CCBC-Net Archives
Tenderness, continued -Reply
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Megan Schliesman <Schliesman>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 14:01:50 -0500
Ginny's question about technical innocence got me thinking about one of the moral/ethical questions with which the book challenges readers: is it ok that Eric, a serial killer, is ultimately caught for a murder he did not commit?
I've been pondering this since the question of "technical innocence" came up because technically Eric is innocent of Lori's death, but there is so much he is not innocent of. In trying to answer this question for myself, I decided that it is not ok at all, because not only does it do injustice to Eric (who, despite the fact that his actions are reprehensible still must be treated, if not compassionately, then at least constitutionally), but it does an injustice in some sense to his other victims. For me, at least, I wanted to see his hand acknowledged in their deaths.
The thing that makes all of this even more interesting from the reader's point of view in Tenderness is that the reader is the only one, outside of Eric, who knows the truth about Lori's death. So it is the reader who is left with the moral/ethical question. For the police, there is no question because Eric appears so guilty and, given his history, there is no reason to think otherwise.
My response interested me because I think so much of popular culture entertainment today is about violence and seeking revenge with more violence. In action movies its all about giving it to the "bad guy" and usually the bad guy is so despicable that the audience cheers (myself included) when he gets it, no matter how violent or unconstitutional the means of revenge (or avenging). But in Tenderness, I couldn't allow that it was ok--Eric was made three-dimensional and human, not some stock bad character. Cormier forces readers to step back and evaluate our their own beliefs and responses.
Any thoughts on this?
Megan Schliesman Cooperative Children's Book Center School of Education UW-Madison schliesman at mail.soemadison.wisc.edu 04:21pm >>> Following the CCBC discussion of Tenderness earlier this summer, our colleague Joan Thron (Univ. of Wis. - Green Bay) observed that both Lori and Eric were "technically innocent," i.e., he did not *actually* murder her and she had not *actually* been sexually active. Joan and I mused as to whether or not such a condition as "technical innocence" is even possible.
As odd as such a consideration might seem at the outset, perhaps Innocence is one of the themes Cormier explores in Tenderness?
********************** Ginny Moore Kruse (gmkruse at ccbc.soemadison.wisc.edu) Cooperative Children's Book Center (CCBC) ** A Library of the School of Education University of Wisconsin - Madison
** Between now and 8/25, the CCBC facility is closed for public service except by special appointment.
Received on Tue 12 Aug 1997 02:01:50 PM CDT
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 1997 14:01:50 -0500
Ginny's question about technical innocence got me thinking about one of the moral/ethical questions with which the book challenges readers: is it ok that Eric, a serial killer, is ultimately caught for a murder he did not commit?
I've been pondering this since the question of "technical innocence" came up because technically Eric is innocent of Lori's death, but there is so much he is not innocent of. In trying to answer this question for myself, I decided that it is not ok at all, because not only does it do injustice to Eric (who, despite the fact that his actions are reprehensible still must be treated, if not compassionately, then at least constitutionally), but it does an injustice in some sense to his other victims. For me, at least, I wanted to see his hand acknowledged in their deaths.
The thing that makes all of this even more interesting from the reader's point of view in Tenderness is that the reader is the only one, outside of Eric, who knows the truth about Lori's death. So it is the reader who is left with the moral/ethical question. For the police, there is no question because Eric appears so guilty and, given his history, there is no reason to think otherwise.
My response interested me because I think so much of popular culture entertainment today is about violence and seeking revenge with more violence. In action movies its all about giving it to the "bad guy" and usually the bad guy is so despicable that the audience cheers (myself included) when he gets it, no matter how violent or unconstitutional the means of revenge (or avenging). But in Tenderness, I couldn't allow that it was ok--Eric was made three-dimensional and human, not some stock bad character. Cormier forces readers to step back and evaluate our their own beliefs and responses.
Any thoughts on this?
Megan Schliesman Cooperative Children's Book Center School of Education UW-Madison schliesman at mail.soemadison.wisc.edu 04:21pm >>> Following the CCBC discussion of Tenderness earlier this summer, our colleague Joan Thron (Univ. of Wis. - Green Bay) observed that both Lori and Eric were "technically innocent," i.e., he did not *actually* murder her and she had not *actually* been sexually active. Joan and I mused as to whether or not such a condition as "technical innocence" is even possible.
As odd as such a consideration might seem at the outset, perhaps Innocence is one of the themes Cormier explores in Tenderness?
********************** Ginny Moore Kruse (gmkruse at ccbc.soemadison.wisc.edu) Cooperative Children's Book Center (CCBC) ** A Library of the School of Education University of Wisconsin - Madison
** Between now and 8/25, the CCBC facility is closed for public service except by special appointment.
Received on Tue 12 Aug 1997 02:01:50 PM CDT
