Writing.Com General Discussion

Perhaps, in a 'big picture' sense, it's somewhat valid, at any given moment. However, it comes with a mighty big asterisk.

The first thing that needs to be understood is there cannot be a personal connection (at least the way I see it) to the nature of the 'crime', whatever that may be, for one to simply 'ignore' the deeds of another.

For example, perhaps it's easier for me to distance myself from the misdeeds of a so-called 'child molester' because I have nothing of personal reference to attach his actions to. Now, on the other hand, if I, or my kids, or even somewhat close relatives had at some time fallen victim to the actions of that type of person, my guess is my attitude toward that sort of person would become different, perhaps radically so, because it impacted me personally; the degree would be dependent upon how close the person affected was to me.

It's much like death. Thousands of people die every day in the U.S.. Does it bother me? Nope, primarily because I have no connection whatsoever to them, most of the time. However, when someone dies that I do know, it's a whole different perspective, right? It's human nature to respond differently when something significant strikes 'close to home'.

That's why I don't think you can go and put someone in one category or the other (with the expectation of them staying there). Circumstances are ever fluid and subject to change with most folks, I would think. So I don't think the categories, as currently defined, are valid.

I like to write horror. It's easy for me to come up with fairly horrific scenarios because it is, to me, fiction, and I have no personal attachment to what I'm writing. On the other hand, if someone I knew died at the hands of some maniac, in a hideous manner, I undoubtedly would have a difficult time writing anything that reminded me of that 'real' event. Perhaps writing anything horror, period, would become difficult. Can't say for sure (and hope it stays that way)!