for 30 January 1998. Updated every WEEKDAY.

Shameless Dread

I don't think Munch's
"nameless dread" suits our
age at all: After all, his
nightmares aren't ours. In
the same way that
Wordsworth's dread of urban
society is a precursor to our
own feelings, it doesn't
define what we now see. After
all, who can read
Wordsworth's poetry, barring
"The Preludes," and not
snigger?

The integration of Munch's
nightmare images into culture
follows that of many similar
nightmares, first as
terrifying stories, then
gradually morphing into
figures of fun. From the
nameless dread of giants to
"Jack and the Beanstalk."

Maybe we need something else,
something that actually
matches what we feel rather
than mis-appropriating the
totems of other ages.

Roger

Precisely my point, in a
roundabout way: That while
Munch's image of stark,
screaming angst resonates
with our millennial anxiety,
it's undercut by our
flattened affect and terminal
glibness. Munch's figure is at
once the poster boy for
millennial dread and the butt
of camp humor. He stands at
the intersection of horror
and hilarity in the same way
that Quentin Tarantino's
Three Stooges allusions do in
Reservoir Dogs, or
Nicholson's "Honey, I'm home"
routine does in The Shining.
Which is why I quote Mike
Davis' pungent observation,
pace Walter Benjamin, that
what was once terrible seems
to have become fun. In other
words, we agree, in large
part.

Howard Beale

Edvard Munch's The Scream is
gender-neutral? Au
contraire, you state it
yourself when you described
the "hands clapped to his
head" and "tormented face of
one man's despair."

And don't give me that crap
about "man" being
gender-neutral. Armstrong
wasn't referring to women
when he said "One small step
for (a) man; a giant leap for
mankind"; otherwise NASA
wouldn't be sending John
Glenn's ancient lily-white
testosterone-filled butt into
space.

So give it up and get with
the PC program. "They" is the
proper pronoun, "human" at
least purports to include the
rest of us that are worth
more than a fractional value.

And yes, nit-picking is
hyphenated.

Georgia Mcnamara <Georgia.Mcnamara@iscorp.bellatlantic.COM>

They're filling John Glenn's
butt with testosterone? Is
that some new kind of
treatment for adjusting to
weightlessness?

Oh, stop this The Scream
represents postmodern angst
hooey. The Scream is/was
little Eddie's version of an
orgasm. Just say it: ORGASM.
There. Feel better?

K. A. Eder <kathleen.a.eder@boeing.com>

Just because you work around
heavy equipment shaped like
gigantic phalluses all day
doesn't mean you have to read
sex into everything. Jeez.

Although I have yet to decide
upon the stance of your
article, I will assume for
the benefit of this response,
that you take a negative
stance on the campy
resurgence of my favorite
painting, Munch's Scream.
After all this is a Suck
article. I've got the
inflatable toy, the tie, the
poster in my home office, all
given to me by my mother, a
painter. What is so wrong
about finding fun in our
shared despair? I could care
less about the coming
millennium and all relevant
anxieties. As long as my ATM
machine knows what the date
is, and I have something to
do the night before, what's
the big deal? We as a
civilization have a
responsibility to accept what
is bad and create the best
life we can. This has always
been the case, only now we
confront the human idea of
"self" with mass media. A
condition which McLuhan
promptly responded to by
releasing copies of his
manifesto with an intentional
misspelling. Truly the
question is: Message or
Massage?

In today's modern Scream we
find both. The deeper despair
that permeates us all, and
the willingness, no, the
instinct, to overcome. The
Scream is a tool, an icon.
Double click its double
meaning and you comfortably
expose the truth about
yourself.

However, you bring a good
point to light. We as humans
rarely observe ourselves.
We'd rather go on living
without so much as a thought
of being a part of the whole.
Why do that when the package
sits on the shelf ready to
take home and inflate? Leave
the painting to the painters.
Me? I'm going to ask the
violin player out after the
end of the world concert,
have some postmodern coffee,
and share run-on sentences
about trendy angst.

Tristan Tomaselli <tristan@servtech.com>

If we're going to be bores,
it's good to know that at
least our angst is trendy. If
only we could fashion an
inflatable toy, a tie, and a
poster out of it; your mom
might buy those, too.

Right to Kill

Although I enjoyed your
article today, I must say I
think you're missing the
point.

I do not believe that Ted
Kaczynski has "reached the
worst level of ethical
self-deception." Your
statement implies that Ted
chose to subvert the law
because he saw himself as
above it. I don't think
that's true. Your statement
indicates that you think Ted
acted out of some
pathological desire to kill,
as it would appear your
Italian example did. However,
I do honestly believe that
Ted's homicide was
politically motivated. He
targeted victims whose deaths
would have impeded
technological progress. He
also coupled his killing with
a message, albeit a sometimes
rambling one.

Disagreement with terrorist
tactics as a method of
communication is fine.
However, implying that he
killed because of
pathological desires is
somewhat misguided. That is,
unless you view capital
punishment as pathological,
war as pathological,
euthanasia as pathological.
All are accepted methods of
murder in our society, right?
So why not politically or
theologically motivated
murder? Look, I'm not saying
I agree with his methodology.
But can you honestly say that
if Ted published his
discontent with society and
technology in Lingua Franca
that anyone would have
noticed? However, pipe bomb a
few people, and everyone's
reading your manifesto.

Millions of people who would
have never considered Ted's
arguments before are now
hearing them in the news
media almost daily, and this
will only continue as the
trial goes forward. Some
people are quick to label Ted
as crazy, or charge that
"there is something evil
about Kaczynski." But even
esteemed Suck writers such as
yourself are including links
to his manifesto in their
articles. So, by killing 3
people and injuring 29, Ted's
managed to make his name and
his ideas a topic of
discussion in print; on
radio, television, and the
Net; and at the family dinner
table. Now, who is it that's
crazy again?

David Gulbransen <david@vervet.com>

He got his message out more
effectively than Super Bowl
Sunday advertising, and,
instead of several million
dollars, he only spent three
lives! Bargain!

Because Ted's homicide was
politically motivated, there
isn't something evil about
him? Ooof.

Shameless Dread

Subject: First as tragedy,
then as farce

A big-time art historian
friend has, as a hobby (I
guess; what else would one
call it?), a collection of
advertising and related
appropriations of
Michelangelo's famous
ceiling, with the Lord
creating Adam. This is both a
far better piece of art than
The Scream and far harder to
reproduce well, yet surely
there are more versions of
this than of The Scream. It
is a mistake, perhaps, to
read too much into the
culture's desire to cheapen
great art; sometimes, a cigar
is just a cigar. Sometimes an
image just gets taken up by
the society and overused.

Amusing case in point: Go and
visit the Mona Lisa in Paris.
It sits behind a horrible
glass shield, and dozens of
people are taking flash
pictures of it each minute
(in gross violation of Louvre
rules, common sense, and
logic). Nobody actually looks
at the painting. In the next
room, totally ignored, is the
most charming Leonardo
imaginable, looking back at
you across 500 years with a
wink in her eye. Why so?
Because the Mona Lisa was
stolen and recovered and
somehow became a symbol of
high art. Don't ask.

So, sure. Go ahead and
deconstruct The Scream.
Probably all you said is
true. But sometimes stuff
just happens.

Alan Kornheiser The

Doctor Is IN

Stuff just happens! Alan, are
you feeling OK? You don't
seem like yourself today.