We woke this morning to the news of the shooting in Aurora, CO and reeled in horror. We read the witness testimonies with tears in our eyes, unsure of how to process this senselessness. Our hearts and minds and thoughts are with the victims, their families, their friends, and anyone who was directly or indirectly affected by these events. People all over Colorado are flocking to blood drives today (locals can visit http://www.bonfils.org/ to find a blood drive near you), and the Denver Comic Con staff is working with Dark Knight creator Michael Uslan on a fundraiser for those affected. (More details on that later today.)
In the wake of tragedy our noblest selves are certainly brought forth. What we saw early this morning was a genuine outpouring of emotion, empathy, and support. This was a good thing. But from here forward, we know how this media frenzy goes, and I would like to editorialize on these events. It is not my intention to be the least bit insensitive to those affected, but it might not be wise for anyone even remotely affected by this tragedy read on. This op-ed is written from an outside perspective, as a spectator of the news.
I think it is warranted to examine our reaction to these kinds of events, because sometimes in our quest to set things right, and seek reason where there is none, we place blame on the blameless, forget to celebrate those who deserve to be hailed as heroes, and make stars of monsters.
These acts of mindless violence are more common than any of us would like–more often than “never” is too common–but from Columbine to Virginia Tech to Aurora (and many, many others), we’ve all seen this too many times.
(That’s to say nothing of violent regimes or extremists, of anyone who kills for a political purpose, for power, or in the name of a high-minded ideal. All these are outside the survey of what is being discussed here, namely: American lunatics with access to heavy weaponry committing unspeakable acts unprovoked. Further, while there is a legitimate debate to be had here regarding gun control, that is not what this article is about.)
What happened last night was not motivated by a purpose of any kind, as far as we know, and even if the shooter has concocted some twisted rationalization, that doesn’t really matter. A person with the capacity to do this is a monster, no one denies that, but there is this prevalent notion that something must have triggered this person, and we should go after that thing so this doesn’t happen again. This is flawed logic. A person with the capacity to do this is already deeply troubled and doesn’t really need a reason, just an excuse. If it wasn’t one trigger it would have been another. There is an unfortunately appropriate quote from the previous Dark Knight, Alfred (Michael Caine) says, “Some men just want to watch the world burn.”
That gets to the heart of what will surely become the tone of the media frenzy in the coming days, as it always is: Who and/or what can we blame for this? As we saw in the recent coverage of the Norway shooter, news media has not evolved beyond hurling the blame at entertainment media and riling up a witch hunt. Whether the blame is thrust at books, or comics, or music, or movies, or video games, the story is always the same and has been for decades: banned books, the Comics Code, the case against Heavy Metal, the case against Hip Hop, the recent Schwarzenegger vs. ESA trial.
Many are quick to decry the rise of violence in popular media and wag a self-righteous finger, but let’s not forget that violence is nothing new. From our oldest mythology to our newest media, violence has always occupied a macabre fascination in our artistic and narrative spaces. That’s not to say violence is a good thing, but that it seems to be in our natures to find catharsis in violence when handled properly in the context of narrative, and as such has always been a part of human culture.
And if it’s not the media, it must be politics. According to an article from Mother Jones, people are already trying to speculate about the killer’s political affiliation as if that’s relevant. Matt Drudge falsely tweeted that the killer was registered Democrat. ABC News’ Brian Ross falsely speculated on the killer’s Tea Party affiliation. According to a Huffington Post article from earlier today, Rep. Louie Gohmert has somehow contorted the attacks of a lunatic into what he perceives as “ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs.” No one in their right mind would even contemplate actions like this, much less meticulously plan and go through with it, so whatever affiliations or interests he may have had are immaterial.
This thing will be spun in every possible direction, and every time, reality will take a back seat to agenda.
The reality: He is a psychopath, end of story.
(There is also a legitimate debate to be had regarding access to mental health services, but that is, again, beyond the survey of this piece.)
You might as well blame Homer for writing The Iliad, or Salinger for Catcher in the Rye. Or hey, why not Katy Perry for Firework? That makes about as much sense as anything. It’s absurd as well as distracting us from the reality. In the end, that’s what all this finger pointing is about: we can’t deal with the notion that a person in their normal state of being could do this, they must have been twisted up by something.
Who could blame us for wanting an out? It’s unconscionable, psychotic, so far beyond comprehension as to be unimaginable. So we want to tie our fears around stones and hurl them at something we can wrap our heads around, something we can blame.
But in the end, it’s at least partly us too, isn’t it? We scour the internet, the local news, the paper, we consume every piece of information we can. We read witness accounts with terrified fascination, like a car crash you can’t look away from. The articles are riddled with live video coverage, witnesses with tears streaming down their faces, slide-shows and picture galleries, it’s a goddamn media circus. We want to know who did this? What is their name? What did they look like? Who were they before? We slurp down this coverage ostensibly because we care and we want to empathize, but there is an unfortunate side effect. It’s very possible that we are, right this very instant, giving this man exactly what he wants: fame, or infamy.
You may have noticed that I have not used a single killer’s name, this was intentional. In Marilyn Manson’s still-relevant Rolling Stones commentary on the Columbine shooting, he wrote, “America puts killers on the cover of Time magazine, giving them as much notoriety as our favorite movie stars. From Jesse James to Charles Manson, the media, since their inception, have turned criminals into folk heroes.” Whether you usually agree with him or not, the validity of this point is hard to argue against. If only we could take down this man’s picture and scrub his last name from every article, not give him the satisfaction of stardom.
We all know their faces, these killers, but we don’t know the faces of our heroes.
Let’s see portraits of the police who responded on scene prepared to risk their lives for strangers, let’s see pictures of the doctors and nurses and EMT’s who saved lives and limbs, let’s see the face of anyone who provided safety and comfort to the victims of this crime.
Let’s plaster their faces all over the news instead.
And let the nameless psycho drown in obscurity.
-Connor Thomas Cleary, July 20th, 2012