empathise might be distorted into a relaxation of some of the taboo's around these sorts of crimes, I don't think this is a issue for the average reader but what about the borderline sociopath?.
You're against censorship, you say, so what do you propose to do to protect us preemptively from book reading "borderline sociopaths" ?
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
28 Jun 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat I'd like to know is, how does a thriller writer get to make that call? Shouldn't he be burning his own books first?
Scottish writer Ian Rankin has said of this book, that its the only book he would like to burn. The gates of Janus is an attempt to explain why serial killers, kill. Its written by Ian Brady, infamous in the UK for killing a number of children, with an accomplice, Myra Hindley, in the 1960's.
Richard
28 Jun 12
BBC Podcast
Thinking Allowed
Laurie Taylor explores the latest research into how society works and discusses current ideas on how we live today.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/ta#playepisode1
"Laurie Taylor talks to leading French sociologist Michel Wieviorka who thinks 'evil' can and should be subjected to sociological scrutiny, they are joined by Peter Young, Head of Criminology at the University of Kent. Also, sociologist, Judith Green discusses her study into the morality of cycling."
12 minutes in, talks about Brady, and about how sociology can address "evil".
Worth a listen.
28 Jun 12
Originally posted by FMFNot sure I get your point, but then it is always confusing when questions are answered by counter questions.
No one is claiming that being interested in serious non-chess related matters is going to have an effect on your chess rating. Your "morbid voyeurism" thing sounds interesting because you can brandish it condescendingly against people who take an interest in something you're not interested in, while at the same time purporting to be open minded and above the fray. 😵
My position can be summed up by:-
1) Of course people should be able to put their thoughts on paper, and anyone who feels they might either be entertained or enlightened has the right to read them.
2) I would hope that the readership was naturally (not by censorship) restricted to a sub group of readers who are interested in the real crime genre. I am sorry but the idea of people queuing up to have their account of why the author likes to rape, torture, and kill real people, signed by any given psychopath is to my mind a depressing image.
3) if the above mentioned scenario does come about, so be it, that is where we are.
Couple of questions Fmf, please answer rather than ask a another question.
Why are you so adamant that these sorts of accounts should be all but compulsory reading for the general public, it seems to me that anyone like myself who's position is read it if you want but it is not my cup of tea should not really have to justify that position.
Do you have a problem with someone reading an account of how and why somebody put an innocent victim to a horrible death for their own pleasure, as a piece of mainstream entertainment, and are you okay with some one making a financial gain from such an exercise.
28 Jun 12
Originally posted by FMFIt is not about 'evil' people, these crimes are committed by damaged people.
BBC Podcast
Thinking Allowed
Laurie Taylor explores the latest research into how society works and discusses current ideas on how we live today.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/ta#playepisode1
"Laurie Taylor talks to leading French sociologist Michel Wieviorka who thinks 'evil' can and should be subjected to sociological scrutiny, they are joined by ...[text shortened]... utes in, talks about Brady, and about how sociology can address "evil".
Worth a listen.
The important questions are how and when does this damage occur, is it possible to develop reliable diagnostic tools to recognise the damage before it presents itself in the form of a criminal act, and can anything be done to ameliorate the effects of the damage.
Perhaps these books should be sold with a copy of tapes made by Brady, and played in court during the 'moors murders' trial.
28 Jun 12
Originally posted by kevcvs57Compulsory reading? What a ridiculous straw man.
Why are you so adamant that these sorts of accounts should be all but compulsory reading for the general public...
Do you have a problem with someone reading an account of how and why somebody put an innocent victim to a horrible death for their own pleasure, as a piece of mainstream entertainment, and are you okay with some one making a financial gain from such an exercise.
People can write and read what they want, as long as they are not directly urging people to commit crimes and no one is coerced into reading it.
28 Jun 12
Originally posted by FMFFinally a straight answer, cheers.
Compulsory reading? What a ridiculous straw man.
[b]Do you have a problem with someone reading an account of how and why somebody put an innocent victim to a horrible death for their own pleasure, as a piece of mainstream entertainment, and are you okay with some one making a financial gain from such an exercise.
People can write and read what they wan ...[text shortened]... g as they are not directly urging people to commit crimes and no one is coerced into reading it.[/b]
Then what is the problem when my position is the same but simply pointing out that I would chose not to for reasons of personal taste, i.e I do not think I would be either entertained or enlightened.
And horror of horrors suggesting that if it attracted a large audience For it's entertainment value I would consider that to be a negative outcome.
28 Jun 12
Originally posted by kevcvs57Like I said to robbie, just don't read it if you don't like it.
Then what is the problem when my position is the same but simply pointing out that I would chose not to for reasons of personal taste, i.e I do not think I would be either entertained or enlightened.