Full Circle by Ezra T. Gray


Tell us what you thought about the May 2007 issue!

Moderator: Editors

User avatar

Editor Emeritus

Posts: 2379

Joined: December 31, 1969, 08:00:00 PM

Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Post May 11, 2007, 02:46:06 PM

Re: Full Circle by Ezra T. Gray

Ah, but that assumes that Daniel was sane (clinically) before he caught up with his quarry...

It might be more appropriate to wonder why Daniel was so quick to accept that the deaths of his parents were justified because they MIGHT have killed someone while DUI. Did horror at killing someone he THOUGHT was innocent tip him over the line?

Consider:
  • Daniel thought his pursuit of Sid was justified and that killing Sid would be acceptable, if not downright heroic, but
  • he ended up killing Charlie, someone he thought was innocent (hence violating his own good-guy self-image), and
  • Sid got away, so Daniel became a Bad Guy and a failure.
Becoming another Sid, but with a broader mandate (not just punishing drunk drivers) was a way to salvage his 'hero' status. (It was okay for Sid to get away if Sid was himself a hero; it was okay to kill Charlie because Charlie deserved to die; hence Daniel was still a Good Guy.)

If Bubba ever writes "Full Circle 2: The Cycle Continues", we'll have the families of Daniel's victims chasing him (and so, ad infinitum).

A parable about the futility of vengeance?

Robert M.
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.

Jack London (1876-1916)
User avatar

Editor Emeritus

Posts: 2379

Joined: December 31, 1969, 08:00:00 PM

Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Post May 11, 2007, 04:09:17 PM

Re: Full Circle by Ezra T. Gray

Becoming another Sid, but with a broader mandate (not just punishing drunk drivers) was a way to salvage his 'hero' status. (It was okay for Sid to get away if Sid was himself a hero; it was okay to kill Charlie because Charlie deserved to die; hence Daniel was still a Good Guy.)


That broader mandate is never mentioned. That's where I struggled. In fact, to me it seemed he was killing for the sake of killing. No real reasoning behind his logic. Not saying that being a psychopath is a logical profession to begin with, but I did find it jarring.


The use of the term "sanction" and the reference to "repay(ing) society for what it had done to Stearns" implied (to me, at least) that Daniel was targeting people whom he deemed to be guilty of some crime -- drinking or child molestation, most likely. Whether they were ACTUALLY guilty of anything is another question.

RM
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.

Jack London (1876-1916)

Return to May 2007

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.