Cho Seung-Hui and the rest of the world

I'm having a hard time comprehending the descriptions of Cho Seung-Hui's writing. (sample.) I read the plays that are out on the internet, and while they are certainly bizarre, I feel like they are really being misconstrued. They are being depicted as a example of lunatic incarnate.

Now, I'm not defending them as having literary value. I do think that if they were actually presented to a class, it obviously represents a loud cry for help. But I have this weird feeling like they are going to be intentionally printed out just so they can be burned at the stake.

Look at the first comment on the blog where the plays were posted. The person says "It reads and sounds like something a 9th grader might write." That's exactly what I thought! It sounds like a pre-pubescent mallrat with a bowl cut calling every person who passes "dumbass" or "a fag" or some other such stupid meaningless insult. Three 17 year-old characters screaming "ass-raper" and "mutha----er"? That's not "horrible, inconceivable macabre violence." It's just idiotic.

Then the poster is chastised by others for not realizing "why they are posted". The plays MUST be recognized as "written about his twisted mind." Others mention: "How was he not kicked out of school for this? My alma mater would not have permitted it." Who would even accept anyone with that writing ability? That's my question. Any fan of horror films could come up with material far worse. What worries me is how this could be authored by a supposedly socially and psychologically competent adult.

My first thought when I read the plays is that they were fakes. However, articles quote various teachers and students regarding the content, so I assume they were actually presented to be workshopped in an english class. It seems obvious that the guy had some issues, if he would present these to a college class. But what was he even doing there? Why didn't people realize that there might be something behind his creepy, bizarre behavior other than a vague, uncomfortable threat? Any person can think up a violent fantasy. Cho Seung-Hui doesn't have shit on Burroughs, Steven King, or even CSI's writers. But who presents work like this to a college class as if it was actually something of substance? I think, only someone who either doesn't care, or someone so warped emotionally and socially as to have no sense of connection with outside reality.

I think that people should probably be asking more questions about his personality and life than simply showing this as another piece of evidence that he was simply a psychopath. Because what does that mean? We already know he shot 33 people, including himself. I think we know that he was crazy, the massacre itself is a pretty horrible piece of evidence to that end. But why? Is it simply that he was just one of those 'evil, dangerous, stalker-criminals' that are lurking all over the place, primed to explode? Or was it more complicated than that? Unfortunately, we'll probably never know now.

Oh yeah. In other news, 157 people were killed in Baghdad (don't you know there's a war on?) and abortion is a bit more illegal that it was before. [update: as of 12pm thursday, it was up to 183 killed.]

Another day in the world, eh...

1 comment:

Broshaq said...

I read one of them and had the same reaction you did. The plays managed to be bizarre and totally idiotic all at once. Also, people are acting like the pedophilia thing is supposed to be taken seriously; the way the play reads, the dude is not a pedophile at all, his stepson is just a total dick.