Jim wrote:
"The difference is that William 'Andrew Macdonald' Pierce
wasn't just telling a story; he was trying to inspire
converts. McBain and Cornwell clearly didn't want readers
duplicating the acts of their villains. Pierce, just as
clearly, DID want his readers to duplicate the actions of his
'heroes.'
"And, just so there's no misunderstanding, I confidently make
these comment about THE TURNER DIARIES without having
actually read it."
So you're basing it on other people's opinions about the book
and its author, not the work itself. Not that it's likely
someone COULD read The Turner Diaries without knowing
Macdonald was actually Pierce, Pierce's role in the White
Power movement (since the book is not currently very readily
available other than though the National Alliance's website),
and the book's alleged role in the Oklahoma bombings (which
said website denies as liberal media hype meant to discredit
Pierce; of course, many of his followers say the same about
the Holocaust), but would a reader know from the text alone
that it was trying to inspire followers? Now, Pierce
certainly meant for his book to convert readers, but is the
preferred reading the guaranteed reading? In much the same
way as The Passion of the Christ, the book could confirm and
renew faith (to very different ends, of course; I'm not
trying to take a cheap shot), but also like The Passion, it's
a very different work if you consume it without that
pre-existing knowledge and faith.
From what I read of The Turner Diaries (before putting it
aside, mainly because it was not very well written; l knew
what I was getting into, was reading it out of curiosity
after having read about its influence), it is possible to
read it as nothing more than a somewhat dystopian vision of
the future. So is the morality in the work, or in the minds
of the writer and reader, and the contexts in which the
writing and reading occur? And is the intended message
necessarily the same as the received message?
Out of curiosity, Jim, what do you make of the Parker series
in this context? I know you're a fan, but how does it fit
into your moral schema? As I read the series, Stark presents
Parker's amoral/immoral actions -- robbing and stealing,
among other things -- without disapproval, without moral
judgement. Same with Marlowe's The Name of the Game Is
Death.
"Dimitri Gat's NEVSKY'S DEMON, by way of contrast, is not
immoral because it argues for a hateful ideology, but because
the author plagiarized JDMacD's THE DREADFUL LEMON SKY. And,
though I haven't read it, I have read NEVKSY'S RETURN, and
enjoyed it, so I suspect that NEVSKY'S DEMON is also a good
read, for all that it's the result of a theft."
By the way, Nevsky's Return plagiarized another Travis McGee
-- Empty Copper Sea, maybe?
Mark
ps -- do you know where I could get more information on the
serial killer who piggybacked Postmortem? I'm always
interested in crimes that were "caused" by books, music,
film, etc.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 24 Feb 2007 EST