Pajiba

The Keller stories in Playboy were my introduction to Block, who quickly became my favorite mystery writer. (Favorite mystery novel: A Dance at the Slaughterhouse.) His examination of the minutiae of the work of a killer (or a P. I., in the case of Scudder) is just fantastic. The cat-and-mouse game with the psychiatrist in this one was probably the high point for me.

Now if Block would just write a whole book about Martin Ehrengraf...

Deep down, Keller is a nice guy,
Keller is a killer. That's what he does.

Two lines from your review. A killer is deep down a nice guy? Don't you ever worry about the romanticizing of the killer and the effect this has on culture? You guys scream bloody murder about eli roth and i guarantee there will be be some screed about the latest incarnation of Saw, but you'll give a fictional pass to this guy?
In some ways isn't this more egregious than all the torture porn, because apparently you like this guy who kills people for a living. Do you know anyone who has killed anyone? The few vets i've worked with are all messed up about what they did, and the war is, supposedly, a morally justified act. Killing for profit, not so much.

I enjoyed "Fight Club" (the book) only in the sense that it was throw away pablum about what was clearly an imaginary nihilist, and then i get terrified when a bunch of idiots start idolizing a book, that in the end, stood for nothing. It was meaningless cheap thrills, and if people would treat it as such than fine, but this romanticizing of killers and nihilists displays a very unpalatable side of the modern psyche, and pajiba is taking a very hypocritical stance on torture porn, if it likes this romanticization of the assassin.

getting long-winded now, so i'll stop, but please don't post some screed about Saw, if you're going to post a valentine to a book about a hired assassin.

Nice reveiw Prisco. Now I've finally had to start a spreadsheet to keep track of everything I want to watch or read.

Actually, I don't think "Fight Club" is meaningless fun, the movie anyway, I haven't read the book. I thought it was a comedy about why these guys are wrong and it doesn't work. The Space Monkeys were ultimately idiots and I thought it de-romanticized itself. It would be pretty silly if someone bought into it.

Psychotic Monkey is cranky! I wonder, do you watch Dexter?

Grosse Pointe Blank: "It's not me it's them. If I show up on your doorstep, chances are you've done something wrong."

Saw: random murder and violence

Most hitman I know want a clean kill and get away safely.

psychoticmonkey, I can certainly see your point about humanizing a murderer however I believe that in order to write a decent book or script the reader/veiwer has to be able to relate to the characters on a fundamental level.

You see it in all types of filmaking, especially documentaries. Why did the person do what they do? Are they really evil, or a victim of circumstance? Why cant a killer be a good person?

Think of all the other jobs in the world that cause extreme hardship to people for profit. The health insurance industry comes to mind. Is the investigator who tries to find reasons to deny claims a bad person or is he just doing his job? In some instances if a person is denied treatment based on ability to pay they will die.

please don't post some screed about Saw, if you're going to post a valentine to a book about a hired assassin.

You're not comparing apples to apples here, boss. Pajiba's main issue with torture porn, at least as I interpret it, comes from a complete lack of development of characters or their motivation for doing the things they do. The victims are simply victims, the killers are simply killers, and it's violence and gore for the sake of violence and gore. Nothing is plot or character driven. And its all under the guide of some big heavy statement about what humans can do to each other, but it most instances, it's hackery plain and simple.

In something like this book, or Grosse Pointe Blank, the interest comes from a character study of how someone becomes the type of person OK with killing people for a living. Or the dichotomy that exists when the character is mostly a likeable guy, who happens to kill people for a living. Actually bothering to delve into the psyche of the character to consider why he is what he is. That's the interesting part, not the violence.

As for me, I'd be more interested in why America clings to its culture of violence and then completely villifies sex in all its non-"missionary, hole in the sheet, strictly for procreation" forms.

Actually bothering to delve into the psyche of the character to consider why he is what he is. That's the interesting part, not the violence.

But is delving enough? Grosse pointe blank was cursory in its depiction of violence. Piven's character saw a man killed, and then assisted in the disposal of the body, thus becoming an accessory to murder. How did the movie address any of that? The movie essentially toyed around with themes of violence, got a few good laughs out of it, and then walked away with the profits. If the audience treated this solely as farce, then okay. But there is a twisted response where people actually embrace the character and find him likeable, even though he kills for a living. Honestly, would you want to be friends with someone who killed people for a living? Scalia cited 24-hour jack (my nickname for the little guy) from the bench, concerning violence. People are having serious trouble distinguishing fiction from reality.

The veracity of art is very important, and yet almost nothing on television seems to come close to an honest depiction of life. If it does, it seldom makes it: freaks and geeks, my so called life, etc.

Instead dexter gets a two season extension. A show about a serial killer who kills serial killers, because, hey, one serial killer just doesn't cut it these days.

And don't get me started about the depiction of schizophrenia on tv. They give the guy a drug and holy shit he's all normal again. Any chance you could send me some of that stuff, because my patients would really appreciate it if there was a pill out there that could apparently "cure" them.

I barely watch tv anymore, and my reading has skewed away from fiction, because so much modern fiction is starting to read like screenplays. I now read poetry, because its one of the last vestiges of truth in literature.

I guess i'm just tired of violence getting the free pass.

I understand the argument. I've never been crazy about "Grosse Pointe Blank", mainly because I just didn't think it was terrifically funny, but I also find the job reprehensible and it just personally creeps me out (I thought "The Matador" was a much better movie too). I'd agree with Marv that beating up hit men probably doesn't make you feel bad. For the same reason, I don't want to watch "Dexter". However good it might be there's a reflexive "Ick! Ack!" for murderers and I don't want to spend time with them as protagonists. I want Frank Pembleton to bust his ass!

But, that's me.

Sure, there are some warped people out there, and they might read some fictional depiction of violence and become inspired. Or they might become inspired by incest in the Bible. Or historical accounts of the Spanish Inquisition. It doesn't take much to "inspire" a psychopath.

We should never examine unpleasant subjects because they might incite a copycat event?

The reason that there are titillating TV shows, books and movies is because most people's lives are dull. If anyone ever wants to turn "The Real Database Analysts of Atlanta" into a TV show, I'm your gal, but I won't be holding my breath waiting for the casting call. (Wowie-zowie, look at her write queries! She's a QUERY MACHINE! Holy crap, now she's actually going to export the data!) There's nothing there to mine for interest. You ever peruse the book store shelves for fiction? There's not exactly a dearth of stories about middle-aged person goes through traumatic event and learns to cope. Or teenager faces peer pressure and learns to cope. Dull as dishwater, most of it. Like listening to your sister-in-law drone on about office politics.

Humans are hardwired to be interested in novelty, which is why shocking sex and violence, not exactly commonplace in most lives, is such a big draw. Yet reading about sex and violence from an abstract point of view is just as boring as the ordinary-lives novels. If it wasn't, police reports would be instant classics of literature. We have to have something in common with the characters, or it's just not compelling.

to tk
Actually, psychotic monkey, trying to dictate what art should be is the real slippery slope.

But aren't we on a site whose sole purpose is to discuss the function of art.

to vermillion
that people are somehow trained to kill by violent media. It is and always will be bullshit.

Not trained, but clearly influenced, otherwise why make any art at all. Why read the great works that illuminate the human condition, that inspire, that touch? Because fiction has influence. For good and bad.

Second, most people have a fairly good sense of reality and fiction.

I made this point, but as a psychiatrist I have had contact (not my patients, but someone i interviewed during my forensic psychiatry rotation) with two patients who killed another human being in a ritualistic fashion because they related to a character and wanted to reenact what they saw. One guy called himself jack the ripper and constantly talked about alan moore's from hell comic. A comic i read and enjoyed, only to later have severe difficulty thinking about, because someone less stable than the so called norm used it as a template and inspiration for his pathology. So maybe this is a more personal argument for me, since i do meet the so called few who are EXTREMELY affected by violence in the media. So do we as a society just throw our hands up and say fuck it, throw whatever you want on the screen any time you want, consequences be damned, or do we try provide some benchmark, some semblance of what a healthy evocation and discussion of violence should be?

Because the family members of the victims, sure changed their toon about violence in the media, when they were the one who suffered a copycat form of violence.

I have to. Seen too much violence, to give the media a get out of jail free card anymore.

Lastly, I find it interesting that you only approve of violence as a farcical element. That, essentially, violence is only okay when it is cartoonish and funny.

never said that. i never only approve of anything. I was positing an argument that i found it mildly disturbing/bemusing that the reviewer
clearly stated that a hired killer was a nice guy. I was just kind of bemused by this idea, that liking a killer makes it somehow more acceptable, than if the person is unlikeable, as in torture porn.

my argument wasn't that violence should be presented as farce, but that when it appears to be farcical as in grosse point blank, some people's perception is that it isn't farcical.

Should a war movie inspire you to kill a perceived enemy, or should it illuminate the true consequences, good or bad, of what war is really like?

The modern perception of violence terrifies me. I've counseled gang members who wanted out because they got shot and had no idea of the actual pain and long-term suffering that goes with being a gun shot victim. They had this childish (they're words) idea that it was going to be a cool shoot out.

So yeah, maybe I am tired of the blood and guts on film and television, because I see it in real life. I live in northern virginia, a place where a lot of virginia tech students came from, and what a miserable thing it is to counsel a few of those family members, whose realtive was shot by someone who was mentally unstable and sat around playing violent video games, that, as you say, could have had no influence whatsoever on any of his behavior. Spare me your sanctimony and condescension. The true costs and consequences of violence are seldom if ever depicted in films and literature, instead we get some bizarre depiction as killers as likeable. They kill!

And the argument that media violence has no influence is nothing but a straw man. A fair number of peer reviewed clinical studies clearly show that while media violence is the root cause, it too often plays some sort of influence. Art has influence. It may not be the root cause of an action, but it can inspire you to great heights, or it can inspire people to commit atrocities.
But art always has influence. And to argue otherwise, simply because you enjoy it, and may have never been personally affected by an act of violence, seems myopic.

But hey you'll probably just go ahead and tell everyone again that i don't know what i'm talking about. And maybe this doesn't bother you, because you never see the real consequences of violence up close as it rolls into the ER every weekend.
But like i just said, I've seen too much blood and guts and stupidity to ever give violence in the media a free pass.

And when someone says a hired killer is a nice guy, it begs some sort of comment.
Forgive me, for deigning to post on a subject that truly matters to me.

But i also wasn't attempting to make any final conclusion concerning violence, i was pointing out something for the point of discussion.

Now If you'll forgive me, i think i'm going back to lurking.

"But aren't we on a site whose sole purpose is to discuss the function of art."

Actually, I would rather suggest that the purpose is to discuss the merits of art, or they quality. But not to try to qualify what art is or should be.

At least, that is my hope.

I don't think you are being overly sensitive, either. As you said, you encounter pretty much the extreme view: people who only took in the violence, without regard for realism or context. My thing is that there is something wrong with that view anyway, regardless of what triggered it. And to accept violent media as a viable reason is to pretty much wash their hands of responsibility. Only in cases of a truly disturbed individual, one incapable of knowing real from fake, right from wrong, should we consider such a defense.

Take those gang members you mentioned. They made the conscious decision to idolize that way of life, and deluded themselves into thinking that somehow they were going to be the exception. In nearly every film or TV show about gangs or criminals, there is the one guy who gets away, and the dozens who don't. Those guys chose to believe they were that one lucky guy, and ended up one of the dozen anyway. That isn't violent media telling them it is okay, at least not in my opinion. That is a willful ignorance of the realities of life and a conscious choice to do evil things. Sure, they learned their lesson now, but they only did so when their manufactured reality was disintegrated by their injuries. When they were hurting other people, they had no problem with the violence. Only when it backfired, when it became apparent that they weren't special or exempt, did they realize the folly of their ways.

I shouldn't say that violent media isn't a factor. As you said, art does have an influence. Well, I would say media (which increasingly features less and less art) does have an influence. I just don't agree with this notion that the influence is strong enough to override an inherent sense of morality. It is like hypnosis: you can't hypnotize someone to do something against their true nature. Making the cluck like a chicken? No problem, because most folks don't take issue with that. But hypnotizing them to kill someone? Unless the person has no qualms with murder in the first place, they will not do it, no matter how much you prod them or how sensitive they are.

Am I saying that it is cool to let a six-year-old play GTA? Nope, mostly because that child is still developing their sense of morality, and are sensitive to such things. But a reasonably grown adult should already have those faculties in place. And if they don't, then it isn't the fault nor the responsibility of those in the media to sugarcoat everything for them. It may sound harsh, but it is a harsh world, and it ain't getting any softer.

But as I said, if that is how you feel, it is fine. And maybe we should look at how we present such things. But I just don't think it is necessary to categorize any attempt at depicting violence as some sort sort of tacit approval of such things.

Neither is it somehow approval when the audience does find some commonality with the violent person. In fact, it adds a bit of consternation and conflict, because it makes the audience (at least me) wonder: what keeps me from doing such deeds, if I relate to this guy? What makes me incapable of doing the same thing? It doesn't mean that I can't think the guy is nice otherwise. I know my dad (a Vietnam vet) killed people. He told me as much himself. It doesn't mean I think of him any less for that. I can see the loving father he is, despite his actions then. For me to hold them against him would be horribly unfair.