1. "...18-year-old Anastasia De Sousa, a lovely trilingual co-ed who was a treasure to her family..." The word co-ed is not appropriate here. It's almost as bad as using "schoolgirl" for Paul Bernardo's victims. Co-ed is never used as a noun in the 21st century outside of porn ads, so it is not an appropriate word for memorializing the deceased. Note to Rosie Dimanno: next time you try to speak positively of the deceased, think about whether the deceased would actually want to be referred to by the particular word you choose. Poor word choices like this don't make me think better of the deceased, they draw me out of the mood you're trying to create and make me pull out my metaphorical blue pencil and say "WTF did she use that word for?"
2. "He may, as neighbours in Laval told reporters, have become increasingly introverted in recent months, disappearing further into his self-imposed alienation." Introversion is not a problem, not a pathology. It is simply a function of the path by which electrical pulses travel through one's brain and the neurotransmitters that they use. It isn't something that can change or develop unless the person experiences major brain trauma of some sort. I think you mean reclusive. Yes, introverts are often reclusive, but the two words are not interchangeable. Pregnant people are often hungry, but you don't use the word pregnant to mean hungry.
3. "Apparently, a failure with girls/women; hadn't had a date in a month" In what world is a month a long time not to have a date? He wasn't in a relationship at the time, so all that means is that in the past month he hadn't met anyone new with whom there was mutual interest in going out and doing something, and arranged to go out and do something. I'm sure that statement applies to most people in the world.
Now my own thoughts:
Overall, I'm not happy with the way this story is being covered. I think they're putting way too much emphasis on the fact that the killer was dark and reclusive and didn't have his shit together, while the victim was blonde and attractive and popular and had a bright future. I'm worried that this might have negative fallout for youth who aren't about to shoot anyone up, but just happen to be dark, shy, unpopular, and don't have their shit together. Not everyone is beautiful and makes friends easily, not everyone can smoothly navigate the waters of adolescent life, and it's no sin to not be able to do these things. However, I'm worried that in light of this black & white coverage, outcasts (or even just introverts who are drained after six hours in a room with 30 other people and need time alone to decompress) are going to end up taking even more shit at the hands of the cool kids, or at the hands of adults who brightly chirp "But these are the best years of your life! Join a club! Play a sport! Volunteer!" as though it's that simple.
It also makes me wonder what would happen if I were the victim of some crime that received heavy media coverage. Overall, I'm more like Kimveer than like Anastasia. Apart from the fact that she was the victim, I cannot identify with Anastasia at all. Apart from the fact that he liked guns and shooting people, I can identify completely with Kimveer. My life does differ from Kimveer's in a few ways, and most people would consider these differences to be improvements, but all of these differences exist only because of a few strokes of good luck, not because of any virtue on my part. So what would happen if I were the victim? Would I receive less media coverage because I'm not cute and perky? Would I receive less sympathetic media coverage because I'm quiet and geeky? Would they make value judgements about me based on the fact that I sometimes blog about banal things, sometimes express frustration, and sometimes make declarative statements giving my opinion on current events? Or would they take all the elements that they are implying are a sign of Kimveer's madness and somehow reword them and represent them as good thing because I'm the victim?
1 comment:
Or would they take all the elements that they are implying are a sign of Kimveer's madness and somehow reword them and represent them as good thing because I'm the victim?
I think that's exactly what they'd do.
The victim always will be cast in a good light, the perpetrator always will be demonized.
Any writer who strays much from this will be criticized for disrespecting the victim, glorifying or excusing the perpetrator, or both.
BTW, for some reason, your last week or so of postings did not show up for me until yesterday. Were they all posted at once or was there a Blogger problem?
Post a Comment