I don't know, but looking at the trend of my posts since this blog's inception, I have to say it looks as though I have failed as a blogger. That is, if my initial rate of posting is taken as an implicit statement of purpose, then my failure to maintain that rate indicates a failure of the blog as a whole. On the other hand, in my pop-culture inundated life (and my none-too-bright brain), in this pop-culture inundated culture, non-pop-culture topics are rare, and my natural reticence means I will want to speak about any given topic even more rarely; therefore, posts to this blog should be expected to be rare.
I'm glad we cleared that up.
I have a question, that may just be evergreen--even deathless--that I'm not equipped to answer. (As a sidelight, does the existence of unanswerables, in comparison to the complete reinvention of human life wrought by science, indicate that philosophy, as a human endeavor, has wrought less than it ought? Maybe it's a dumb question--I'm not educated enough to judge.)
But the question I want to ask is, why we have emotional reactions to depictions (written or drawn) of heinous acts? And why do we talk about the depictions as if something had actually happened?
And if we had no emotional reaction to depictions would there be any point to making art? Where is the moral line in depictions, and where should the legal line be? What harm comes from restricting depictions that the public deems undesirable?
Huge questions with huge answers, and they are cried into the wind without even an Echo as answer. But is that any better than the answers we've gotten from millenia of the best human thought? I don't know. I should go back to school--or at least read a goddamn book.