Posts
Producers of the teenage suicide show, 13 Reasons Why are somewhat cognizant of the baleful consequences
their series might produce. Yet, they cannot do better than pay lip service to
it.
Writing in the New Yorker Jia Tolentino is not impressed.
She concludes her article, entitled “Making a Smarmy Spectacle of Suicide” with thoughts about the final episode:
A perversely
dutiful banner at the bottom of the screen asks “Need Help Now?” and points
viewers having suicidal thoughts to 13reasonswhy.info. And if I had less faith in the ability
of teen-agers to know bullshit when they see it, I would worry about what
they might take from “13 Reasons Why,” which never touches on the subject of
mental illness, and which presents Hannah’s suicide as both an addictive
scavenger hunt and an act that gives her the glory, respect, and adoration that
she was denied in real life. But I am more troubled by the show’s smarmy,
disrespectfully pedagogical aesthetic. In her 2011 book “The
Art of Cruelty,” Maggie Nelson writes about cultural products that “seem
designed to analyze themselves, and to make a spectacle of their essentially
consumable perversity.” In the last episode of “13 Reasons Why,” we see one of
the characters planning a mass shooting. On Sunday, Netflix announced that the
show had been renewed for another season.
Tolentino correctly sees a double danger in the show’s
concept. It presents suicide as a scavenger hunt, thus a divertissement and declares that the show portrays the victim, receiving, in death “the glory, respect, and adoration that she was denied in
real life.”
No one is calling for boycotts. But, we should all recognize
that producers who put such stuff on our screens should know that
they are aggravating a problem, not solving it. There are limits to the value
of enhanced awareness.
6 comments:
What happened to "death with dignity"? Don't teenagers have that right, too?
Promoting suicide and then moaning about its popularity is as stupid as promoting promiscuity and declaring a "crisis" when STDs spread like wildfire.
https://www.cdc.gov/std/
I think we may be trying to close the barn door a little late if we go against dramatizing (or glorifying) suicides. Like Romeo and Juliet are read in high schools, so we all know love is dangerous, and family feuds are so stupid that sometimes it takes young people to kill themselves to remind all the haters what their blindness sows.
I always knew I was willing to die for certain beliefs, including freedom of speech, while I've never been sure what beliefs I'd be willing to kill for. Mostly I'd only risk killing in chaotic situations where other lives are in imminent risk of violence. So the higher the chaos, the higher risks I'm willing to take to my conscience.
So I'm more concerned about dramatizing/glorifying mass murders over dramatizing/glorifying suicides. Copy-cat suicides at least only take willing victims.
Taking one's own life is a weighty matter, and suicide notes seem to be a good creative outlet, giving you some control over the narrative others will make about you.
I probably could spend years on getting that note just right before I'd be willing to submit it as my last words. And I have this anti-blame stance, so I'd have to be very sure no one left behind thinks they were the cause.
AO, how would you propose we avoid "dramatizing/glorifying mass murders"? I was not aware our society does this.
It comes down to awareness of a problem versus awareness of an option.
Suicide isn't about the person who commits. Suicide is about the pain and destruction the person leaves behind in seeking to avoid their own. It is a manifestly selfish choice. I'm not sure how that makes for good television, but I'm not attracted to much television anyway.
Ares: "Mostly I'd only risk killing in chaotic situations where other lives are in imminent risk of violence. So the higher the chaos, the higher risks I'm willing to take to my conscience."
It would seem you've arrived at an understanding of why some of us law-abiding citizens have concealed pistol licenses. I hope you will support our Second Amendment rights.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tWoNhGhfJk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGov0H08ySU
IAC: It would seem you've arrived at an understanding of why some of us law-abiding citizens have concealed pistol licenses. I hope you will support our Second Amendment rights.
I'm not sure about best interpretations of Second Amendment rights for personal protection versus for organized militias. And on the first, the evidence to me suggests more people are shot from accidental shootings than are shot for being wannabe murders. So if local law enforcement wants to put limits on individual conceal and carry, based on evidence people can use them responsibly, I'm all for that.
I don't have a good sense how to limit "concealed pistol licenses". I'd see it not unlike the problem of driver licenses, since cars are also deadly weapons. So it makes sense that individuals should have to pass skill tests, and be retested when they get older.
Post a Comment