Silence of the Gargoyle
'Grotesque', the fourteenth episode of Season Three, poses a puzzle. It's a puzzle that is worked out through the plot.
John Mostow attends art class yet, rather than attempting a realist depiction of the model before him, he reproduces - endlessly, as it turns out - an image of the demon that drives him to kill.
Hot on his trail is Agent Bill Patterson.
Patterson was or is the head of Behavioural Sciences at the FBI - a less amiable John Douglas and a less literate Robert Ressler.
Needless to say, the authoritarian Patterson had no way of handling the upstart who did things differently. Authority requires innovation to avoid stagnation but rarely recognises it when it comes along. To his credit, he has Mulder brought into this case because it has reached a point he cannot handle - if only managers watched the X Files!
Because he is authoritarian, Patterson cannot understand the nuances of the human creature. He's caught his man but he has no understanding of motive and, as John Douglas makes clear in his 'Anatomy of Motive', oftentimes, it is motive that leads to convictions. Juries, according to Douglas, require an understanding of motive. We get that the guy did it, but, if you don't explain why he did what he did, we have no way of understanding how bad he is.
The question becomes one of Mostow as grotesque or gargoyle.
Gargoyles, as Mulder points out, are wards against evil. But so are grotesques. The difference between the two is utility. Gargoyles served the purpose of modern day drain pipes - which, apparently, had to be invented because, being expensive to preserve, the stonemason's gargoyle began to fall from their high perch and endanger the lives of the very people they were supposed to encourage into church. Grotesques, on the other hand, are purely decorative.
The puzzle then is whether Mostow is decorative or utilitarian.
Do serial killers serve a purpose?
It's a frightening thought and can only be asked in one of the darkest episodes of the X Files.
Unavoidably, we must answer that they do. If we have an evolutionary view of human life, which is the dominant scientific explanation, then all behaviour must have at some time added to our survival fitness. In a world that bestows rights willy-nilly, without thought to who we truly are as a species of evolutionary survival, it is a scary thing to question our origins. We tell stories to avoid monsters, not to recognize that we are the monster.
This is Patterson's problem, of course. He has become the monster that he's been hunting. Ressler understood this and titled one of his books after the famous Nietzsche quote:
But the best stories are the ones that have human evil at their heart or, if not entirely human, then something we must face to survive. 'Independence Day’ (1996) works because the aliens are ants or bees. Doesn't matter. They are a hive, they've come to invade our home and must be dealt with manfully. Hence the 'penetration' of the female 'mother' ship by the heroic male which leads to her downfall.
Serial killers are human beings who enjoy killing. There was a time when entire cultures held the killing of others as a great achievement. The Vikings spring to mind, but there are others. The Incas used to indulge in human sacrifice, for instance.
There is an evolutionary aspect to our killing of other human beings. It isn't grotesque - mere decoration - it served a purpose, like the gargoyle. Taking the life of another human being could lead to great honour and acclaim - just read the story of David and his slaying of Goliath. Gladiators in the arena only had to kill enough and survive to gain fame freedom. We don't like to admit to our own monsters, so we turn them into decorations.
Killing another human being, whether in war or murder, is a utilitarian act, a means to an end.
John Mostow attends art class yet, rather than attempting a realist depiction of the model before him, he reproduces - endlessly, as it turns out - an image of the demon that drives him to kill.
Hot on his trail is Agent Bill Patterson.
Patterson was or is the head of Behavioural Sciences at the FBI - a less amiable John Douglas and a less literate Robert Ressler.
Needless to say, the authoritarian Patterson had no way of handling the upstart who did things differently. Authority requires innovation to avoid stagnation but rarely recognises it when it comes along. To his credit, he has Mulder brought into this case because it has reached a point he cannot handle - if only managers watched the X Files!
Because he is authoritarian, Patterson cannot understand the nuances of the human creature. He's caught his man but he has no understanding of motive and, as John Douglas makes clear in his 'Anatomy of Motive', oftentimes, it is motive that leads to convictions. Juries, according to Douglas, require an understanding of motive. We get that the guy did it, but, if you don't explain why he did what he did, we have no way of understanding how bad he is.
The question becomes one of Mostow as grotesque or gargoyle.
Gargoyles, as Mulder points out, are wards against evil. But so are grotesques. The difference between the two is utility. Gargoyles served the purpose of modern day drain pipes - which, apparently, had to be invented because, being expensive to preserve, the stonemason's gargoyle began to fall from their high perch and endanger the lives of the very people they were supposed to encourage into church. Grotesques, on the other hand, are purely decorative.
The puzzle then is whether Mostow is decorative or utilitarian.
Do serial killers serve a purpose?
It's a frightening thought and can only be asked in one of the darkest episodes of the X Files.
Unavoidably, we must answer that they do. If we have an evolutionary view of human life, which is the dominant scientific explanation, then all behaviour must have at some time added to our survival fitness. In a world that bestows rights willy-nilly, without thought to who we truly are as a species of evolutionary survival, it is a scary thing to question our origins. We tell stories to avoid monsters, not to recognize that we are the monster.
This is Patterson's problem, of course. He has become the monster that he's been hunting. Ressler understood this and titled one of his books after the famous Nietzsche quote:
Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you. (cf. Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146)
Ressler, a much darker personality than Douglas, and more perceptive because of it, entitled his book 'Whoever Fights Monsters' in acknowledgement of Nietzsche.But the best stories are the ones that have human evil at their heart or, if not entirely human, then something we must face to survive. 'Independence Day’ (1996) works because the aliens are ants or bees. Doesn't matter. They are a hive, they've come to invade our home and must be dealt with manfully. Hence the 'penetration' of the female 'mother' ship by the heroic male which leads to her downfall.
Serial killers are human beings who enjoy killing. There was a time when entire cultures held the killing of others as a great achievement. The Vikings spring to mind, but there are others. The Incas used to indulge in human sacrifice, for instance.
There is an evolutionary aspect to our killing of other human beings. It isn't grotesque - mere decoration - it served a purpose, like the gargoyle. Taking the life of another human being could lead to great honour and acclaim - just read the story of David and his slaying of Goliath. Gladiators in the arena only had to kill enough and survive to gain fame freedom. We don't like to admit to our own monsters, so we turn them into decorations.
Killing another human being, whether in war or murder, is a utilitarian act, a means to an end.
Comments
Post a Comment