This is a tough book to read -- not that it is poorly written, far from it. Rather because of the subject matter. This book is about violence; it is somewhat graphic and definitely disturbing.
The essence of the text is, if you are in a situation where a criminal will apply violence to you, then you must choose: either to apply violence to him, or to be a victim.
The author differentiates anti-social situations (e.g., when a drunk at the bar hassles you, the easiest solution is to walk away, avoiding confrontation) from asocial situations (e.g., when the criminal has a knife to your neck, and you have to decide if you will fight, perhaps literally for your life).
As I've mentioned before, sane people in the USA prefer to not think about such things. Larkin quotes Jeff Cooper early on:
"...many men who are not cowards are simply unprepared for acts of human savagery. They have not thought about it (incredible as this may appear to anyone who reads the papers or listens to the news) and they just don't know what to do. When they look right into the face of depravity and violence they are astonished and confounded."Larkin also touches on the Virginia Tech situation, about which I've also commented in the past, asking, why didn't any group of students swarm Seung Hui Cho, even when he stopped to reload? This is a (sad) commentary on our readiness as a nation to protect ourselves in general, the culture of political correctness swirled with litigation-as-a-way-of-life.
As an (is this controversial?) aside, this culture of acquiescence is why the USA is today ill-suited to deal effectively with terrorism. Maybe that's why terrorism protection theater at our airports continues to suffice to appease the masses, or at least the politicians.
But Larkin's book isn't really about theory or politics or philosophy; it is about deciding if violence is a realistic choice for you in dangerous situations.
No comments:
Post a Comment