Crazy is Just Crazy.

My favorite film professor used to say that. "Sometimes crazy is just crazy" don't try to look for the why, just accept it as it is.
When he was first explaining this, it was during a discussion about Polanski's Repulsion. A wonderfully twisted film about a sexually repressed young girl who loses her mind while alone in her apartment. As film students, each one of us in class was looking for the clues that would explain why Carol behaved the way she did. Each time we would bring up something we noticed, our professor would tell us that we were forcing things to fit what we wanted to see. There was no explanation. Sometimes crazy is just crazy.

For years I've repeated this phrase, and on some level I think I believed it. I've recently changed my mind. Polanski was a tortured artist. I respect those who believe that the art is not the man, and that you must separate one from the other. But really, is this ever possible? Where does art come from? Where do our ideas come from? We can not deny that what we think, what we create, has in some way been affected by our past experiences. So maybe in theory, Carol was just crazy, but in reality her craziness comes back to Polanski. There's a reason he made that film. We may not know Carol's background, but we do know Polanski's.

I recently finished reading The World According to Garp by John Irving. In this book, the main character, Garp, is a writer. Garp has led, for lack of a better term, and unconventional life, and his characters are unconventional characters. Garp repeats over and over again in the book that it is not important to know about an author to appreciate a story. He believes in separating art from the artist, that there is nothing to gain by knowing about a creator's personal history. Yet, his own stories are reflections of his personal life. An author "writes what they know," right?

I started thinking about all of this while getting into the show, Dexter. Dexter has an urge to kill because of some tragedy that happened in his young life. Neither Dexter, nor the audience, knows what this tragedy is, but it is emphasized again and again that this event is what has created the "monster" that is Dexter Morgan. I get that. I get that need to explain why. Because, if Dexter was just crazy, if Dexter was emotionally vacant just because that's how he had always been, it would be harder to emphasize with him. We as an audience want to know that it's ok to feel for a murderer because, really, he's a victim. In this case, I think the show would be a lot more interesting, and would challenge it's audience a lot more if Dexter really was "just crazy," but then, maybe there's a reason I feel that way...

Which author would you like to write...

your childhood?
Orson Scott Card. He has proper respect for the abilities and faults of children.

your education?
John Irving. Education is important, but actions and ambition matter more.

your first kiss?
Jane Austen. Romantic with just a touch of the no-nonsense feminist.

your lover?
Robert Heinlein. Unconventional, sexy and sincere.

your enemy?
Margaret Atwood. I love her villains. Complex, yet vile.

your career?
Paulo Coelho. He has an unmatched faith in human achievement.

your death?
Audrey Niffenegger. The Time Traveler's Wife. Need I say more?