[Inevitable Tragedy]
In theory, my beliefs include that the world will be destroyed by fire, that all unbelievers will spend eternal life in hell after being judged, and that all human attempts to save themselves will be lost. But I won't mention it. I always put on a grinning face and say that when something is done the right way, it will always make a difference - as if any concept associated with the word "fate" is poisonous.
Capote forced me to revisit the question: Are there certain tragedies, rifts, perversions in the world that cannot be overcome, no matter the cost? For these perversions are rooted in laws from which we cannot escape.
There is, and there are many, from the contradiction of existence and death, to the general contradiction of the polarities of things. These abstract concepts take a lot of time to explain, so here are just examples from Capote:
Adam Smith says, "No matter how selfish a person may be considered to be, there are some obvious laws in his nature that make him interested in the fate of others. , making the pleasures of others relevant to him, and he delights only in seeing others happy...but only our own feelings, not those of others, are used in the imaginative process of 'sympathy'" (the Theory of Moral Sentiments at the beginning of Chapter 1).
In short, we are sympathetic, but we are completely trapped in ourselves.
Capote can see that Perry Smith is not a "murderer", a "sin", a "murderer who should be killed by the people", but a person, just because Capote has been hurt before, and has the raw material for this "sympathetic" imagination in his mind . So in his eyes, pale face means fear, tortured eyes mean pain. He could see only because he had suffered too.
I've always been reluctant to be sure that this is the only way to "see". I wishfully praise other "seeing" that do not need to pay a particularly heavy price, such as having read, heard, and understood. Just try to forget the fact that everyone who can "see" has been tortured. Not to mention this kind of sensitivity due to being hurt is too easy to be controlled by narcissism (because one of the causes of narcissism is the confusion of self-boundary). Not for some people, but more people are injured → sensitive, just because of narcissism: the projection of self extends to other people at will, when other people are hurt, what this person feels is only this person Your own self-esteem projections are damaged.
However, this proof can go from sensitive to pain, but not from pain to sensitive: Capote "sees" Perry's pain, because he was tortured outside of his childhood by forces he couldn't resist; see", and resorted to torturing him.
Is there any other way?
Perry Smith said why he killed the farmer-because the farmer regarded him as a demon, the farmer thought he would kill him and expected him to kill; and he thought a gentleman like the farmer could be different from others , can see that he is not a devil, but a person who has been riddled with holes. "He can't see," I curled up in my chair and cried while watching, "He can't see," he can't see, I repeat to myself like crazy, until the water marks make me invisible. Although from common sense observation, this "gentle gentleman" is indeed not a sufficient condition.
So what is a way to have a more accurate empathy for pain without harming it? I had an answer in my head that I'd been reluctant to admit: There's no such thing as a painless way. This is one of those natural perversions, a question that can only be saddened, because the only way to think about it is to measure the extent of the damage.
Something went wrong, causing a person like Capote to accidentally suffer from domestic violence as a child, and for these already unfortunate people, the remaining question is what to do after "seeing". For the lucky ones, deliberately putting them into harsh environments (such as Professor Yang's illegally imprisoning and shocking horses) - this is of course considered inhumane, because the cost is too high.
Then the slightly tolerable logic is to exchange the least harm for as much educational effect as possible - although this is still wrong in absolute ethics. Minimal harm - the first thing that jumped into my mind was reading novels, using first-rate brainwashing tools to transfer maximum emotional harm to the process of adopting logical thinking? As Nietzsche had hoped, to fill this perversion of the world beyond the limits of learning with tragedy? There is much more to discuss about this logical direction, but I consciously escape it when I write stories.
The last problem, this kind of "invisibility" - dehumanization, people don't treat their own kind as kind; use a lot of excuses (criminals, enemies, perverts, self-inflicted) to cover up the obvious pain of people in front of them - this kind of How deep is the situation?
There is no definite answer. But I've already encountered a sense of powerlessness that I can't get rid of, just the simple concept of "seeing that independent person as your kind", no matter what kind of persuasion method is used, it cannot become the consensus of everyone. It is doomed to fail in this imperfect world. "No one cares at all!" said someone who had seen the opposition to the death penalty weeping in frustration. But as long as there is one person who opposes various forms of dehumanization (actually a lot) to give human beings a little bit of dignity, then I will stand by him.
[Unavoidable tragedy]
"It's not that you didn't try to help him, it's that you didn't want to," Haper Lee said to Capote.
From a narcissistic point of view, Capote certainly can't stand the "he killed Perry Smith" brainstorming. The basic characteristic of narcissism is that they try to "stay away from their own shortcomings, stay away from shame", they hate themselves. But Capote's sympathy for Perry, a bruised stretch of his own narcissism, and more.
Capote must have had a moment when he violated the laws of his narcissistic behavior. That is, stand in the position of a neutral bystander and judge that it is wrong for Perry to suffer. That's why he couldn't bear to do the "wrong thing" later.
The warden said that Perry's hunger strike was terrible, and if he continued the hunger strike, they would have to give him nutrient injections to keep him alive because it wasn't his right to kill himself. The people have the right to kill him, and he works for the people. Capote saw the perversion here, and he tried to tell others by writing a story or something, but in the end he only found himself doing exactly the same thing as the warden. Let Perry live longer, just to kill him more brutally.
The result is that Capote sees that one thing is wrong, sees various solutions to make it better, and finally chooses to sit on the sidelines - tantamount to becoming one of Perry's murderers as well. This may be a problem that people will laugh at and "you will lose if you are serious", or it may also be a problem that is actually extremely painful whether you choose to help or choose to watch after you "see". But what interests me is what made Capote make the choice to "want him to die"?
There's definitely more to the reason "because his narcissism made him seek fame and fortune", because just scrutinizing the matter shows that Capote knew he couldn't take it, but he did it anyway—a perversion of logic. The mistake is thinking in the untouchable realm.
As far as my knowledge is concerned, there are probably only two things that are completely outside the borders of thinking: the perversions inherent in the laws of the world (mentioned in a small amount in the first part of this article); and pure evil—the vicious destructive passions outside reason. If one needs to provide why pure evil is outside of logic, the following passage is a good exposition:
"Evil is by no means 'fundamental', but something purely extreme, without the deep dimensions of demons, This is my true opinion. Evil thrives like mold that covers the surface of poisonous mushrooms, often destroying the whole world. As I said before, "evil is something that has not been thought about". Why do you say that, thinking must reach a certain depth , approaching its source, not to mention the moments involving evil, because there is nothing there, bringing the frustration of thinking. This is the "banality" of evil. Only good has depth and is essential" ("The Origin of Totalitarianism" Hannah Arendt).
A man like Capote, he has seen so many truths that are hidden, so he can't even deceive himself with enough reasons to deceive too many people. He kept repeating to himself, "I tried my best," but he knew in his heart that he didn't, or he wouldn't end up breaking down. Pure "you want him to die" without any other impurities - the latter of two things that go beyond the margins of thinking. Then, pop, logic hits the wall.
So maybe it's not just Capote's narcissism that can't stand this torture, but also because his mind, which has reached enough depth, can't stand the instant reverse destruction.
[Author's original sin]
Because I also write, I saw Capote tortured to death by a writing experience... I naturally began to make up in my mind:
Does writing increase the distance of communication, or reduce it? Is writing a productive expression of compassion? How far is the tragedy written on paper from the real tragedy? Cut out a piece of your own soul and put it on paper?
But let's not discuss the above for now, but look at this one:
In the final scene of "King Lear", which is the climax of the tragedy, what happens is that Edgar is constantly telling Albany about his tragic experience . However, on the other side, Cordelia was left in the air and could not be rescued in time, and eventually died.
In Capote, sometimes writing about the creative process occupies all his attention, and sometimes caring about Perry Smith occupies his attention. I've been thinking about the storytelling scene in King Lear for a long time, and what are the key issues with Capote's storytelling. Many tears flowed, but did not understand the reason behind it, until now there is finally a possible answer. Only to console me, who is also addicted to storytelling:
Writing is an act of pursuing eternity (no matter how many years the written work can exist in people's minds). When this behavior occurs, it is controlled by people's "existence" which is unnatural and pursues eternal thought- This kind of thinking is also related to the human behavior of continuously recording history. However, this kind of thinking has a natural contradiction, a contradiction that exists at the moment when human self-consciousness is generated: the human body is not eternal, the actual life time on earth is not eternal, and we will all die. We can see that although writing is an act of pursuing eternity, the material of writing—people and their lives, belongs to the mortal present. This irreconcilable contradiction has brought out too many entanglements and tragedies.
So when to choose eternity and when to choose now? I'm guessing there won't be a definite answer. It will be friction, entanglement, disputes all the time.
So again this is one of those sad things.
-------------------------------------------------- --I
watched it twice, I cried so much that I couldn't help myself, and the third time I discussed it with my friends who watched it until dawn, thinking for many days. All that's recorded in this review are the little traces of all the tangle, but it's time to close this adventure journal. Start a new journey.
View more about Capote reviews
