Vollmann on Violence
William T. Vollmann’s new manifesto on violence (thanks Chilly).
“Shooting really is the quintessentially American experience,” he explained. “I’m really sorry for people in other countries who can’t do this.”
Despite Vollmann’s alterna-machisimo chic in the tradition of Burroughs/Thompson/Bukowski, I remain a skeptic on all things glamorously violent. Sure, the ethical quandries abound but don’t we always know the answer? The answer is “follow your heart, young Skywalker.” It’s never calculus. But sure enough, Vollmann concludes at the end, “This whole moral calculus is of course insanely impractical.” If anything, it’s an insanely interesting premise, and the historical thread would be interesting enough.
September 28th, 2003 at 3:45 pm
I take issue with the phrase “glamourously violent”. Vollman and Burroughs are gun nuts (it’s absurd but also appropriate to add ‘very much American’) and also proponents of self defense, don’t forget how they were inevitably ostrasized and victimized as a homo (way before that was openly talked about), and Willy T. as the intelligent 90 pound weakling. Bukowski certainly loved a good pugilist bout, either in the ring or in the alley, but his Vietnam poetic commentary definitely points to his seeing that war as senseless and a farce, but he wasn’t of a mindset to grow his hair about it. I think these folks aren’t glamourizing violence in some irresponsible sense, like a theoretical teenage Marilyn Manson fan or something, but they are saying, “Look, we have higher thought and discernment, but we’re still animals.” Non-violence is a noble ideal, and you can practice if you want, but the animal that kills you won’t. It’s definitely reactionary thinking, but they are not Burgess’ lil Alex of C. Orange, “vidi the crimson vino pouring down the gutter, it makes me hard”, they are “well actually, I am prepared when a stranger shows up a the door in the middle of the night and says ‘come quick, there’s been a terrible accident’ through the mailslot. Because lets face it, you just never know who that fucker is and what they are, or are not, thinking.” Vollman’s latest offering, whether it succeeds or not, attempts to set up higher thinking, ethical guidelines, on when it is and is not appropriate to eliminate the obstacle, terminate the life of a fellow bad animal….survive through violence. I see the statement more as unapologetic realism rather than testosterone gone arry.
September 29th, 2003 at 4:22 pm
Well, I’m not gonna argue any of their personal intentions, to glamorize or not to glamorize, it certainly seems that some of them, namely Thompson gets more than a personal “kick” out of seeing his own gun-crazed self on tv talking sports or shooting shit up. But a gun nut is a gun nut, by no other name. It is one thing to be paranoid about your well-being, you can do that just as effectively with a less violent weapon and good sense– in fact, “statistics” as they say, point to the fact that simple possession of a firearm leads to a significantly higher probabliity of being mortally injured by one. Where are the non-lethal weapons of the future? You’d think that we’d have wisened up by now. As for Vollmann’s piece, he admits that it’s insanely impractical, but that if it gets people thinking about it, then that’s good enough. I agree with that.