Violence in the Media

I completely don't remember who the author was that I was referring to.  It could've been one of those you mentioned.  I remember your blog about Eisler because that was one of the first discussions I had with you.  I bet a discussion about Colin Wilson would be quite enlightening.  Did Wilson ever write about violence in the news or entertainment media?

I'd been meaning to ask you about your views (or whatever) of violence for quite some time.  It was because of the God Pod discussion that it was on my mind and it seemed an opportune moment with your response to Meenkashi.

Its interesting our different experience about "accuracy".  Like beauty, its certainly in the eyes of the beholder which is partly what I included as an aspect of my standard.  What others consider "accurate" might feel glamorized violence to me.  And what might seem "accurate" to me might seem unrealistic to your own sense of "reality".

I guess I relate "accuracy" to my ideals of truth and honesty, but I don't exactly know what that relation might be.  I was raised with parents that drilled those ideals into me at a very young age (I lied a lot as a kid and I was punished a lot... not violently by the way). 

As for my personal inclinations, I think "accuracy" also relates to my sense of curiosity, my desire to know, to absolutely know with open eyes and if possible open heart.... even if that means to know violence and suffering.  Based on personal experience (and maybe in slight revolt to being raised with New Age ideals of Light and Love), I've been long attracted to the mystic tradition of the Dark Night of the Soul.

From discussions with Nicole, I've become very clear about how that which feels inspiring to me may not feel inspiring to others.  I'm "inspired" by what may seem like dark visions of reality.  I'm attracted to tragic romances, ego disintegration, and various other forms of the purifying fire of suffering. 

Apparently, I'm a spiritual masochist. 

My friend has experienced depression as I have.  Our experiences are different and so are our responses.  He is a fighter, and I am not.  I don't fight suffering.  I have found only one thing works for me.  When I see suffering coming for me, I leap into the mouth of the dragon. 

Its a lesson I learned from childhood.   In my early dreams, I was often being chased by monsters.  I could never escape them.  In fact, the more I tried to escape the stronger their hold was.  I somehow discovered that reverse psychology works on monsters.  Monsters can't accept willing sacrifices or at least mine couldn't. 

I guess I took this lesson with me into adulthood.  I've found the only way for me to get out of despair is to dive down to rock bottom.  I always manage to resurface... so far.

I don't know if all that is a healthy attitude, but its my sense of meaning and purpose in life.  It has gotten me this far.  It must be worth something.

Considering what you said, I wonder if I'm any less sensitive than you are.  I'm very sensitive and maybe that is why I'm not a fighter.  I'm not the tough guy who will fight the monster until either its death or mine.  I'm the rabbit that freezes until seen and then I run for dear life.  If caught, I give up immediately.  I resist not evil, so to speak.

So, my attitude isn't one of strength.  Its one of necessity.  Its a survival instinct.  I've learned to face suffering only because I haven't figured out how to escape it.  If I knew the secret to escaping suffering, I'd be gone in an instant.  Every rabbit for himself.  lol

In terms of movies, when I experience the suffering of characters I'm experiencing my own suffering.  Even if I didn't watch the movie, my own suffering would still be there.  At least a movie will give a story to that suffering, lift me for a moment out of my own private torment.  Sometimes movies will even give me a greater vision of suffering... such as A Scanner Darkly, What Dreams May Come, The Fountain, Ordinary People, etc.

Both of us have our respective visceral reactions.

Marmalade


It is good to try to understand the perspective of others.  I'm not sure what the distinction between the views because I don't think its precisely about sensitivity but that does play a part. 

Even within my own standards, I draw the line differently for different types of movies.  Braveheart is very violent and its on the edge of what I can handle, but I wouldn't have enjoyed it if the story was different.  That same degree of violence in a typical horror movie wouldn't be something I'd want to watch. 

If I have a criticism of Braveheart, its that its not realistic enough.  By this I mean that I consider it a moral responsibility of an artist to portray the horror of war with a high degree of accuracy (beyond mere physical realism) or not at all. Braveheart falls too far on the side of romanticizing war through the love of a woman and love of a nation.  The movie doesn't show the horrific aftermath of such fighting and the effect it has on a society.  I forgive it because the story is an interesting piece of history.

Also, "accuracy" must include authenticity which is even harder to define.  A movie could portray violence both physically and psychollogically "accurate", and still not be authentic.  Its easy to glorify violence and romanticize suffering, and its almost impossible to not do so.  Even movies that try to have redemptive visions at their core can never real show the reality of violence as its actually experienced.

In certain ways, I've become more sensitive with age.  This leads me to have higher standards I guess or makes me feel more critical of artists who use violence lightly.  I really believe that artists are responsible for what influence they have on people.  Anyone who doesn't understand that responsibility shouldn't be making art.

On the other hand, I'm strongly attracted to "authentic" visions of the dark.  This attraction is part and parcel with my sensitivity, but its much deeper, even more visceral.  If I sense there may be a truth to be found, I simply can't help myself in looking for it no matter where that leads me.  Its a compulsion.

The same friend I referred to before might be more tolerant of violence than I am in certain ways, but he doesn't have this compulsion of mine.  There is an author (Ligotti) who has written a book about the philosophy of horror.  So far only an excerpt of it is available.  Ligotti has tremendous insight and very dark.  Its not a matter of whether I totally agree with Ligotti or if it makes me happy.  He has a corner of the "truth".  In reading Ligotti, I can sense this "truth" and I have no choice but to try to understand it.

This is one of my friend's favorite fiction writers, but he has "healthy" fear of his nonfiction writing.  He knows that reading it would effect him which to me is the whole point.  He hasn't even fully read the excerpt and considers the book to be a dangerous book (at least for himself).  It is as all "truth" is dangerous.  When we open ourselves to something that can touch us deeply, we risk being changed.

Someone could say that its also important to consider what we are being changed towards.  True.  But I would say we don't ever know where anything leads.  All that I know is to follow my personal sense of "authenticity".  As such, my standards and my interpretations of them only apply for me.  I can't explain my sense of "authenticity".

Marmalade