A couple of ideas. First, the idea that the story requires some "balance" now seems to me a kind of goofy idea. Where'd I get that idea? I repudiate myself and that goofy idea. Having said that, I wish to re-assert that the successful story requires . . . balance. Forget it. Nonsense. Dopey idea. On the other hand . . . well, I worry that the simple challenge to some assumed-shared system of values constitutes an enrichment of our reading. I regret that reading seems to operate on the idea that any violation of norms, any norms, accepted norms, presumed norms, makes the text exciting and dangerous. Yet this seems to be so. We lap it up. We drink its milkshake. What is wrong with us? We must navigate between the deadly dull and the foolishly interesting. More on this as time permits.

P.S. If you have not yet read the entire three million words of Erroll Morris's NYT piece, in three parts, and including all responses, please do so at your earliest. [link to article here]