Prison: Punishment or Rehabilitation? by Bytemite

Just throwing this out here:

http://www.insidebayarea.com/weird-news/ci_14265049

Frag! *Ducks for cover*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 4:28 PM

Pssshfffph.

Prison ain't got shit to do with rehabilitation and never did, if anything it has a calcifying and reinforcing effect on criminal behavior, and once the lepers mark of doom (i.e. Felony Conviction) is stamped upon them they're prettymuch railroaded into a life of crime anyways.

All for problems which woulda mostly never come to that had they been addressed in time, but this is yet another of those deadly social quick fixes that amounts to treating tuberculosis with cough syrup, politicians want results which benefit them while they're in office to crow about it, and couldn't give a shit about folk too young to vote or tax, nor programs of which the real benefit lies twenty years down the road.

Of course, it never fucking occurs to them that spending a little money now means not spending a thousand times that much on enforcement, arrest, trial, sentencing, incarceration, parole and monitoring, and even if it did, they wouldn't care cause it's of no POLITICAL use.

Unless someone *makes* them, and that's what PROTECT is all about.
http://www.protect.org

But more importantly, none of that above is any kind of surprise, when Andrew Vachss addressed this in a 1982 speech, people got up and walked out cause they *didn't wanna hear it* - and here we are, that warning ignored and unheeded, paying the price.
http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/lifestyle.html

And imma quote one part of it especially that jumps out at me.

Quote:
This kid does not relate behavior to consequences. He does not see a causal connection between his acts and a response. What do I mean? To this kid, life is a lottery. Everyone rolls the dice, but not everyone pays the price. He has no perception as to how the dice will come up. In his world, everyone commits crimes. Everybody. Some smaller percentage of that number are arrested. A still smaller percentage go to court; an even smaller percentage go to trial. A smaller percentage still are actually found guilty (or "adjudicated delinquent" if you prefer), and a smaller percentage of that group are committed to a youth authority. Lastly, an even smaller percentage are actually incarcerated.

Lemme commit the heresy of asking the right question.
"And this is at all UNTRUE ?"
Instead of blaming them for seeing the truth, maybe we oughta be changing that truth instead of labelling anyone who is unwilling to deny it "mentally ill", perhaps ?
As to how to change it, whole nother topic, that.

Anyhows, Prison ain't the answer, it's half the problem.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 5:14 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

I guess I always had this idealistic belief that it could somehow manage to be both punishment AND rehabilitation, but "clearer heads" have turned it over to the private concerns, so all it is now is a profit center. Whatever happens to the inmates is immaterial, so long as the corporations get their pound of flesh.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 5:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Whatever happens to the inmates is immaterial, so long as the corporations get their pound of flesh.

OCP: "Good business is where you find it."

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 5:45 PM

I'm reading still. I've always wished that a prison was used more for rehabilitation (though not in A Clockwork Orange way) because that would permanently solve the problem and not necessitate wasting potentially useful human lives or getting rid of people just to make room in an increasingly crowded system. Inclinations to kill, hurt, rape, I see all of them as something wrong mentally.

But for now I just want to listen to what everyone has to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 5:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I'm reading still. I've always wished that a prison was used more for rehabilitation (though not in A Clockwork Orange way)

Why not? If free will hurts or kills others, what's the problem? That's why I can't own the movie- I see no problem with making Alex puke instead of rape or kill.

The zero-tolerance Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 6:00 PM

Because then we never become better than what we are or what we are wanted to be.

Killing and rape are bad, preventing them is good. But the character of A Clockwork Orange makes a complete transition from psychopath who hurts people because he's bored to an empathic human being.

If left in his programed state, and taking away things he enjoys as a punishment, he will come to resent all other humans, and I propose he'll cause as much evil through disinterest in helping as he will in actual harm causing. He will see other people being killed and raped, and will not stop them, because first seeing the violence will create nausea, and second because he will take a measure of revenge in it.

But allowed to develop on his own, if he moves away from using people for his entertainment, comes to understand their suffering, THEN he will feel interested in helping them. And it will be real, and genuine, and therefore more beneficial. And the benevolence will spread, like ripples.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 27, 2010 7:09 PM

HKCAVALIER

Everything wrong, everything fascistic in our culture is multiplied a hundred fold in the prison system. Prison is abuse. Abuse cannot rehabilitate. Abuse only begets abuse. Taking away an animal's freedom of movement, taking away an animal's healthy freedom of sexual expression for months and years at a time profoundly stunts that animal's health, damages its empathy and other social functioning. Prisons specifically exacerbate every problem they supposedly solve other than punishment and isolation. Prisons haven't advanced beyond the medieval oubliette. Might as well pump all the inmates full of thorazine and call it a good.

That ruling is complete b.s.

Quote:
Dungeons & Dragons "promotes fantasy role playing, competitive hostility, violence, addictive escape behaviors, and possible gambling," according to the ruling.

What horseshit! I'm sorry, PRISON PROMOTES competitive hostility, violence, addictive escape behaviors and gambling! Nobody needs D&D to get that going behind bars. Ya know what role playing games promote? A fricken inner life! Imagination! Cooperative problem solving! And that's why the fascist prison system doesn't want it around. Role playing games connect people and connected people behind bars are a threat to the system itself.

Oh yeah, and it all began with an "anonymous letter expressing concern about Singer and three other inmates forming a "gang" focused around playing the game." Yeah, even if it wasn't just planted, the inmate that wrote it was only doing what boot lickers and toadies have always done.

So disgusting.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 28, 2010 8:53 AM

You wanna know the real hell of it ?

How I financed that trip to Utah back in the 80's to deal with some very bad people, which involved a radical offshoot of the LDS and my first *real* trip "down the rabbit hole", as it were ?

Well, see, there was this psycho bitch by the name of Patricia Pulling, one of them holier than thou crusader types who's son fell into escapism due to her abusive parenting and eventually killed himself, and unable or unwilling to accept this, chose to blame the manner of his escapism and bring her lunacy to the world at large...

Resulting in an outright (though illegal) ban on TSR products in Utah.

And as such prohibitions do, immediately creating a booming market for smugglers, which is how I financed my trip, you see.

Thankfully the crazy bitch failed her CON save back in 1997, now if only Jack Chick would be so kind...

Folks like that never do seem to realize the positive aspects, I ran many clubs in my day, and had a habit of slipping moral dilemmas and lessons about actions and consequences into the game, which resulted in even a couple dubious parents considering it a good influence, especially as it kept them out of potentially worse trouble - and one club in particular, after lack of knowledge/education led to a life shattering unintentional pregnancy, wound up getting "The Talk" from *me*, cause apparently none of the parents had nerved themselves up to do it, resulting in said disaster.
(I thought it was gonna be my ass, but the parents weren't upset about it, rather more the opposite cause I didn't pull any punches when it came to responsibility)

A good GM can almost be a father figure, and many of the folk I ran games for have remained in contact and occasionally ask advice even now.

In the end though, I think what frightens folk the most is that RPGs indirectly teach imaginative problem solving, and critical thinking, and both of those are an absolute anathema to the powers that be.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 28, 2010 9:10 AM

JONGSSTRAW

There are the "ideals" behind the system, and then there are the "realities" of the system.

Watch a few episodes of MSNBC's series Lock Up, and all you can think of is ......utter mayhem, and brutality beyond imagination.

A punk like me in there?....I'd be doing a swan dive from the top tier ten minutes after getting there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 28, 2010 10:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

But allowed to develop on his own, if he moves away from using people for his entertainment, comes to understand their suffering, THEN he will feel interested in helping them. And it will be real, and genuine, and therefore more beneficial. And the benevolence will spread, like ripples.

Problem is, by the end of the film he (Alex) was back in form, ready to rape & pillage.
Maybe you didn't catch the last shot-?

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 28, 2010 11:16 AM

It's why Burgess hated the film, or so I believe..because Kubrick changed the whole message of the book, which was pretty much what Byte said - left to his own devices, Alex grows out of the teenage 'ultra-violence' scene, whereas in the film he breaks his conditioning to return to it (and we all rejoice). It was an odd film, but a compelling one. The point re conditioning is in the title - a person who has no free will has as much point as a clockwork orange...

Interestingly my husband toured a prison yesterday as part of his work...one of the new state of the arts ones (as opposed to the hell holes that most of them are).

The problem is most prisons don't work as rehabilitation, and the voting population, bless their tiny minds, still bray for punishment for criminals and then wonder why they get out of jail and reoffend, or offend violently when they only went in for something relatively benign.

I can't abide this 'lock em up' mentality. I think prisons should be for the worst offenders only...the ones we need protecting from. For heinous crimes, I believe that many could be locked away for the term of their natural life (I don't believe in execution) but I think they should be living in humane conditions.

As for the rest, if we really want to rehabilitate, to change the way people act, we need to think about something different to this Victorian era concept of punishment...because you can't do both. I wonder if there is a human being alive that has endured 'punishment' and come out a better person.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 28, 2010 11:31 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I've thought that 'prison' should be geared to one of two things: rehabilitation (drug detox, education etc) or isolating a person who is deemed unfixable from the rest of society. However, I never thought about the conditions under which that should occur. Given that the conditions are what actually makes it punishment, that's a big hole in my thinking.

I think I need to think more.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 28, 2010 11:34 AM

Article Excerpt
Throughout the world, there are nearly 9 million people in prison, (1) with almost half of them in three countries: China, Russia and the United States. The rate at which countries make use of prison varies widely across the world and sometimes within regions. Prison rates are usually quoted per 100,000 of the total population and, on that basis, the average rate of imprisonment in the world is about 140. The country with the lowest rate of imprisonment in the world is the African nation Burkina Faso, at 23 (2,800 inmates for a population of 12.2 million people), while the country with the highest rate is the United States, at 715 (2.1 million inmates for 290 million people). Between these two extremes there is a wide spectrum. At the lower end, India, the largest democracy in the world, has a rate of only 29 per 100,000, Indonesia has 38 and Japan has 60. Also below the world average are Norway with a rate of 64 and Canada with 116. Moving along the spectrum, Mexico has a rate of 169, Poland's is 210, Thailand's is 340 and South Africa's is 402. There are only seven countries in the world with imprisonment rates above 500. The Cayman Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Palau, Bermuda, Belarus and Russia all have rates between 500 and 600, while the United States is the only country above 700.

What causes these disparities among countries and their prison use? How can it be explained, for example, that the rate of imprisonment in France is 95 per 100,000, while that of its neighbor, Spain, is 145? Why does Canada have an incarceration rate that is more than six times less than its neighbor, the United States? An interesting answer to this question was provided by the leaders of the prison administrations of the 45 member countries of the Council of Europe following one of its meetings in Strasbourg, France, in 2002. One of the main themes of that meeting was prison overcrowding, which affects many countries. The directors of the prison services discussed how to manage this issue, but before they did that, they discussed why prison numbers had risen so much in recent years. In their final report, (2) they concluded that levels of imprisonment in each country are usually influenced more by political decisions rather than by levels of crime or rates of detection of crime. They further concluded that societies can choose to have high or low rates of imprisonment, and this choice is reflected in the sentencing patterns adopted by individual judges. This was a completely different conclusion to come from a group of practical senior prison administrators than had ever been drawn before. Scholarly research has also failed to find any consistent relationship between changing crime rates and changing rates of imprisonment. (3)

There are a number of international examples that substantiate the assertion by the directors of European prison administrations that imprisonment rates in a country can be influenced by factors other than crime or detection rates. For example, in the 1950s, the Finnish rate of imprisonment, at 187 per 100,000, was one of the highest in Western Europe--four times higher than its Nordic neighbors. During succeeding decades, its rate of imprisonment fell significantly: 154 in 1960, 113 in 1970, 106 in 1980, 69 in 1990 and 55 in 2000. This did not happen by accident, nor was it influenced by any change in crime rates. Rather, the decrease was the result of deliberate, long-term and systematic policy choices. (4) First, there was clear political will and consensus to decrease the inmate rate. (5) This involved key politicians, government officials and academics. The reforms were drafted and driven by a relatively small group of experts whose view of criminal policy was broadly similar. The judiciary was closely involved in developing these changes and in a number of respects, judges changed their sentencing practices even before the permissive legislation was introduced. It should be noted that crime control has never been a political issue in Finland. Finally, the role of the media has been of crucial importance, with a general absence of populist reporting on criminal justice matters.

A further example of what can be achieved when there is strong political will comes from Canada. After substantial rises in the imprisonment rate between 1991 and 1995, the government launched a strategy to combat prison population growth. It embarked on a program of public education explaining the need for sparing use of imprisonment. The federal government and the 10 provincial and three territorial governments were to work together to implement 11 recommendations to reduce the use of imprisonment. (6) In 1996, law reform brought in measures to require any judge, before imposing a custodial sentence, to specify from a prescribed list what objectives such a sentence would achieve. A new conditional sentence was introduced as an alternative to prison for less serious offenders. (7) As a result of these initiatives, the imprisonment rate in Canada has steadily fallen in recent years.

Comparative Use of Imprisonment

The International Centre for Prison Studies at the University of London undertakes projects in prison systems in many regions of the world. Currently, it is working in Eastern and Western Europe, Africa and Latin America. This spectrum of work means that the centre has a broad knowledge of how imprisonment is used in different countries and cultures. Based on this knowledge, the centre suggests that it is possible to divide the countries of the world into five groups in regard to their use of imprisonment.

The first group includes countries in regions such as sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. In a number of these countries, there is no indigenous concept of imprisonment. The idea of prison was brought to these countries in the 19th and early 20th centuries by former colonial powers. (8) In these cultures, the concept of imprisoning young men who should be contributing to the economic and social good is seen as an unusual way of dealing with the problem of crime. In many of these countries, prison conditions are appalling and governments do not have the resources to make them humane, living facilities. This has led a number of governments in these regions to explore developing other inclusive methods of dealing with offenses and disputes--methods founded on a notion of social inclusion rather than exclusion through an adversarial criminal justice process. These include requiring offenders to undertake periods of service to their communities, such as working on public service projects, and introducing mediation processes, which leave the victim feeling satisfied that their needs have been understood and met. This approach is sometimes described as restorative justice in contrast to more traditional forms of punitive justice. (9)

The second group includes a number of countries where there is a complete breakdown of authority in the prison system. A number of prison systems in Latin America fall into this category. (10) Prisons in these countries are places of violence and abuse where a small number of inmates are in control. Staff do not feel safe and will only go inside the prison units in large numbers and fully armed. For the majority of inmates, the prisons are very dangerous places, where physical and sexual abuse and even murder are commonplace. Yet there is evidence that even in these countries, there is now a realization on the part of the authorities that this state of affairs cannot continue and there is a determination to change and introduce international standards. The International Centre for Prison Studies is involved with the Brazilian Ministry of Justice in a project such as this.

The third group consists of many countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Prison systems in these countries are struggling to leave behind the terrible legacy of 70 years of the Soviet gulag. In these countries, overcrowding has reached such high levels that three inmates have to sleep in turns in one bed. Also, many of them are ill, with 10 percent of all inmates suffering from active tuberculosis. (11) Conditions are especially bad in the pretrial prisons (jails). In a number of countries in this group, there have been considerable improvements during the past 10 or 12 years. Russia has been the most striking example of this, with a reduction in its prison population of 20 percent and a consequent improvement in prison conditions in recent years. (12) Changes have resulted from a determination at the highest political level to reduce the use of imprisonment, and Russia now regards excessive use of imprisonment as a negative reflection of the democratic values of society.

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3516379/The-use-and-abuse-of.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 28, 2010 12:20 PM

Prison is to f**k the peeps that f**k the system, period.
Spare the rod & spoil the kill.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 28, 2010 12:22 PM

Quote:
Problem is, by the end of the film he (Alex) was back in form, ready to rape & pillage.
Maybe you didn't catch the last shot-?

Maybe you didn't realize that sometimes books have a different ending than the movie.

A Clockwork Orange is a rare example of a story where the book ends on a more upbeat note.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 28, 2010 12:28 PM

Which is why I own the book & not the movie.
Apologies, I thought you were talking about the movie- I'm a movie guy mostly.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 28, 2010 12:44 PM

I like the movie, but I can see why Burgess was pissed off.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 28, 2010 12:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I like the movie, but I can see why Burgess was pissed off.

I like the movie for it's shock value, badass music & peerless photography, but it's pessimistic view of human motivation absolutely loses me.
Give me Strangelove over that any day.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 28, 2010 1:39 PM

You think Strangelove shows an optimistic view of humanity?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 28, 2010 2:13 PM

Yeah... I don't really watch movies. Generally, assuming I'm talking about the book is going to be a fairly safe bet. Although normally I'm smart and I actually specify which one I mean.

It occurs to me that the post in response might have sounded overly snarky, I was more just trying to be clever. So sorry for that too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 28, 2010 3:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
You think Strangelove shows an optimistic view of humanity?

No, but it's funny.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 28, 2010 3:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I was more just trying to be clever.

Clever noted!

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 28, 2010 6:53 PM

I'm going to try to paraphrase your post, Magonsdaughter, just to see if I ken it.

So the difference between incarceration rates between the US and other nations is a difference in policy, which has been driven by a different mindset. But what is the underlying mindset?

I can think of two possibilities. The first is the belief in the badness of people in general and punishment being necessary to "set examples." The second is the the prison system has been made into a lucrative business in the U.S., at least for the private security hired to guard inmates.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 28, 2010 8:19 PM

Byte, I don't think the article in question states the US as having a different mindset, it talks about a continuum and a number of different types of attitudes towards prison in varying countries.

But it does state that different political actions have consequences for prison population rates. I'd say from what I have observed of the US from afar - there is definitely a 'tough on crime' philosophy that appears to be prevalent and might explain the high rates of citizens in prison.

Tough on crime, making the streets safer etc etc are all popular political stances that appeal to a lot of people. Who doesn't want safer streets and less crime. Of course the issue of efficacy is always swept under the carpet in political campaigns...like much of the truth.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 28, 2010 10:01 PM

Re: Clockwork Orange.

I do note in both works his former Droogs grew up INTO the role by joining the police force to give their abuses legal sanction.

Which of course reduces the difference between the gangs and the police to a matter of perceived legitimacy, once again.

That disturbed a lotta folk I know, since it hit a little close to home for them.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 12:39 AM

Now I'm all intrigued about the different interpretations. Here is why... from wiki

Quote:
The book has three parts of seven chapters each. Burgess has stated that the total of 21 chapters was an intentional nod to the age of 21 being recognised as a milestone in human maturation. The 21st chapter was omitted from the editions published in the United States prior to 1986.[1] In the introduction to the updated American text (these newer editions include the missing 21st chapter), Burgess explains that when he'd first brought the book to an American publisher, he'd been told that U.S. audiences would never go for the final chapter, in which Alex sees the error of his ways, decides he has lost all energy for and thrill from violence and resolves to turn his life around (a slow-ripening but classic moment of metanoia—the moment at which one's protagonist realises that everything he thought he knew was wrong).

At the American publisher's insistence, Burgess allowed their editors to cut the redeeming final chapter from the U.S. version, so that the tale would end on a note of bleak despair, with young Alex succumbing to his darker nature—an ending which the publisher insisted would be 'more realistic' and appealing to a U.S. audience. The film adaptation, directed by Stanley Kubrick, is based on this "badly flawed" (Burgess' words, ibid.) American edition of the book. Kubrick called Chapter 21 "an extra chapter" and claimed[2] that he had not read the original version until he had virtually finished the screenplay, and that he had never given serious consideration to using it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 2:57 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Now I'm all intrigued about the different interpretations. Here is why... from wiki

Quote:
The book has three parts of seven chapters each. Burgess has stated that the total of 21 chapters was an intentional nod to the age of 21 being recognised as a milestone in human maturation. The 21st chapter was omitted from the editions published in the United States prior to 1986.[1] In the introduction to the updated American text (these newer editions include the missing 21st chapter), Burgess explains that when he'd first brought the book to an American publisher, he'd been told that U.S. audiences would never go for the final chapter, in which Alex sees the error of his ways, decides he has lost all energy for and thrill from violence and resolves to turn his life around (a slow-ripening but classic moment of metanoia—the moment at which one's protagonist realises that everything he thought he knew was wrong).

At the American publisher's insistence, Burgess allowed their editors to cut the redeeming final chapter from the U.S. version, so that the tale would end on a note of bleak despair, with young Alex succumbing to his darker nature—an ending which the publisher insisted would be 'more realistic' and appealing to a U.S. audience. The film adaptation, directed by Stanley Kubrick, is based on this "badly flawed" (Burgess' words, ibid.) American edition of the book. Kubrick called Chapter 21 "an extra chapter" and claimed[2] that he had not read the original version until he had virtually finished the screenplay, and that he had never given serious consideration to using it.

That would explain my confusion over this whole area of conversation, because I was knitting my brow, thinking, "I read that book, and I don't remember it that way..." Now I know why - I read it in 1982, during a stay in hospital. I thought maybe I didn't remember it because of all the pain meds...

It's a little depressing and disturbing to think that the publishers thought Americans would find the ultraviolent return to form for Alex to be "more realistic". :(

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 3:36 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Americans are vengeance-driven, not problem-solvers. That's why the "answer" to drug addiction and mental health problems is prison, not rehabilitation.

Prison never was about rehab.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 6:01 AM

Probably Europe started to wake up from the dogma that all people are evil. Spend a bit of time in a bomb shelter with twenty other people, then head to the surface. There might be some looting and rioting, but it becomes more about trying to pull people out of the rubble, more about group survival.

That's why Europe instituted universal health care, you know, whether or not anyone thinks it works. Because they finally saw their fellow man and realized the other people are them but with different faces. They saw themselves in the mirror and wanted to save their reflections. Of course, a person can't always be in that mode, to function, sometimes we have to get on the bus and not see people. But Americans have generally not shared this experience, we do step up sometimes to help other people in crisis (Haiti, etc.) but we are more sheltered and insular.

So we understand Alex's return to violence more easily. We met some of his previous victims, who are no longer faceless, but how did they treat Alex? Like HE was faceless. So we don't care if he goes and victimizes new faceless people, because they aren't people. None of them are. And they're all evil.

I like the insertion of the 21st chapter better. Really, the book is circular otherwise, it has no point, fails the concept of character arc and growth and traditional plot development. Unless the POINT is to make Americans accept and believe mind control and programmed conditioning is a good thing, because then the argument is uncontrolled people will just revert to their most base.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 4:00 PM

I remember reading in Robert McKee's book on screenplays, about the difference in the classic American and European story arcs, which he somehow linked to people's experience on WW2. In the US, WW2 is seen as a victory over evil, the good guys prevail - even when what they do isn't so good. IN Europe, mainland Europe in particular, the war is less cut and dried. People made uncomfortable compromises, tried to choose the lesser of two evils, changed sides, were on the losing side etc etc. The classic story arcs seem to reflect the different experiences of conflict.

I notice in a lot of American films, the theme of vengeance is a biggie. the other thing I have noticed is that violence is acceptable, even disgusting brutish violence. So you can watch someone get sliced and diced and that's entertainment, but show a man's penis and it's pornography.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 29, 2010 9:19 PM

HKCAVALIER

It doesn't surprise me at all that people maintain this baseline notion that prison somehow, someway = rehabilitation. It's just so deeply ingrained in us that prisons must serve some positive purpose or we wouldn't have them, right? Punishments, spankings, enhanced interrogation, surely there is some virtue in perpetrating such acts, right? Punishment really does make people better, at least really bad people, right?

Why, just look at all the inspirational movies about hardened criminals who get religion in prison and come out to be model citizens! But hold up a sec. What kinds of circumstances tend to lead people to find religion like that? Maybe they get cancer, or their loved one dies, they nearly kill someone while drunk driving or, proverbially, they find god in a foxhole. Prison doesn't rehabilitate folk into religion, prison is so life-threatening, so fundamentally traumatic that it makes people completely rethink their place in the universe! In that context, prison is clearly just one of the worst things that can happen to a person. We all know this.

My principal beef with the Abrahamic religions, by the by, is their promotion of the torture chamber. Where ever you find centralized authority, whether temporal or metaphysical, you find the torture chamber--every king has his dungeons, every God has His Hell, where He puts His enemies, where He "rehabilitates" the wicked. As a largely Christian nation, we Americans have a deep-seated bias in favor of prisons and punishment. It is all thoroughly irrational and contrary to experience. We Americans accept prison as an article of faith.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 30, 2010 10:23 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
I notice in a lot of American films, the theme of vengeance is a biggie. the other thing I have noticed is that violence is acceptable, even disgusting brutish violence. So you can watch someone get sliced and diced and that's entertainment, but show a man's penis and it's pornography

Hee, hee, hee, Magons, you just nailed American cinema! Amazing, isn't it?

It's the old Puritanical mythology still at work...remember, our forefathers were puritans, which pretty much says it all. Violence against sinners (which includes "bad guys") is okay; sinning (as they define it) is not.

Rambo is a hero, so are all the violent idiots who think the world can be cured at the point of a gun (hi Wulfie), and despicable acts are perfectly okay, as long as you have "god on your side". Bush was dumb enough and brainwashed enough to believe it all, just look at how he acted toward the rest of the world.

Saw a great movie on this: "The Americanization of Emily". No black and white, all grey, the glorification of soldiers shown for just what they are in the light of day--and it was talking about ENGLAND, not us, so you see, we're not alone. Tho' not fair to mention them I suppose, as we CAME from them...(but then, so did you...)

"Grandpa died in WWI, Dad died in WW2, son died in Vietnam", all on the mantle with ribbons and awards, all revered like saints. Believe it or not, there are MANY of us Yanks who haven't believed it for a long time, who see war as sometimes a necessary evil but condemn the use of inhuman acts to "win"...like, you know, torture? We're not all alike, and we don't all go to those movies and worship those "heroes" like Wulf does...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 30, 2010 3:23 PM

Oh no, you are not alone. We've embraced the Hollywood stereotypical stories with aplomb! And I know that not all Americans swallow that stuff all the time, it's just that those 'typical
blockbusters make huge profits, and the atypical films with greys at al, mostly don't. Perhaps post Iraq, post post 9/11 things are changing, and the good guys aren't so good all the time after all, and that get reflected in films like Avatar, which still had your typical arc, and certainly contained a shit load of revenge. Personally

Select to view spoiler:

I thought it was a bit silly that the Earth people were allowed to go home to plan their next hidieous onslaught and not mysteriously dissappeared

but that's one meander off topic too many,

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 30, 2010 5:29 PM

Select to view spoiler:

That's presuming they didn't set the outbound ships destination coordinates for the core of the nearest sun - which I for damn sure woulda, then played dumb-native if anyone came askin...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 30, 2010 8:26 PM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 30, 2010 10:56 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Select to view spoiler:
I thought it was a bit silly that the Earth people were allowed to go home to plan their next hidieous onslaught and not mysteriously dissappeared

I've read this sentiment expressed often enough here and elsewhere. The problem is, any sane predator when faced with such profound resistance from prey WILL leave that prey alone, find its meal elsewhere. That is the natural reaction everywhere. There is no reason for an alien to believe that the human species is so thoroughly insane, so reckless, so indifferent to its own wellbeing as to come back for more after what they suffered at the hands of the Na'vi. The sane reaction is to leave the Na'vi alone.

Relentless evil SHOULD be limited to horror movies and extreme individual psychopathy. That we think the aliens are naïve not to expect such profound, malevolent, life-hating disturbance in humans is, well, dispiriting. Y'all really think that the Na'vi after conquering their attackers utterly should have herded them into the Sun, or some other equivalent of a gas chamber?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 30, 2010 10:58 PM

Speakin of Prison, and all that rot, and thinking on the Lepers Mark that is a Felony Conviction, brings to mind the movie that first brought it home to me just how horribly american society beats someone down with it.

Wisdom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_(film)
http://www.fast-rewind.com/wisdom.htm

Worth a rental, if you can find it anywhere.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 30, 2010 11:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Y'all really think that the Na'vi after conquering their attackers utterly should have herded them into the Sun, or some other equivalent of a gas chamber?

Yes.

Call it a character flaw, but whenever faced with a foe that will stoop to ANY level, up to and including mutual self-destruction to get what they want, who takes every act of resistance as an excuse to escalate the conflict, and seems fundamentally incapable of co-existing at all, much less peaceably ?

HELL Yes.

Select to view spoiler:

Especially since if they do stand off the second, better armed, scorched earth invasion party you KNOW is gonna follow if they let them leave - the third shot's gonna be a planet buster.

And Jake KNOWS this.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 31, 2010 12:49 AM