“Do
not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is
written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay’, says the Lord.”—Romans 12:19
Yet
relatively few on earth would agree, or be willing to wait indefinitely for
justice, righteous or otherwise, to be delivered. It is no surprise that some version of the
stricture “thou shalt not kill” appears in nearly all the holy scriptures of
the world, for humans are likely to slay each other for even paltry
reasons. We are far and away the most
murderous species on the planet, an aspect of what John Calvin described as the
“total depravity” of our race. So it is
fitting that vengeance is a frequent
source of horror and suspense in weird fiction.
Three short stories offering different perspectives on this all too human
trait are discussed below, and are interesting studies of violence and
retribution.
Robert
E. Howard was a master at stories that depict the nature of revenge and the
psychology—familiar to us all at some level—that leads some people to seek
spectacular retribution against transgressors. The Man on the Ground (1933) describes the final bloody altercation
between Cal Reynolds and Esau Brill, two men who have hated and fought each other
since boyhood. Their Biblical names
recall famous fraternal duos with troubled relationships: Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, and others. Reynolds and Brill are cowpunchers who work
for rival ranchers, and have been rustling each other’s cattle. Until now, circumstances have prevented each
from murdering the other.
The
story is an effective and suspenseful vignette, a chilling observation of prolonged
and unfolding violence. As he often does, Howard creates an interesting
combination of genres. The Man on the Ground is essentially a
Western gunfight, graphically violent, but with a supernatural flourish. Even the desert landscape reflects the
emotional tone of the story—hard ground, sharp rocks, blazing heat, “instinct
with death as rattlesnakes coiled among the rocks soaking up poison from the sun’s
rays…”
Reynolds
and Brill are devoid of any awareness of the stupidity and meaninglessness of
their violence. It being a Howard story,
even a slim hope of redemption is unlikely.
Both men achieve vengeance of a sort—the moral, if there is one, is a
vivid statement of “he who lives by the sword dies by it”. (In Howard’s stories there appears to a be a
preoccupation with head injuries of various kinds, a disturbing and recurring
image made more so by the author’s eventual death by self-inflicted gunshot
wound to the head.)
Killology is a term coined by Lieutenant
Colonel David Grossman in his 1995 book On
Killing: The
Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. Grossman’s book addresses the psychological and emotional impact of military combat, but his insights are applicable to revenge killings. Because there is—surprisingly—some reluctance on the part of human beings to murder each other without good reason, individuals as well as military organizations must psychologically reframe combat situations to reduce cognitive dissonance and guilt over killing.
Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. Grossman’s book addresses the psychological and emotional impact of military combat, but his insights are applicable to revenge killings. Because there is—surprisingly—some reluctance on the part of human beings to murder each other without good reason, individuals as well as military organizations must psychologically reframe combat situations to reduce cognitive dissonance and guilt over killing.
There
are a number of ways to do this: train
soldiers with targets that look like fellow human beings instead of more abstract
“bull’s-eyes”, displace the responsibility for killing onto the combat group or
its leader, and desensitize future killers to extreme violence through prolonged
exposure to various media depictions of it.
Intuitively
we know that humanity’s supposed natural reluctance to kill members of its own
species can also be circumvented by manipulation of a sense of physical and
emotional distance from the victim. For example, it helps if the enemy is an
immediate physical threat to one’s life, which justifies an extreme act of self-preservation.
It is also useful to believe that the
victim is culturally or racially inferior, is inherently evil or unjust, or
occupies a different social class, (hence, “class warfare”). Finally—and especially relevant these days of
surgical drone strikes against enemy leaders—a mechanical or technological
interface that shields the avenger from direct experience of the avengee’s
demise helps reduce the stress of implementation.
Robert
E. Howard’s states his more visceral killology in this way:
They
had fought to a bloody gasping deadlock, and neither had felt any desire to “shake
hands and make up.” That is a hypocrisy
developed in civilization, where men have no stomach for fighting to the
death. After a man has felt his
adversary’s knife grate against his bones, his adversary’s thumb gouging at his
eyes, his adversary’s boot-heels stamped into his mouth, he is scarcely inclined
to forgive and forget, regardless of the original merits of the argument.
In
subsequent posts the theme of revenge will be examined in the work of two other
authors, that of H.H. Munro, (also known as “Saki”), and H.P. Lovecraft.
*The
quote “Revenge is a dish best served cold” has been in the English language
since 1846, and is possibly derived from French literature. It has since appeared in various versions,
most notably as a Klingon proverb in the 1982 film Star Trek II, The Wrath of Kahn.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your interest in The R'lyeh Tribune! Comments and suggestions are always welcome.