Let’s Make It 1001
I know, a thousand other bloggers have commented on the Amanda Knox case, but I have two cents to throw in the penny jar.
To start off, I want to be very clear about this: I am not weighing in on her guilt or innocence. You may think that I am defending her, because I am going to bitch about something negative that people have been saying about her. Not so. I don’t know what she did or didn’t do and, for the purposes of this post, it doesn’t matter.
I’m here today to write about writing–and why I wish some people would lay off writing about writing.
Amanda Knox’s writing, to be specific, is what I’m tired of hearing about. You see, Knox was studying creative writing shortly before the death of her roommate, and she posted some of her work online. Since then, a variety of people (including, no surprise, British tabloids) have pointed out that Knox wrote about rape and murder, and have gone directly to the conclusion that she was a dark, twisted soul and obviously the murderer.
Ooookay. First of all, as Seattle newspaper the Stranger points out, if you know anything about creative writing courses, you know that they’re the home of badly-written stories about rape. It’s hardly surprising that Knox wrote one (and it does, going by the snippets I’ve seen, appear to be badly-written.)
Secondly, and most importantly, why is anyone talking about her fiction in the first place?
I can see getting interested in a piece of writing if it detailed a crime that was later committed–though this has happened to a few poor suckers who were proven to have had nothing to do with those crimes. Morgan Robertson could have told you something about being accidentally prophetic. It happens.
Aside from that, there are pieces of fiction that are of interest to psychologists because they show disordered thought, or a downward trend in someone’s cognitive ability. Writing of that sort might be relevant in a murder case.
Plain old fiction, though–regardless of genre–is not relevant.
As a writer of murder mysteries who has never murdered anyone, I can tell you from personal experience that committing murder, or seriously planning to do so, is not a prerequisite. Also, writing about a murder doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re describing something you secretly want to do. Murder mysteries are often morality plays.
Even in cases where the writer is engaging in wishful description, that doesn’t mean that said writer is going to go ahead and do that thing. Have you ever fantasized about doing damage to someone? Possibly in traffic? And how often have you done it?
Please remember the statue of limitations and the traceability of your IP address if you answer this question in the comments.
A lot of people write in the mystery, thriller and horror genres. Are we to assume all of these people are rapists and murderers? That is obviously ridiculous. It’s western writers who kill people. Okay, okay–I’m kidding. Put your six-shooters down.
You may say, “Oh, but this girl was convicted of murder and she wrote about murder.” What of it? You think it can’t be a coincidence? Of course it can.
Her favourite films, reputedly, are Shrek and the Princess Bride. Since we’re discussing her interests, tastes, and inner life, let’s drag those facts into the discussion. Not relevant, you say? Why not? Her tastes in film tell us as much, or as little, as the content of her short stories. That is, really, nothing. You know what there’s even more of than people who write horror, mysteries, and thrillers? People who read and watch those genres. And they’re not generally murderers either.
People who lack imagination say, “Who could think up such horrible things?” Gee, I don’t know–anyone who’s ever had a nightmare? And it’s worth remembering that the kind of people who can’t figure out how anyone can imagine a murder are usually equally baffled by how someone can imagine a trip to the zoo, or to the moon. They don’t understand imagination and creativity, and therefore assume writing fiction is the same as diarizing with some of the names changed.
Writers draw upon a number of influences and experiences when putting a story together, and reality can be either an inspiration or a direct source for written material, even in fiction. But it’s far from the only source.
Discussing this woman’s fiction as if it had any bearing on this case is asinine. It’s also pathetic. So let’s not do it anymore.
Current Bedside Reading: Ross Donaldson, The Lassa Ward: One Man’s Fight Against One of the World’s Deadliest Diseases
Commentary: It’s not a particularly good book. It’s not awful, just not particularly good. It’s always interesting, though, to read about Lassa, because it really is a terrifying disease and yet it has somehow managed to avoid the kind of attention paid to Ebola. Lassa has even killed someone in the US, which I don’t believe Ebola has done.
My iPod Is Singing: “I put two and two together, there, and decided that you’re pissing me off.”
Comments
Recovering STV Staff (Dec 07, 2009)
Her lawyers response to the charges against his client: Inconceivable!!
James (Dec 07, 2009)
All I have to say is that old scientist’s adage:
Correlation does not imply causation.
James Brown (Dec 08, 2009)
Correlation != causation is all well and good, but most people don’t care. “oh, they killed someone, and they wrote fiction about murders! They must be connected!”
This is because we’re pattern-seeking creatures, and where patterns don’t exist, we’ll make them up. What shape is that cloud, etc.
Our society in particular is also drawn to the morbid and the oddity. As an example, how many people know the name J.D. Salinger, as opposed to that other guy – you know, the one who actually killed Lenin? Never mind how many murders have happened (inluding of famous people) where there was not even remotely a literary connection. Never mind that it’s very clearly laid out in this case that it wasn’t the book, it was The Crazy. Highscools all over the world have the book on their study list because of it’s bizzare association with Lennon’s death.
Also, look at what a fuss is made over John Wilkes Booth being an actor. The intersection between the “acting” set and the “murdering” set is pretty slim, but we sure do make a big deal of that little slice.
James
James (Dec 09, 2009)
JD Salinger’s book is considered a great american novel, isn’t it? I don’t know what you’re talking about in regards to Lenin. I asked father wikipedia and got nothing so… yeah.
The line about correlation not being causation is easy. I will attempt go give a more in depth answer though.
We now live in an age of information overload. Online, our presences are recorded and searchable: our credit card information is available for a fee, anything we wrote online is conveniently available, and our bank records can be uncovered for the right amount of money. All this information is then available on the day after we snap and climb the bell tower. People with nothing better to talk about, that is to say the media on their 24 hour news insanity cycle, can then search out this information and ask “Why god why didn’t someone see this coming?”
It’s a trap though. As humans, we’re wired to search through our memories of someone’s prior actions to make judgments on their future behaviour. We all do it because that’s how we’ve adapted to cope in society where we meet lots of people. We guess at their future behaviour by their past actions. However the internet age and people like news hosts and opposition politicians are twisted by their own internal programming.
The CIA had huge data stores and even briefed the president about the possibility of 9/11. Tom Clancy basically wrote a guidebook for how to carry out the attacks. But after it happened, after all the rage and fury had subsided, people were still asking why they didn’t see it coming. A Gunman shoots up Fort Hood and afterwards all the interviews with his superiors and colleagues come out talking about how unfit he was to serve, but no one connected the dots.
This whole thing is just a trap. Instead of just allowing that life is not predictable in all cases, politicians created this tool. “The leader should have seen it coming!” This implies his negligence, despite the fact that connecting 4 words in the terabytes of information is difficult and may cause a false assumption. But then the trap spread past simple political manipulation and began to be used anytime something unpredictable and bad happened. In the case of Amanda Knox the implication is that through her words we should have uncovered her future deeds. G has weighed in on that one though.
What began as a social coping strategy has morphed into something else. It became a political tool, and perhaps a legitimate cause for criticism in some cases. Now, in the sea of information we live in it is a useless bleating against the winds of uncertainty. Because it is tied back to our evolved coping strategy it is given more creedance and legitimacy than it should be.
The important thing for me is that I would never want my record examined in that way. You could probably come up with theories that I have potential future behaviour committing all manners of sins. You could justify views that I was both a egomanical psychopath and a depressed spiritual wastrel at the same time. People are too complex to be judged in that way from a distance. However, if James B, who knows me quite well, were to find me writing depressing and suicidal facebook posts he would have a legitimate concern. But he knows me, and he knows where to draw that line. In Amanda Knox’s case no one, outside her circle of friends, family, and confidants, has that ability to judge. Maybe her writing was a clue. But most likely it was just what G has said: Stories from a young writer.
… wow… a full fledged rant, what the heck….
James
James Brown (Dec 09, 2009)
Gah! Me=stupid. Lennon, not Lenin. As in “, John”, killed by someone who obsessed over The Catcher in the Rye.
Aside from that, I think we’re agreeing. People are crazy.
James
Anne (Dec 09, 2009)
I often fantasize about injuring people. Sometimes very specific people in very specific ways. It is because I am able to fantasize so vividly that I do not follow through with said fantasies. Catharsis and all.
The toothbrush thing, though. That was real. And I refuse to apologize for it.
kenn (Dec 10, 2009)
>>>Her lawyers response to the charges against his client: Inconceivable!!
The judge’s response to the lawyer: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Recovering STV Staff (Dec 14, 2009)
Thank you Kenn – the rest of you left me hanging
James (Dec 14, 2009)
Sorry bout that, never did learn how to do a proper hangman’s noose.