Debating PWSBKTW
I had taken a few weeks off from writing my column, “People Who Should Be Killed This Week,” because my family recently moved to a new house. This past Friday was the first entry in a while. Yesterday I received an e-mail from Christopher Guerin, one of When Falls the Coliseum‘s contributors, with the following subject line: PWSBKTW. We have since corresponded several times about the column, and I am now posting our discussion below, since I think it will interest those of you who like the column, those of you who don’t, and those of you who don’t care about the column either way but might enjoy a conversation about writing. Feel free to weigh in on all of this.
Christopher Guerin:
Scott,
I’ve been biting my tongue about this for some time, hoping, recently, that it had gone away. This column is just plain wrong. Regardless of where you come down on capital punishment (I’m against it), you and I don’t kill people. I know, I get it. I understand the satire, the bitterness, the righteous anger, whatever, that “killing” in the context of your column is meant to convey. But, it just doesn’t work, and isn’t even vaguely funny. At best, at best, it’s in bad taste. I just can’t help believing that it’s not worthy of you, or the readers of WFTC.
Best regards,
Christopher
Scott Stein: Christopher,
We’ll just have to disagree.
This week’s column is not remotely funny. I knew it when I posted it. One of the column’s fans, Albert DiBartolomeo (a writer, friend, and colleague), has been writing to me enthusiastically after each one. All of the items you listed — the righteous anger, satire, etc. — do work for him. We’ve corresponded about it each time. He thinks they’re funny in spots, sad in spots, etc., and overall cathartic to read. He hasn’t thought they were in bad taste. He did think this week’s wasn’t funny (he thought the previous ones have been) but was sad and angering. “I agree” is what his first response was this time. And he is against capital punishment. Albert is just one reader, of course, though one whose sensibility as a reader and writer I put some stock in, but you are just one reader as well. I believe that plenty of people would share your view — a few have expressed their distaste for past columns. And some readers have expressed their enthusiasm, including some others whose opinions I value. I don’t expect it to work for everyone, of course. I expect it to really not work for some people. Clearly, it really doesn’t work for you. I am okay with that. Some won’t get it. Some will get it and still not like it, as in your case, apparently. That’s okay.
It’s nice of you to say it’s not worthy of me — I think it expresses that you think I have some worth, which I take as a compliment, earned or not — but I think, when it works (and knowing that it will not work for you even when it does work), it is worthy of me. It’s a side of me — outrage at violence and injustice — that isn’t all of me, or most of me, but is true of me. If you think it’s bad taste (at best), you’d probably think the same of my second novel, Mean Martin Manning. It could easily be seen as in bad taste in spots, particularly for those who don’t view my satirical targets the way I do, or want to just get along. It’s possible I’m not as sophisticated or highbrow as you might think I am. I happen to see no bad taste in saying that the people I discuss in my column should be killed. I’ve had enough responses from readers — many who are against capital punishment — to believe that many share the sentiment. Some might see that sentiment as a base, primitive side of people. I don’t.
As for capital punishment itself, I address that in the comments section of the first column. The column is not about capital punishment. I do not call for the government to kill anyone. Feel free to see “should” as indicating the wish for divine justice, a lightning bolt, or whatever. But even so, I expect the column will continue not to work for you, which is okay. You don’t have to read it, of course.
I do appreciate your feedback and your thinking enough of WFTC to look out for its interests. I wouldn’t have written so much in response to you if I didn’t value your opinion even if I disagree (not with your taste or response as a reader, which is yours and not subject to agreement or disagreement) that the column is not worthy of me, WFTC or its readers. Whether or for how long or regularly I will be writing the column will depend on how long I continue to want to.
Best,
Scott
CG: Scott,
Fair enough. But, just a few further thoughts. For me, it’s mostly a matter of the use of language and the effectiveness of argument. A good, effective polemic takes the position of the prosecuting attorney, and sometimes even the judge. But it doesn’t take the position of the jury, and never of the executioner. That’s the whole purpose of language meant to persuade — to give the reader the room to make his/her own mind up. When you go this far, you impose your pov, rather than propose it. Thus, only people who already completely agree with you will agree with you.
Finally, it’s a matter of what you’re appealing to. I think there has to be a much better, more effective and powerful way to make your underlying point (one I whole-heartedly agree with), that appeals to the best, rather than to the worst in people. I’ve been angry about a great many things in my life, but it has never been my anger, but rather my judgment that has allowed me to cope with or correct the things I disagree with.
Cheers,
Christopher
SS: Christopher,
But I am not trying to persuade. I’m not trying to convince readers of anything. You may be missing the column’s intent and the effect on those readers who do enjoy the column. It is intended for people who do agree already. They know I’m preaching to the choir and they know they’re in the choir. The column is venting, catharsis, shared outrage. It is not persuasion. Nothing subtle is intended, nor desired.
Imposing a pov, rather than proposing it, is the point, is intended. I don’t want to give the reader room to make up his own mind. The effect is achieved by imposition. Those who appreciate the column appreciate that aggression and certainty, being the jury and not the prosecutor. They can feel while reading it that there is some sense of justice, someone judging these acts (not just me but themselves) as harshly as deserved. That’s the catharsis. They think the same thing, but don’t usually give it voice because people aren’t supposed to, because it’s in bad taste, or supposedly appeals to the worst in us. I do give it voice, and they read it and nod their heads.
Those who disagree, or are turned off by the approach, object, and call me names in the comments section. I accept that as a consequence of the column’s strategy. I think it makes for fun comments sections. And I think it says something that people seem more upset in some cases at what I say than at the acts the people I discuss have committed. That squeamishness at saying what many of us are thinking, that barrier that somehow makes it inappropriate to say that such and such doesn’t deserve to live for what he did, is part of what I am targeting. So it is fine that some people are upset at what I’ve written, or call me names.
And you and I probably have a philosophical divide not likely to be bridged, because I don’t think I am appealing to the worst in people. I think there is something healthy about anger directed at the sort of behavior I discuss in the column. I think the constraint on that anger, the managing of it, the explaining of the behavior one way or another, etc., is not necessarily good for society. But again, I am not trying to solve a problem — it is hardly going to be solved (the-evil-that-men-do part), though maybe if there were more anger an aspect could be solved (the-laws-that-allow-murderers-to-go-free part). But that is not why I write it or why some people like it. The anger, mixed with the mockery, has often helped me cope with injustice. Particularly when it is an injustice that is not likely to be corrected. Human evil and violence are not going to be corrected. (True, anger that goes on too long is usually not good, but the catharsis of writing it and sharing it lets it out.)
Anyway, I guess my point is that I have given this a lot of thought and not entered into it lightly. And the column is not the sum of what I do as a writer or want to do, but for now is a part of it. I like to work in different genres, and have often used rage or at least outrage in my writing and it has worked for me.
Scott
CG: Scott,
I’m not sure catharsis is the word. It means a release from pent-up emotion. Doesn’t your column excite emotion, stir people up? And to what purpose?
So, you’re intending this for like-minded people. But, ask yourself, as the editor of group blog hoping to grow and grow, are the people this column appeals to, who agree with your point already, who enjoy the emotion you intend to stir up, a majority or, as I suspect, a small minority of your potential readers?
Christopher
SS: Christopher,
It’s been a fruitful discussion. I’ll answer your last points and then post this so our readers can have their say.
I think catharsis is the word. I believe that people watch the local evening news, and read CNN.com, etc., and, like me, encounter stories every day detailing violence and crime and innocent victims. They encounter stories of injustice and repeat offenders and all of that. I think that the emotions are pent up already before they get to my column, beneath the surface but there. I bring up specific stories, stir people perhaps about a particular outrage, but I am not introducing readers to the injustice in the world. If it stirs them up without a release, that’s fine, too. They’re not going to go off and become vigilantes. But more people outraged at injustice is okay with me.
I don’t believe the column appeals to a small minority of readers, as you say. I guess that at least as many react the way I want them to as react the way you do. I have no reason to think you are representative. But plenty of people are turned off by South Park, offended, all that. That still leaves many who like it. And my novel wasn’t for everyone, but most who read it, like it. I expect that many of WFTC’s columns don’t appeal to everyone. Your own column, for example, about great books, is of interest to people who like great books. Sadly, that is not everyone. But as long as it finds its audience, that’s fine. Other WFTC columns are of interest to people who like reality television, or are interested in parenting. And so on. If the column is good, it will find its readers. It has never been my goal as a writer or editor to reach everyone with everything.
Tweet
Print This Post
Scott, I appreciate PWSBKTW. I can’t say I enjoy it, but I appreciate it. In fact, I preferred it back when I thought you were advocating that they be killed this week, but you clarified that in a conversation with Olga a few issues back, and I’ll deal with the column as you intended it.
I oppose the death penalty on the grounds of an imperfect justice system, and not because of any belief that a person could never deserve to be killed. Given that some people do deserve it, I see nothing wrong with your making note of them and their misdeeds. I think Christopher makes some compelling points, but for me part of what makes the column work is that it’s written by Scott Stein at WFTC, and not by some extremist with a balaclava and assault rifles.
I appreciate your posting the conversation. I’m looking forward to seeing some other opinions on this.
Jason, I should clarify my clarification to Olga that you refer to. I am saying they should be killed this week, but don’t think we need to get caught up in logistics of how that’s possible since it is published on Fridays. “This week” works two ways. These are the selections “this week,” and they should be killed “this week.” You can go back to appreciating it as originally interpreted.
I don’t know how this suddenly became all about me, but based on the clarification of the clarification and on the fact that I just plowed through the whole Oz oeuvre, which makes me something of an expert on death penalty and scumbags this week, I’d say if we go with the bolt-of-lightning proposition, people who should be killed this week could be not only nominated but also killed this week, the Friday slot notwithstanding. As long as it’s by a bolt of lightning or some other kind of a divine accident. (Although I now know many other creative ways of getting rid of somebody, but those sometimes can take weeks of plotting.)
I think the 2 of you should be killed this week for debating such semantic minutia 3 or 4 responses deep. Seriously I stopped reading after the 2nd response. Anyhow this blog/intermag is obviously very tongue and cheek, and I doubt anyone could infer the writers want to really hang the protagonists. For cases like the last guy — yeah maybe you do want to really kill him, and in that case the context of this specific story would make that stronger sentiment clear. However, the readers are the ultimate judges, and if comments pour in, declaring poor taste, well, maybe you can change it to “people who should be neutered this week.” I mean that way we don’t have to kill anybody, yet we can pretend to retard their evolution of poor decisions and deliquent behavior. Everyone wins.
I feel that, since my name was mentioned as a fan of Scott’s column, I should weigh in here, first by objecting a little to the use of the word “fan.”
I really like Scott’s writing (in everything I’ve read), and I think he’s one of the funniest people I know. I admire his work and his smarts and his comic sense [ok, enough of that], but “fan” makes me sound like a groupie and, perhaps, like one of the crazy people surrounding the men and women who are stoning to death one of the child molesters Scott drags into the light.
Anyway, Rob’s comment made me laugh. (Sorry, Rob, that the comments are going into five now.) Chris, you have terrific points, but so does Scott. And, as such, I can’t really add anything of substance here. (So don’t, Rob is likely saying.)
But I do want to say why I admire the column and why I always send Scott a note after reading his latest. From the get go, I always took the column in the same vein as Swift’s “A Modest Proposal,” which is the one where he makes a case for killing and eating poor children–if I remember correctly–as a way to solve over-crowding in the (Irish?) slums of Swift’s time. It’s outrageous, of course, and few people would even consider it, but the essay forces you to consider at least the logic of it.
No, I never thought Scott would actually like to see the kind of retributive justice–if we must put a name to it–suggested in his columns made real. Neither would I, as a “fan,” want to see it. But what I responded to and still expect to respond to–as there seems to be no shortage of material for Scott to exploit–is the outrageous nature of the circumstances he describes. In my responses to him, I’ve said he manages to make me equally sad and enraged, and, if he’s really cooking, he also makes me laugh.
I’ve always taken him to mean that people should be killed because nothing else would bring a neat end to the outrages he relates when clearly a neat end would be best. In other words, if people could simply be killed, then we wouldn’t have to live with the fact that killers and molesters and all kinds of bottom dwellers get to live their lives to a natural end because, and this is the point, “the system” allows it for its susceptibility to exploitation.
What Scott is saying in the colums, I think, is that there is simply no justification for the heinous crimes committed by the people he’s uncovered and no way, in a just world, that they should receive the lenient punishments they do. Capital punishment is no solution, violence responding to violence is no solution, but, come on, Scott says, if you’re not going to lock up someone who sells children or who molests them and throw away the key, then they should be killed.
As someone who strongly encouraged this column, I feel as though it’s my duty to comment and back Scott up on this one. I am opposed to the death penalty as well. Not because I don’t believe in killing someone who is a child rapist or murderer, but because like Jason, I feel as though our justice system is simply not sound, imperfect is putting it lightly. I also have to agree that the two of you should be killed this week for delving this deep into a column that is clearly meant to serve as a ranting ground for people who are sick to their stomachs with the overwhelming amount of injustice in this world. I think Rob is onto something too. Maybe he can start a column about people who should be neutered this week. It wouldn’t necessarily have to center around evil people, but rather stupid people who clearly should not be permitted to procreate. I can think of several off hand.
As Scott’s publisher, I enthusiastically second and further encourage any comparisons and parallels between him and Swift.
I am an admirer of Mean Martin Manning, but to me PWSBKTW is different. I wish I could view it as Swiftian, but every week it makes me think of the people who kill abortion doctors. It’s not Scott’s fault, but you can’t use a concept ironically that is actually practiced in out society. My husband likes to fly the flag on holidays because he says he doesn’t want to let the conservatives to take it away from him. I think that works, but I’m afraid that the extremists have taken the irony from this piece of social commentary, for me at least. Thanks so much for raising the issue. I take some comfort from the discussion.
Eva, I don’t view PWSBKTW as Swiftian if Swiftian is being used to only mean ironic. Albert mentions “A Modest Proposal,” but that work clearly was making fun of its own proposal. The proposal is ludicrous, but is written with logic and seriousness to some degree. That juxtaposition causes the humor and the commentary. Of course, Swift did not want his readers to be in favor of eating children.
My purpose is different. I am not using the concept ironically or making fun of those in favor of executing criminals. Jaclyn has it right. It’s a ranting ground. I don’t get Christopher’s main objection, the distaste, the moral problem, with the column. My sensibility just doesn’t recognize it.
I think many people hear about some outrage — some terrible act by a child rapist or sadistic murderer — and think or even say things like, “Someone should kill him” or, “They should hang that guy in the public square,” or something more torturous and graphic. Many may not believe it and most certainly wouldn’t act on it, but they say it. Maybe you never say or even think these things, but lots of people do. I guess my column is the equivalent — an emotional reaction, a burst of aggression (with some sarcasm and maybe a bit of cleverness when I manage it), aimed at people we all agree have done horrible things.
I have enjoyed every edition of PWSBKTW. I am not a violent person in any way. I definitely have an appreciation for Scott’s sense of humor, as well as his sense of the ridiculous. I think that’s key here.
The outrage, however is real. When I read the details of these horrific crimes, I find it hard to express what kind of justice would satisfy me. Would it be less offensive to the sensitive if the column were called “People I Wish Would Die This Week,” rather than the name it has? Maybe that would allay the concerns about appearing to advocate vigilante justice.
I, however, like the name it has.
Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.
I love this column. I am so glad to have found this site. I think everyone needs to stop being so damn sensitive! The title of the column is not offensive, the actions of the people Scott writes about is! Pushing needles into a 2 year old boy?…sorry he SHOULD BE KILLED.