But, since
they weren't in conflict his own interests and those of the wider world were in agreement, so it's just an additional spur, rather than a complicating factor. It was certainly the more pressing factor for him, but the personal is going to be a better spur.
I agree that yours is the more interesting question.
In most fiction, it's phrased more like that Trek episode, where it's "let this one person you like die to SAVE THE WORLD," rather than "the suffering of a group of which you are a member or the suffering of another group"--And it gets even more interesting when you start looking at how equal or not those sufferings are.
That question, actually, now that I think about it, does have very real-world consequences, unlike the purely hypothetical "would you kill Hitler" kind of question. In realistic terms, even public policies with wide upsides have downsides for some group, at least. How do you balance those concerns fairly?
For what it's worth, I wouldn't kill Hitler, I'd kill Goering and a couple of other gung-ho supporters.
I should check and see if I have family in Sidney so have a built-in excuse to go.
(I mean, Dad *WAS* born in Duncan. Which isn't THAT far from there.)
In realistic terms, even public policies with wide upsides have downsides for some group, at least. How do you balance those concerns fairly?
That's where it gets really interesting. Especially if you're a social justice campaigner, like me. It costs society something to create equality for disabled people - different kinds of costs, but usually one kind or other. I don't know whether we consider this enough in my campaign groups. It's not a huge concern, but it's one we should consider from time to time. And maybe it should be influencing the directions in which we focus our campaigning, so that we're asking for things which benefit more groups than just us. Some of the time, anyway.
For what it's worth, I wouldn't kill Hitler, I'd kill Goering and a couple of other gung-ho supporters.
Re: the book - that's pretty much its conclusion. That one person's death didn't change much, since others came in to fill his place, and that the success of the Nazi party wasn't dependent on one person. This fits with the 'destiny' theme of the book, but perhaps it should have been obvious to the characters from a bit of reading of history. Except that then, no story. So never mind.
Did someone here recommend 13 Bullets to me? I finished it yesterday, and man, that is FUCKED UP. But I can't for the life of me remember where I heard of it to have gotten it from the library.
She's a tattoo artist, he's a vampire, together, they fight crime!
No... seriously.
Elle Jasper's THE DARK INK CHRONICLES, pitched as LA INK meets TWILIGHT/LOST BOYS in which a gorgeous, tough-as-nails tattoo artist pairs up with Savannah's unlikely guardian-unpredictable, a sexy vampire, and together they take on a pair of blood-thirsty vampire brothers determined to control the city's youth, to Laura Cifelli at NAL,
A question about book covers.
I was glancing through the supermarket's collection of current ficton, and I saw more examples of my least favorite trend--decapitated women on the covers of "chick lit". Is it an attempt to appeal to Every Woman, whoever she is? Even if it's not a photo-type picturewith an identifiable person, more often than not there's only a partial person on the cover, generally with her head missing. Potboiler romance novels have a gorgeous woman swooning/mooning around, but other fiction seems to hate having a full human being on the cover. I find it very disturbing.
I'm not sure what you mean by "chick lit" Connie, since as a genre, it's pretty much gone the way of the dodo bird. Can you recall any of the titles?
And the headless woman/man trend is also very popular in paranormal and historical romance/fiction, although it seems to have been giving way to backs of late.
I going to guess this is photo cropping style decapitation rather than a bloody demise style decapitation since the latter would be weird.
