Quote:
Originally Posted by FireFly
While I agree that in most cases writing about violence and acting out on those fantasies are two completely seperate issues, when you also take this into consideration:
it changes things. For a person who can communicate well with others, you get a better sense of their level of dimentia during normal conversation. For someone who cannot communicate with others very well, who isolates himself and has trouble fitting in, you often use the only tools you have available as the ones to help you cry for help. However, a person also needs to be receptive to that help, and it appears the killer in this case, wasn't. He was offered help. His prof spoke with him a number of times. However, you can't force a person to receive help. So he cried out for help, was offered it, and refused it. Hindsight is 20/20, and no one probably understood just the kind of help this kid needed, however, it's not like his work was ignored.
|
I with you on that. My only point was that you can't look at his plays in isolation and make the sane/insane detemination.
You are totally correct about hindsight and the "lead a horse to water but cannot make him drink" thought.
__________________
"The problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence."
—Bill Clinton
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance--it is the illusion of knowledge."
—Daniel J. Boorstin, historian, former Librarian of Congress
"But the Senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity"
—WKRP in Cincinatti
|