And also thanks to Chuck. Chuck starts out his column with a central thought, but by his second sentence he delegates himself to irrelevancy by the profound contradiction.
He didn't need to mention the killers name...
Your criticism I think reveals the issue I have with my column, in that it’s two ideas intertwined that have contradictory elements.
One of course is the “typical villian” theme, which did turn out to be the story line.
The other was that “glorifying the victim”, which was the original main point.
My problem was that after writing the “glorification” stuff, I was unsatisfied that in complaining about it, I was just giving him more publicity. And I remembered my “christians as villians” article from the previous week, and decided I could put them together and use Cho to illustrate my point.
But for some reason I really liked my ending, which was really more of the “glorification” than “christian as victim” theme, which means I had to start with that since I was ending with that.
But in order to use Cho as an example of the chasm between the “stereotype” and “real deal”, I had to discuss details about Cho that I was complaining about knowing.
And I never really went back to address that, as I was kind of running late and needed to meet deadline (tuesday).
It wasn’t until I re-read it this morning that I realised the problem.
You of course in 2 sentences defined it with clarity. Thanks.