Casual readers should also be able to catch the double-phallic imagery of the title. The double-penis, or hemi-penis, is a well known biological feature of serpents. So here we see Richard McBeef as the serpent, Lucifer. The banishment from the garden, the lost innocence of youth, just in the title.
The simplicity and directness of Cho Sueng-Hui's prose continues to the story itself. He truly has a genius for economy and understatement. Cho never dilutes his message with flowery allusion or metaphor. His references are as direct as a bullet to the brain. Yet he combines the force of Hemingway with the ecstatic wordplay of Nabokov.
"Me what?! You want me to stick this remote control up your ass buddy! You ain't even worth it man. This remote was five bucks. You are such an a--- "
"What are you, a Catholic priest? I will not be molested by an aging balding overweight pedophillic stepdad named Dick! Get your hands off me you sicko! Damn you, you Catholic Priest. Just stop it, Michael Jackson! Let me guess, you have a pet named Dick in Neverland Ranch and you want me to go pet him, right?"
Some may mistake Cho's simplicity for hackery. Nothing could be furthur from the truth. We see, not only in his writing but in his neo-dadist photography, a cultured man who still deigns to respect the artistic heritage that he so profoundly transcends.
The photos above are another example of Cho making a brilliant historical reference seem blunt, even crude. The world has lost a true master. As a wise man once said, "How long shall we kill our prophets?"
Anyone who has ever deluded themselves into thinking they have any artistic abilities
can only realize that we are so much slime compared to Cho's genius. You must read Richard McBeef. Read it, and weep at your failure.
Rating: 14/10
3 comments:
I've forwarded some of these thoughts to Cho's English Prof's at VT, one has already written back, finding them insightful, and has forwarded it along to a contact at the NY Times. Let me know what you think:
QUESTION MARK
In my mind there is no question why Cho Seung Hui went by "Question Mark." I was born in the US, given a Westernized first name of Albert at birth, but given the Chinese middle name of "Shing-yah." At a very young age I quickly learned that my middle-name would be source of taunt and torment by my non-Asian classmates, so I would always leave it blank on forms. If anyone asked me what my middle name was I responded, "S." Often this would be followed by, "What does 'S.' stand for?" And when I told them "Shing-yah," my colleagues would usually erupt into laughter, chanting "Shing-yah, ching chang chung hiyah" or other gibberish in a mock Asian accent.
This response to me--born and raised in the state of Georgia--and I even spoke English with a Southern drawl!! I can't imagine how much worse it could have been for Cho who, after living in the US for 15 years, still had a foreign Korean accent. He probably used the "Question Mark" out of fear of being taunted, since he had no other name to go by....I at least had a Westernized first name to save me from such ridicule. We see his use of "?" in a class sign-in sheet. I imagine this resulted from his experience of countless times of such name lists being read aloud, every time fearfully anticipating when the teacher would read his name, knowing it would lead to snickers or outright bursts of laughter by the classroom. On NBC I saw a clip of an instant messenger conversation where he refused to provide his identity. I imagine in his sad and delusional fantasies he would hope that the person he was stalking on the other side wouldn't realize he was Asian, fall in love with him online (or something along the lines of "You've Got Mail"), and could accept him later on, strange foreign-ness and all...who knows what he was thinking. But in my mind, there is no doubt as to the source of this mysterious "Question Mark."
RICHARD McBEEF
I have to admit I'm still pondering this one over. As mentioned by the media Cho wasn't the greatest writer, but I see quite a bit of symbolism in this play. This play is the closest allegory we have to Cho's life experience. First of all, the story if of a 13 year old boy whose father reportedly dies in a boating accident and gets a new ex-football player stepfather, Richard McBeef. The boating accident is symbolic of Cho's family's journey from Korea to America. In that voyage, Cho feels cutoff from his roots, culture, and heritage, and hence symbolically his true biological father (easy to make this connection with the male-centric Korean culture). Further, this strained relationship and Cho's accusation that Richard McBeef killed his father so he could "get into [his] mom's pant" may also symbolize what Cho views as America's imperialistic conspiracy, as this next section discusses the symbolism behind "Richard McBeef."
Cho is all of a sudden thrown into a new and unfamiliar American culture, symbolized by Richard McBeef. We've seen his criticism of "hedonism" and "debauchery", showing his purposeful intent of the choice of the name "Dick" to symbolize the high emphasis on sex in America. Richard McBeef also personifies what Cho views as America's imperialistic tendencies, since Richard "knew [John/Cho's] mom was too good for [John/Cho's] father. So you took him out and stole her." In this light, whereas his father symbolized his Korean culture and heritage that was destroyed, his mother symbolizes the attempts by Koreans to assimilate to American culture. The fact that Richard McBeef is an ex-football player says a lot too, as we all know what football players were like in high school; the handsome athlete all the girls love [which he also sought after], but also the source of ridicule and bullying. The choice of McBeef as a last name is also quite intentional, symbolizing the excess of McDonald's and bovines symbolizing fat, lazy, and ready for slaughter. He also accuses this character of murdering his father. Since we could entertain that Richard McBeef the football player is something that Cho may have aspired to be but knew he could never achieve, another possible dimension is that Richard McBeef may also symbolize Cho's sexual frustration he encounters here in the US. As we have discovered, many of Cho's advances towards American women were rebuffed. Realizing his aspirations for having a love relationship with an American woman are futile, he resigns to the "Must Kill Dick" mentality to put an end to his frustration. I'll admit this might be a bit of my psychoanalysis creeping in and so might be a stretch...and finally to state the obvious, he probably also felt that Americans were "dicks" to him.
The ending of Richard McBeef also speaks volumes. Up to this point, Richard has been quite passive, and outside of his accusations we actually have no reason to believe he even actually molested John. Perhaps Cho realizes that as much as the Americans in his life have taunted and ridiculed him, no one has actually caused any real physical harm. Or perhaps Richard's passiveness is Cho's view of American's "politically correct" culture that is too scared to say anything out of fear. But in perhaps his final foreshadowing, as Cho attempts to kill Richard McBeef by shoving a candy bar down his throat, deep down he knows that the true America will fight back and not tolerate such unacceptable behavior. At this point, perhaps he already had devised his macabre plan and envisioned he would be killed by law enforcement when he finally decides to fight back against American society/Richard McBeef.
The boy's name "John" is quite generic, even glaringly generic, for such a disturbing piece. Cho uses the name John and other generic western names in other writings. In light of the "Question Mark" discussion, perhaps this is a manifestation of his desire to have just a normal name to fit in with his peers. Again, might be a bit of a stretch.
April 16th, 2007
The media mentions that he had postponed his plan multiple times, but in my opinion, there is no other day that such a planned out deed could have been carried out. Cho's videos leave little doubt that he is well aware of the Columbine shooters Eric and Dylan, and in his mind he idolizes them as martyrs. We compare this duo to Cho and see little similarity--in fact I would have trouble believing that people such as Eric and Dylan would even welcome Cho into their circles. But in Cho's mind, they were speaking up and acting on behalf of a larger group---those experiencing the pain of ostracism and exclusion by society. With the April 20th anniversary falling on a Friday this year, Cho could not have picked a worse day to carry out his plan if his main objective was to inspire copycat killers. Indeed he even created the media "manifesto" that show his delusions of grandeur of starting a "revolution", which reflects his desire for his acts to have maximum media coverage possible. He must have known that by carrying out his plan early Monday morning at 7am, he would achieve the maximum amount of media coverage possible that week. The purpose of the non-stop mind-numbing media coverage? To inspire other societal outcasts to carry out a similar plan...and what more symbolic day than the anniversary of the Columbine shootings? And indeed, we saw a number of threats at schools around the country all week....and I am thankful that we didn't see anything worse this past Friday.
But not just the timing...even the sequence of events that occurred last Monday, to me were quite intentional. The media package was purposefully made. The plan for mailing the package between shootings was even more intentional, almost a cry out for attention, as he seemed to be saying, "Look! You didn't think I could commit the act. But I've done it. And you [the world and elitist snobs who have excluded me] have caused me so much pain in my life, I have no remorse and I'm going to do even more." In all likelihood, I imagine Cho elaborately and carefully planned every detail.
re: original post
yeesh, the 'kick-em-while-they're-down' dept. strikes again!
Casual readers should also be able to catch the double-phallic imagery of the title. The double-penis, or hemi-penis, is a well known biological feature of serpents. So here we see Richard McBeef as the serpent, Lucifer. The banishment from the garden, the lost innocence of youth, just in the title. black shalwar kameez , black shalwar ,
Post a Comment