Rating: 
Summary: No Linkage: Never was, never will be.
Review: I have been on both ends of the trip wire in this jungle: I have put a wire just above a log across a trail, (this reminds me of wearing bifocals, and not seeing anything except what the eyes first locate and focus on), where the enemy just had the chance to dodge the blast from the claymore mine by the time the little detonator made it blow. I have also had my flare pop, giving away my position, because I tried to set a spring-loaded wire that would pop if anyone cut the tripwire. Each flare only popped once, of course, and a lot can depend on what is going on the first time something happens. The first time I read On Killing, I was amazed at how much the army was willing to admit that it knew about conditioning people for these situations, and half the time, in my own case, any attempt to use my brain to improve my actions was counterproductive. I was always way too intellectual to be around tripwires, but the army wanted me anyway in 1968, even if the Selective Service had to send me a notice when I was at graduate school. Don't ever let the army tell you that it didn't know I was smart. Even my post-war shrink could figure that out, possibly better than all the idiots who tried to get a shrink into my life so they could drug me. This is all standard procedure, but what was truly upsetting was that I didn't have to read this book. All I need to do is take a walk. The most interesting aspect of On Killing for me was the relationship between officers and men, which remains purely a matter of subjugation if the officer can give the order requiring the men to kill. This is perhaps the clearest acceptance by our society of Nietzsche's doctrine of the superman, who exercises authority in excess of what a normal person is expected to contemplate. I see this book's findings on the twenty year delay between television violence and a soaring crime rate as evidence that some individuals can identify with the Superman character much more easily than they can accept the restrictions which society imposes on them but which society itself blatantly violates whenever it has the opportunity to demonize an enemy. Skin for skin, as Satan says in Job, and Satan is purer than a lot of what the army ever had to say or imply about sex or gender, but if you have a television, you may be getting the picture. I personally object to writing about guys in this matter, but it is no worse than being sent to Cambodia with an army that doesn't know what the civilians in Cambodia look like. I shouldn't be joking about any of this, but absurdity was always highest in the militaristic scheme of acceptance. As glib as Dave Grossman (or a lot of veterans) can be in person, it was my impression that the political alliances promoting his appearances can be treacherous. When I heard him speak in a church basement in Minneapolis at a Friday breakfast in February, 1999, when I asked a question, I was able to convince the people there (a peace crowd) that I really meant what I said, and he was just moving his lips. It was the old military absurdity coming through: when nothing makes sense, say something feckless, and he did. In most setting this topic is taboo, so the book might be a revelation for some people. Overall, somebody might love a cheerful killer, if somebody is on our side, the killer is on our side, they are both in a good mood, and neither one of them is thinking about it. Otherwise, the topic is likely to just miss some exciting aspects of that situation that people (the shrink and therapists might be included in this) really don't want to know, unless people really couldn't imagine what I was so uptight about when I had done something truly outrageous, like my laugh.
Rating: 
Summary: Alters opinions
Review: I am a reporter. Most people would expect me to deny Lt. Col. Grossman's findings, pertaining to violence in the media, as sensationalist and misleading since I should know where my bread is buttered.I admit, I was skeptical, but during research for an article on violence in the schools, I came across the colonel's book, "On Killing". After reading it, I became a convert. The comparison of the military's usage of operant and classical conditioning techniques with the psychological effects experienced by juveniles when they observe violence - or participate in it, in the case of interactive shoot-'em-up video games - was quite enlightening. Col. Grossman brought a fresh perspective to the debate and convinced me to rethink my original opinion. Of course, his theory wouldn't hold unless he could prove that humans, by nature, are unable to kill other human beings unless trained and psychologically conditioned to do so. I believe he did prove this point. Simplistic solutions such as instituting media criticism courses, turning off the TV or banning guns won't stop the killing because they don't get at the core psychological problems and they don't address the enabling factors that are co-conspirators in juvenile violence. Listen to this man.
Rating: 
Summary: Who says so?
Review: What to say about this book? It's groundbreaking yet at the same time, a piece of scientific drivel. It's intriguing yet it contains shockingly bad conclusions, particularly when it comes to combat and the 'research' the author uses. With the other reviews of this book in mind,(many of them positive, strangely enough) I must take note of the fewer, yet more negative comments. Never before have I picked a book off the shelf and been so thoroughly disgusted at what I was told was a great book. The flaws and bad logic contained within must be documented by a court reporter, so often do they occur. It is not without surprise that in this era of poor education and ease of publication, that such "shock value" reading is so rampant in bookstores today. This is additionaly not so suprising when I noticed the content of this author's other book, which conveniently enough, fit all the 'conclusions' found in this book. If there was ever a more clear cut case of a person writing controversy to start controversy, this is it. I would recommend this book only to English and Science majors, so that they may see what bad writing along with bad research can accomplish.
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding
Review: A powerful book that should be read by every cop and every military person. I highly recommend this information-rich and thought provoking text.
Rating:
Summary: A Wife's Review
Review: As a wife of a Viet Nam Veteran, I lived with a man that has suffered with the memories of that terrible war. For thirty years I have tried to understand what war was like. Everytime we started to talk about it, I could see how painfull the memories were. There seemed to be no way to break through the barriers that prevented us from being able to "talk about it." Then, I noticed a dramatic change in the man I love. He was more open and willing to discuss his role in Viet Nam. When I asked him what had made the difference, he handed me this book. I couldn't wait to read it. Although a lot of the facts and statistics were hard for me to understand, I continued to read. By the time I had finished reading, I had the answers I needed. I would like to thank Colonel Grossman for releasing my husband from the memories and feelings of guilt that plagued his life. The book On Killing, it is strange to say this, has brought us closer than we have ever been. To the other wifes: I very highly recommend this book. It may not answer all of your questions, but it will give you a better understanding of what the act of killing involves and the impact it can have on those that have experienced the worst of all evils, the taking of another life.
Rating:
Summary: Something for Everyone Here
Review: ON KILLING has earned its Pulitzer nomination the hard way, with the author, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, (ret Ranger)researching, investigating and reporting on the way we're affected by death and the killing that surrounds us daily and is really just another part of life. In this we look at killing in the military and at how methods of distancing soldiers from the foe, from hand-to-hand combat to pole weapons like pikes and to bombadiers in high-altitude aircraft has made warfare more impersonal and less stressful on the individuals who bear psychological guilt for killing others. Lt.Col. Grossman looks at and talks about how we accept other death, from the stewing hen last Sunday to the mousetrap we set tomorrow. He investigates this phenomenon on many levels, even explaining the Biblical difference between killing and murder and showing where examples can be found. Alarmingly, he points out that many of the 'training/conditioning' methods used by the armed forces and police agencies are incorporated more and more into the video-type entertainment of children. This influence might well contribute to some of the violence seen in children today, and could even be instrumental in recent school shootings. The last might sound somewhat extreme at first, but how many of today's 'games' are based on which player can jump over and collect the other's checkers. How many are scored by the number of impersonal human figures/light flashes 'killed' on a screen with a plastic gun? Soon shooting at humans means no more than fixing the chicken for dinner does. These are some of things about the way killing affects people. Grossman did a brilliant job of collecting thousands of dry statistics and transforming them into a book that reads like an exciting novel. Small wonder it's a textbook at West Point now, where Lt. Col. Grossman taught Psychology.
Rating:
Summary: Finally... Answers to haunting questions
Review: I highly recommend this book for all veterins that have been haunted, as I have, by questions that begin with "Why." It is well written, in easy to understand English. A must read for those who want to understand the Psycology of Killing. Full of interesting and surprising facts and statistics. I found the answers to thirty year old questions in this book.
Rating:
Summary: On Ego
Review: Taking maximum advantage of recent school shootings, Grossman's book is the epitome of media capitalization. Using censorship as his underlying agenda, Grossman uses poorly researched statistics in order to blanket the reader with simplistic conclusions about warfare, killing, and the psychology behind it. Not what I would call a thinking man's book. I found it rather insulting to my intelligence. Lacking a solid foundation of his OWN research, Grossman uses misquoted and often irrelevant information to purposefully paint a rather warped vision of how America reacts to media. Although Grossman raises a few interesting points, none are supported by facts, and they are primarily the brainchild of the author himself, who is rather lacking in credentials required by the subject.
Rating:
Summary: Important answers, and some fresh questions
Review: Both a colonel and a professor, Grossman's account of our deep-seated inhibitions about killing make this book more enspiriting than you might expect. It is well researched, passionately written, and examines and explains many of the mysteries of war. Why do soldiers suffer much higher levels of psychiatric disorder than sailors on ships, or civilians withstanding prolonged bombardment? Why do officers suffer less psychological trauma than their men, even though in many cases line officer casualties are much higher? It is disquieting to realise the extent to which modern military authorities work to overcome our killing inhibitions, and it raises questions about the ethics of psychologists whose training is used to this end. It also makes me re-examine the 1994 massacre in Rwanda, in which - as Philip Gourevitch makes plain in his book - an extraordinarily high proportion of the Hutu population was involved in the slaughter of the Tutsi minority. A valuable addition to our understanding of war and of the human condition that drives it.
Rating:
Summary: New light on an old controversy
Review: I could not put this book down. It's extremely interesting. I am probably not part of Grossman's ideal audience, as I am a pacifist and opposed to censorship. But I don't have any other useful ideas on what to do about the fact that video games are giving a generation of children training on how to use firearms and overcome their natural resistance to killing, while at the same time teaching them none of the restraint taught in real military training. Letting your child play these games is like letting your child go parachute jumping without teaching him any of the discipline involved. I went parachute jumping once, and the jump site I went to required you to take an 8-hour training course in how to deploy the reserve chute, what to do about a "line-over" etc. They showed us gory pictures of a plane that had crashed because some novice had opened his reserve chute in the plane. This made a strong impression on me. Something like this is necessary with firearm-simulation video games.
|
