Miker said:> Huh? Character flaw? Are you implying a
breach of personal responsibility? Surely you jest. This poor
man was obviously a victim of a corrupted political system.
Why, with the proper "social reform," one that nurtured him
and accepted him as he is without presuming to judge him, he
could have been a college professor of bioethics.
******************************************* I did not state
or imply that the political system is a priori "corrupt," but
it is certainly flawed by "I'm too busy" disinterest. Any
system, be it Roosevelt's USA or Czarist Russia, that does
not involve itself with the total education and welfare of
its peasants is going to produce brutal, angry peasants. To
my mind, this is the point of all of Thompson's and Cain's
novels. It is also Dostoyevsky's and Tolstoy's point. The
latter got their point across too late. It remains to be seen
whether Thompson and Cain had greater success. Surely you
don't believe that Dolly was born a murderer? How about Roy
Dillon in The Grifters? Dolly has only an average IQ, Roy has
a very high IQ but even this will not free him from the
influence of his environment. His mother, too, is a brilliant
woman, but becoming pregnant at 14 limits her opportunities
in that society. Yet she makes the most of those still open
to her. The pseudo-moral attitude of the society from which
these people emerge makes them what they are. Look at Pat in
Recoil: his initial crime is almost a mistake, an opportunity
he, as a kid, just couln't walk away from. He comes out of
prison eager to do right and get ahead. And he is brought
down by the powerful people who claim to want to help him but
are slaves to their own corruption, the very tools they used
to achieve the power of which they're so proud. These are all
vicious cycle narratives. There are no supernatural elements
that drive these people. The elements of their errors are in
their environment. Given the same opportuinites, you, too,
could either do nothing and live in poverty, or do as they do
and become criminals. You may argue, if you like, that
Thompson's implications are incorrect, but you may not argue
that he's not making those implications as the same points
come up in book after book. Only the character's abilities
change and that is the real sentence of hopelessness Thompson
serves on our social order.
Patrick King
--- Michael Robison <
miker_zspider@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dave Zeltserman wrote:
>
> This is where we have our disagreement--I
see
> Dillon's
> brutal nature due to a severe personality
flaw--as
> highlighted throughout the book of his being
a
> hardluck guy who keeps making the worse of
his
> situations.
>
> **********
> Huh? Character flaw? Are you implying a breach
of
> personal responsibility? Surely you jest.
This
> poor
> man was obviously a victim of a corrupted
political
> system. Why, with the proper "social reform,"
one
> that nurtured him and accepted him as he is
without
> presuming to judge him, he could have been a
college
> professor of bioethics.
>
> miker
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo!
Mail
> beta.
> http://new.mail.yahoo.com
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 28 Nov 2006 EST