It occurs to me that it is not the fault of an author or a game designer or an artist or a musician or what have you that someone uses their work to inspire a terrible deed. Certainly it is true that all those that use these iconic things as a reason are not at all mentally balanced or well by any standard of sanity. So that means that it could easily have been anything that inspired them to act a certain way.
The other thing is that even when a violent image or idea or concept lays seed in someone's mind in a way that any other effige would not it is still not the artist's fault for creating it. I say this simply because people are impressionable when they are ignorant, maiive, and young. In face the latter could easily be defined as the two formers. So then it occurs to me that when someone sees a violent image and is impulsed to imitate it they are acting that way because they have no self regulatory counter-impulse. This absense of a mitigating influence in one's mind is apparent in those who are mentally ill, but what of those who are merely disenfranchised and 'lost' as we say? Well it seems that there have been many studies and surveys and such that cite how a lack of konwledge or an overly sensitized awareness of it, in many cases being caused by a total lack of awareness of it beforehand, makes it more likely for someone to move towards embrasing this taboo thing rather than avoid it. The same thing goes for outright denial of the opportunity to even know what something is.
This idea has been discussed in research on teens with drugs. Basically teens who have had their parents educate them thoroughly on the subject of weed are less likely to experiment with it. The classic judeo-christian approach of "thou shalt not because I said so" is counter-productive and as such a more intelligent approach to warning and educating someone about something is more effective at preventing them even venturing to try it.
Now how does that affect those who act in an unbalanced way in regards to things which are violent or 'obscene', etc...? Well simply if someone is isolated in the cliche image of a teen angster, or is a social outcast, not as most of us geeks are but in the true sense of feeling hated all around, they have no sensible frame of reference to vent their emotions or appraise them reasonably. They latch onto ideas and images which satisfy their untamed urges. In additon since we make such things as violent games, movies, and music, taboo or at least unpopular in the mainstream of adult thought we retard our own ability to deal with those who see it as something more than most of us do.
Coming down to violence if someone has been forced to leave the room whenever someone has sworn, fired a gun, or even killed someone in a fictitious way on TV or in a movie or such then that creates an unrealistic naiivete. Curiosity and even fetish grow from such taboo. This approaches more in the realm of sex and music and drugs. But suicide, and murder are more centred in the realm of isolated suffering.
So when we talk specifically of the effect of violent imagery on youths (adults usually are bonkers when they are affected bys uch things) we need to understand their virginal appreciation for the world. Whats old news to us is exiting and fresh to them. Things like violent ideas and images and acts need to be confronted and they need to have their curiosity satiated. Taking the random edge off of their exploration prevents them from falling deeply into something they can't control nor konw how to. In addition to that many if not all of these 'kids' are mentally suffering and thats a cause of not getting help. I wouldn't doubt that parenting is not up to par in the case of those that go on killing sprees.
So yea... long long post... like the first crappy draft of an essay really.
Thats my bit.
|
