What a lot of vindictive angry comments on here! Please, take a page from the victim's mother, and instead of carrying your anger and spewing your venom at the world (and sadly through an internet comment string), try forgiveness. It is much easier to condemn, but entertain the possibility of redemption, for even the worst crimes. You cannot deny another person's humanity without losing your own.
11
IMO the quote he wrote in book's preface says it all: he is a narcissist... His pain is the only pain he feels...
He might be a great writer -- but he is a dark hole of a soul...
He might be a great writer -- but he is a dark hole of a soul...
4
ANY proceeds should go to the victim's family, a general victim's fund per state and to the tax payers who pay the inmate's way for the rest of his life.
The publishing house should also not get their full profits, only partial.
NO money should go to the inmate's family.
Why does this even need to be said?
The publishing house should also not get their full profits, only partial.
NO money should go to the inmate's family.
Why does this even need to be said?
4
I interviewed a criminal once and he said the best cell mates were guys like the one written about here. Those in for murder are usually not criminals. They killed someone true, but it was usually a wife, girlfriend, or an accident of some crime of passion; even a drug induced killing. They are not thieves for instance, who you definitely don't want to cell with. They aren't mob hit men either, those guys never wind up on death row and they get released early because they have information to trade. Odd as it may seem, the guys in for murder are your best bet for a prison roomie.
3
Jack Henry Abbott's victim is dismissively described in this article as "a waiter." He was more than that. He had a name, Richard Adan. He was a promising actor with a great life before him, and beloved by his many friends and family.
9
Gee , maybe I'm not liberal enough but I think the whole thing is creepy .
He's a cold stoned killer . Reading one of his novels would be too close to home for me .
I think it is a slap in the face to those whose families have to live with this pain everyday of their life .
I do not think he should be afforded the luxury of publishing the other twisted scenarios he imagines in his mind .
He's a cold stoned killer . Reading one of his novels would be too close to home for me .
I think it is a slap in the face to those whose families have to live with this pain everyday of their life .
I do not think he should be afforded the luxury of publishing the other twisted scenarios he imagines in his mind .
6
I know, don't judge a book by its cover. But I'm not buying the rhetoric about him being harmless before that fateful Halloween night. Perhaps he was successful in abstaining from alcohol thanks to AA. But only grossly irresponsible parents dabble with heroin and ketamine, and make a decision to smoke crack.
I'm just looking at the picture of him. Call it street smarts, a sixth sense, or whatever. But there's a look about him that will get my guard up every single time. The dude, whether he has a talent for writing or not, just looks like bad news. Having Pynchon's words tattooed across his chest merely makes him into a literally literate freak.
I'm just looking at the picture of him. Call it street smarts, a sixth sense, or whatever. But there's a look about him that will get my guard up every single time. The dude, whether he has a talent for writing or not, just looks like bad news. Having Pynchon's words tattooed across his chest merely makes him into a literally literate freak.
9
Please don't buy this and read it. How pathetic for this publisher to make money off families who have suffered the lost of a loved one.
3
Read 'Free Will' by Sam Harris and try to understand people, all people, victims and criminals alike. Have mercy on all of them. And, of course, do away with the idiocy of all those weapons you are carrying around. This is a story of sadness, the sadness of your country. The sadness of the angry who want a death penalty for this man. I am sick of the hateful reactions of so many. This is one of the reasons that so many of you chose a criminal as president, a man that is going to slaughter so many old and crippled...
9
I agree with what many are saying here. Part of what makes the short story collection publishable (and agent-worthy) when mostly they are not is that Dawkins has a "Platform" (writing about the thing he is: a murderer, in prison). That it is a reprehensible, lurid one, makes it better. But it's not much different from a publisher's point of view than a beautiful waitress in a high-end restaurant writing a novel about a beautiful waitress working in a high-end restaurant ("Sweetbitter," which also got generous editorial coverage in the NYTIMES) The MFA helps, but not as much as the platform and the "linked" stories now have a very "marketable" theme. I think this might have people wondering "would I kill for a book contract"?
2
He wouldn't be getting publicity if he weren't in prison. He wouldn't have had so much time to write the book if he weren't in prison. He wouldn"t be getting paid for a book with refernces to prison life if he weten't in prison. He wouldn't be in prison if he hadn't murdered a man. By all rights his victim's family should determine where his book profits go.
4
Michigan has a Son of Sam law. See: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/son-of-sam-statutes-federal-and-stat... Section 780.768 Crime Victims Rights Act. So how does this guy get to keep the profits?
1
Dawkins' share should go entirely to the family and roommates of the man he so carelessly murdered, and the people who were traumatized by him.
His children should donate their shares to them since he himself--their father--did not see fit to express any remorse in compensatory action. They will be smart enough to get through college without his share of the profits.
It appears that Dawkins' remorse is selfishly reserved for those who bear his genes instead of his many other innocent victims. I would never buy his book because of that. Perhaps for his next project, he should write about what it is like to survive a beloved family member or cherished friend who was killed for no reason by a guy with a gun and some anger at his wife and at the repercussions of his own choices in his life.
His children should donate their shares to them since he himself--their father--did not see fit to express any remorse in compensatory action. They will be smart enough to get through college without his share of the profits.
It appears that Dawkins' remorse is selfishly reserved for those who bear his genes instead of his many other innocent victims. I would never buy his book because of that. Perhaps for his next project, he should write about what it is like to survive a beloved family member or cherished friend who was killed for no reason by a guy with a gun and some anger at his wife and at the repercussions of his own choices in his life.
3
How did I guess that multitudes of Conservatives would come forth expressing their horror that an "inmate is making money"!
Here in my State, Workmen's Compensation has been paying long term claims for decades for many Corrections employees, supposedly injured on the job. While these employees are regularly seen working on their homes, shopping in the community, enjoying themselves, hunting. fishing and camping, but "too sick" to work, for months at a time.
The hypocrisy and the corruption is disgusting, but many brag about it.
Here in my State, Workmen's Compensation has been paying long term claims for decades for many Corrections employees, supposedly injured on the job. While these employees are regularly seen working on their homes, shopping in the community, enjoying themselves, hunting. fishing and camping, but "too sick" to work, for months at a time.
The hypocrisy and the corruption is disgusting, but many brag about it.
1
I wish all inmates had the talent, focus, and inner world required to make art! What a wonderful way to give back to society, reflect on the meaning of life, inspire other prisioners, and connect to humanity after such a vicious disconnection. There is no better use for a human than to create, especially after being the cause of such destruction. To those who think it better that a human "rot" in prison, I am sorry you don't value art or the beautiful complexity of human life.
5
There are no other qualified new writers to promote?
Its all about publicity. Murderer, gets press...regular, no abhorent crimal past, struggling writer..no press.
Its all about publicity. Murderer, gets press...regular, no abhorent crimal past, struggling writer..no press.
1
It's impossible to say for certain without a clinical diagnosis, but this guy's behavior suggests he may be a psychopath. Many people get intoxicated with alcohol, opiates and other controlled substances. Relatively few run around randomly killing strangers. Psychopathy generates such random mayhem, and is also associated with substance abuse. A psychopath with artistic or literary talent is still very dangerous. See also the example of Austria's Jack Unterwegger, detailed in the book "Entering Hades."
3
Its an imprint of Simon and Schuster. Why not just say so?
1
Sickening. The family of Mr. Thomas Bowman will never fully recover from the pain and trauma left behind by his murderer -“573543” -, neither will his other victims family. He was sober and became selfish about his life and then threw it away by relapsing. He was not unlike someone whom never experienced sobriety, he new better and his actions were his own and he should not profit.
The profit should go to Mr. Thomas Bowman’s family, and his other victims family, the only reason we would even know of inmate “ 573543” in the first place.
The profit should go to Mr. Thomas Bowman’s family, and his other victims family, the only reason we would even know of inmate “ 573543” in the first place.
3
I'm not sure I have an issue with a prisoner publishing a book
But whether he legally can keep the money or not I would have much more respect if he donated it to the family of his victims.
I don't see how he has remorse if he then profits from the crime
But whether he legally can keep the money or not I would have much more respect if he donated it to the family of his victims.
I don't see how he has remorse if he then profits from the crime
4
I read this book as an advanced reading copy and was stunned by the quality of the writing. The stories are sometimes sad, funny, desperate, and I am amazed how much depth Dawkins has drawn from the tedium of time served and still to be served. I have a relative who, thankfully, recovered from drug addiction, including Meth. All I can tell you is that all of his friends are either dead or in prison. It is a horrible drug and the delusions that come with it often lead to exactly this sort of tragedy.
Whatever judgments you pass about the author for his crime, read the book. If you cannot bring yourself to buy it, get it from your library. Your view of prison, prisoners, and the world will never be the same after reading it.
Whatever judgments you pass about the author for his crime, read the book. If you cannot bring yourself to buy it, get it from your library. Your view of prison, prisoners, and the world will never be the same after reading it.
4
Thank you New York Times for this provocative piece & I'm fascinated by the diverse comments. This case is yet again an unheard voice. In our America today there is no real independence for many ever. If not Incarcerated in a jail cell they are prisoners of their life status. In the current zeitgeist the arts are ignored & news is attacked. Silence has many accomplices. Thus activists & my fellow dramatist Playwright/professor Dr Larry Myers of St John's University is doing a project with tent dwellers in san Francisco & homeless Hiv gay teens & transgenders. The theme of Myers' Playwrights Sanctuary is to mentor, aid & abet society's most rejected--the misbegotten, desperate & very poor. There is a reason for Trump's victory. Many are condemned, demeaned, ignored & eternally judged. The Sanctuary is all about creative disaster --flipping the grim, isolated shamed. hopeless into expressive stage works. One hundred two years ago Eugene O Neill wrote about unfortunates & these were staged in a fishing shack on a wharf. A new found theater is happening in San Francisco with a new permutation of emergency rescue theater of the forgotten & invisible. Manhattan will see this Sanctuary (endorsed by the late Edward Albee) in the fall.
2
I am not familiar with any of Curtis Dawkins writings, and I will only say about this about his past. To paraphrase the old saying, "be careful who you disregard or dislike in this life, as you could end up worse or in the same boat as they are." Just from reading about his background and so-called character misgivings, I could have ended up like him or even worse. It was just a change in the family that possibly saved me from the same type of fate Mr. Dawkins has experienced. I consider myself very fortunate to have not lived the other life I was heading towards, but became a so-called honorable member of society, which he has not shared. I am prepared to read his writings.
24
Although the article mentions the tragic Abbot case, a more recent author, Shaka Senghor, comes to mind and his book, as well as his TED talk about the power of human beings to respond to hope, forgiveness and not be defined by their worst act. For those of you unfamiliar with him, Senghor is an award-winning community mentor, a fellow with the MIT media lab, a former teacher at the University of Michigan and a bestselling author. He is also a former prisoner guilty of manslaughter.
14
I think this is a commendable act on the part of Scribner to see past this man's horrible, heinous crimes to publish a book of stories that can shed light on the difficulties of prison life experienced by men and women.
This is a man who could easily have slid further into the throes of addiction, violence and worse because of his bleak existence but instead has chosen to seek a sense of salvation by using his gifts to create art. I think its rather hypocritical for us as a society to speak of rehabilitation and then express outrage when a prison inmate attempts to do just that through the act of writing or any other form of creativity. Surely we can encourage this man and by extension other inmates to seek to do the same.
So his children will be able to use it attend university some day, what's wrong with that? I can't speak for others but the victim's family deserved justice through his conviction, not some kind of financial payout. I can't understand how any family could accept the money generated by his work on principle. However that's what it comes down to in America isn't? Money, money, money, even at the expense of our dignity in the face of great pain.
This is a man who could easily have slid further into the throes of addiction, violence and worse because of his bleak existence but instead has chosen to seek a sense of salvation by using his gifts to create art. I think its rather hypocritical for us as a society to speak of rehabilitation and then express outrage when a prison inmate attempts to do just that through the act of writing or any other form of creativity. Surely we can encourage this man and by extension other inmates to seek to do the same.
So his children will be able to use it attend university some day, what's wrong with that? I can't speak for others but the victim's family deserved justice through his conviction, not some kind of financial payout. I can't understand how any family could accept the money generated by his work on principle. However that's what it comes down to in America isn't? Money, money, money, even at the expense of our dignity in the face of great pain.
20
The reason why money is given to the murdered victims family, is because quite simply the awful deed cannot be undone. The family has experienced a terrible loss and a portion of that loss is financial.
Why shouldn't the family gain some comfort anyway they can? Perhaps you are in ownership of plentiful resources in which you are capable of turning down what you obviously deem "blood money", but other families must be more practical.
Please don't judge them unfairly, after all there is a big gaping hole in their family they are probably desperately trying to close, don't add to the hurt.
Why shouldn't the family gain some comfort anyway they can? Perhaps you are in ownership of plentiful resources in which you are capable of turning down what you obviously deem "blood money", but other families must be more practical.
Please don't judge them unfairly, after all there is a big gaping hole in their family they are probably desperately trying to close, don't add to the hurt.
4
Yes money... It is the victim's family that should get the money or the majority of it.
His wife has a phd, she can manage to do something I would think.
His wife has a phd, she can manage to do something I would think.
3
He is in prison serving a sentence for his crime. He is being punished. As an artist and educator, I am heartened by that fact that Mr. Dawkins is making something positive from his experience. A payment to society and money for his children. I continue to be saddened by our collective impulse towards retributive vs restorative justice in the criminal justice system and how we respond to those who have committed a crime. And I write this as someone who has lost a family member to murder.
34
Even empathy has its requirements.
3
Any money earned from the sale of this book should go directly to the state of Michigan and be used to cover any and all expenses related to Curtis Dawkins incarceration.
16
To understand how Dawkins terrorized multiple persons in addition to killing Mr. Bowman, read this account of witnesses. This was part of Dawkins' appeal after his conviction. Of course, his appeal failed. The horror he inflicted on these people is outrageous. https://casetext.com/case/dawkins-v-berghuis-2
18
A bit ironic that Norman mailer lobbied for the release of a criminal who after being released (as Mailer wished), went on to stab a waiter to death: Norman Mailer himself was at one point prosecuted for stabbing his own wife!
So much (but certainly not all, and by no means even most) of artistic creativity, glorified and even fetishized in our culture, deemed evidence of heightened spritual status and powers, reflects exatly narcissistic self-worship that allows the artist to treat other Iives to be trifled with, or even destroyed on a whim. Norman Mailer's self-absorption and self-admiration were of course notorious, and it's in his case difficult to see a conflict between the personality revealed in the prose and his marital violence and violent treatment of many others.
Excuse the comparison, but the most murderous psychopath of the 20th century (so gentle aside from his genocidal mania he could bear suffering in animals and maintained a strict vegetarian diet) was an "artist" (or sort of, at least).
I like art, music, literature, and other ostensibly elevating forms of culture, but maybe the "redemptive" power of art is quite a bit overstated. A man's "actions speak louder than words - or any other cultural output" (and these include verbal expressions of remorse).
Take all the culture with a grain of salt, and if it yields money in the end, compensate the victim's family, and give half to Mr. Dawkins' kids, also victims in this story.
So much (but certainly not all, and by no means even most) of artistic creativity, glorified and even fetishized in our culture, deemed evidence of heightened spritual status and powers, reflects exatly narcissistic self-worship that allows the artist to treat other Iives to be trifled with, or even destroyed on a whim. Norman Mailer's self-absorption and self-admiration were of course notorious, and it's in his case difficult to see a conflict between the personality revealed in the prose and his marital violence and violent treatment of many others.
Excuse the comparison, but the most murderous psychopath of the 20th century (so gentle aside from his genocidal mania he could bear suffering in animals and maintained a strict vegetarian diet) was an "artist" (or sort of, at least).
I like art, music, literature, and other ostensibly elevating forms of culture, but maybe the "redemptive" power of art is quite a bit overstated. A man's "actions speak louder than words - or any other cultural output" (and these include verbal expressions of remorse).
Take all the culture with a grain of salt, and if it yields money in the end, compensate the victim's family, and give half to Mr. Dawkins' kids, also victims in this story.
15
give 90% to the victim's family.
His children may be victims but that is his fault for being a lousy person who chose to spend his life in jail by killing someone.
That is not the same as the victim's family being deprived of their loved one that someone killed caused he felt like killing that day.
None of us critical thinkers care if he is trying to blame it on drugs when the fact is his victim is dead. Only the anti- law and order NY Times would promote this guy.
NYT - Go to amazon. There are so many writers who have self-published their autobiographies with a decent story. Promote them so they can make some money.
That is not the same as the victim's family being deprived of their loved one that someone killed caused he felt like killing that day.
None of us critical thinkers care if he is trying to blame it on drugs when the fact is his victim is dead. Only the anti- law and order NY Times would promote this guy.
NYT - Go to amazon. There are so many writers who have self-published their autobiographies with a decent story. Promote them so they can make some money.
1
Nothing gets my dander up more when people presume to dump all writers, artists, creative people into some "narcissistic" category. What it is--in my opinion, is pure jealousy because they themselves can't write, paint, be creative, so they have to slam every single creative person into a "degenerate" category. As if all crime is committed by "creative" people. Hardly the case.
1
No interest at all
18
I have just written my city's chief librarians and expressed my strongest opposition to their purchase of this book.
the idea that you can kill someone, be remorseless, and expect some accolades, notoriety and money is so appalling that it makes me nauseous
the idea that you can kill someone, be remorseless, and expect some accolades, notoriety and money is so appalling that it makes me nauseous
18
You apparently did not read the article. He is remorseful. And nothing in this article indicates that he did this for accolades or notoriety. He is a writer. He was one before he became a killer and is still one. And the money is going to his children who are innocent and suffered.
Also, everyone's is free to read a book or not. But why ask the library not to buy the book. Thus denying other people an opportunity.
I am nauseous that there is so little compassion in so many of theses comments.
Also, everyone's is free to read a book or not. But why ask the library not to buy the book. Thus denying other people an opportunity.
I am nauseous that there is so little compassion in so many of theses comments.
20
His grief and remorse is about himself.
2
sarah
If you want to read the book, you should put your money where your mouth is and buy it. Not at my or other taxpayers expense.
Use your own money to support this man. Not ours.
If you want to read the book, you should put your money where your mouth is and buy it. Not at my or other taxpayers expense.
Use your own money to support this man. Not ours.
The Supreme Court has told the juries of our land that it is ok if cops shoot unarmed black men dead in the street or in their cars because "putting ourselves in their shoes" we must understand their fear. But here's a white guy, who has already killed a man, has shot at the cops, but the cops talked with him and patiently waited till he gave up. I am at a loss for further words.
53
I agree...if he were a minority he'd be a statistic and there would be nothing more for us to read or consider...hence the oddness of his notoriety brings even more clarity of the obvious fear of "others"...my sentiment is, however, simple: I'm afraid if released he could return to being what he once was - a terrorizing force.
It takes, as life has taught me, a great deal of inner strength and determination to move forward, to not slip backward and to find purpose for oneself; he had all those with a family of his own making...perhaps with his book he can find redemption, I certainly hope so.
It takes, as life has taught me, a great deal of inner strength and determination to move forward, to not slip backward and to find purpose for oneself; he had all those with a family of his own making...perhaps with his book he can find redemption, I certainly hope so.
1
You got that right
I wish I could feel sorry for the guy, but he took a life, a human life, someone who had people who cared about him. That's what prison is for, to sit and repent for the horrible things you've done. Not win praise for some writing you've done. You want to write, fine, but I won't be buying your book.
16
I am reminded of Robert Stroud, The Birdman of Alcatraz who became a recognized expert in bird diseases while serving time in Leavenworth prison. His story is worth reading. And yes, he did write a book.
13
I read 3 comments (they express opposing views of the matter), and the fair solution is obvious: half the proceeds to Mr. Dawkins' family, half to the victim's family.
Frankly, I might add, any resistance to such a solution on Mr. Dawkins' part would only tell me his remorse is rather hollow, and I'd respond: Put your money where your mouth is.
Frankly, I might add, any resistance to such a solution on Mr. Dawkins' part would only tell me his remorse is rather hollow, and I'd respond: Put your money where your mouth is.
7
ALL the proceeds should go to the victims' family.
1
The greater irony, however, is how the cult of MFA's and the publishing world *still* hang together, no matter what. Only those who are in the cult get published, even if they've killed someone and are doing LWOP. I guess the only thing more sensational for Scribner's marketing department would have been an MFA with a death sentence (but let's not give them any ideas).
6
Mr. Dawkins isn't the only convicted murderer to publish and profit later in life. Anne Perry horrifically murdered the mother of a friend, but did so in Australia where, as a minor, she was imprisoned only until she came of age. Her books are best sellers in this country and around the world.
Is it better to take our revenge, to deter future murders, to quarntine the murderer from society, or is it better to provide murderers with a chance to do some good in the world which might balance the evil they have done?
Is it better to take our revenge, to deter future murders, to quarntine the murderer from society, or is it better to provide murderers with a chance to do some good in the world which might balance the evil they have done?
17
it is best to protect the innocent, first and foremost.
8
I refuse to read (even as a library book) anything by Anne Perry. I don't care if her books are "best sellers." She should have been in prison a lot longer, imo.
It's not a question of revenge when murderers pay for their crimes in prison. What possible good could they do through their works that might "balance" out the evil they've done? Did Anne Perry somehow make up for murdering her best friend's mother by writing mysteries? I hardly think so. They're entertainment (for some), and she gets to be a wealthy murderer.
It's not a question of revenge when murderers pay for their crimes in prison. What possible good could they do through their works that might "balance" out the evil they've done? Did Anne Perry somehow make up for murdering her best friend's mother by writing mysteries? I hardly think so. They're entertainment (for some), and she gets to be a wealthy murderer.
3
Two photos of Mr. Dawkins? No room for even one photo of his victim? Shame.
28
Ah, Ms. McElroy, that's two photos of Mr. Dawkins AND the cover of his book. Even though this article is listed under the "Book Review" section, it seems more like a sell job and a promo piece from Scribner, their parent company, Simon and Schuster, and the New York Times. I wonder how the folks at Scribner will work the book tour angle.
2
My biggest concern is "what is the Michigan law with respect to monies earned by a convict" whether his writing is about his crime or otherwise.
It seems that Dawkins profits go into a college fund for his kids..
But what about the victim? No compensation at all. And the taxpayers of Michigan, who have to keep this guy fed and housed while he indulges in creativity. Most writers have to earn a living.
As for remorse: the Dawkin's miserly apology to the victim and his family is insincere, remorseless, and narcissistic, as one would expect from most writers: It's all about how he feels, to hell with us.
It seems that Dawkins profits go into a college fund for his kids..
But what about the victim? No compensation at all. And the taxpayers of Michigan, who have to keep this guy fed and housed while he indulges in creativity. Most writers have to earn a living.
As for remorse: the Dawkin's miserly apology to the victim and his family is insincere, remorseless, and narcissistic, as one would expect from most writers: It's all about how he feels, to hell with us.
13
Family should sue in civil court
Likely would win judgement and take all the money...
Likely would win judgement and take all the money...
9
Lisa Fremont-- I agree with everything you said except for slamming all writers as "Insincere, remorseless, and narcissistic." Excuse me, but unless you know all writers personally, why do you assume they fall into those categories?
How can he make money if he is in prison serving a life sentence though? Who will manage this money for him? I doubt any prison would let someone keep thousands of dollars in their commissary but maybe I'm wrong about that? I agree that at least some of it should go to the victim's family, and if he were getting out he could use the rest to survive in a world in which he will in all likelihood never be given a job...But if he's locked up for life then who gets it? His family?
3
The article states his share of the advance is in a trust for his children's education.
(Writing on family member's account here.) Reading this story from Canada, I have two immediate thoughts. 1) I encourage the global elimination of the death penalty for many reasons. One reason is that it gives the perpetrators of crime a long opportunity to reflect, regret and mourn their actions, and then, possibly, find some way forward within their souls. This may not happen with most, but if even one in a thousand makes that lonely trek through their own heart, then I believe that the human spirit has expanded. 2) I also observe that no commentators have mentioned the gun that Mr. Dawkins acquired. It seems clear that his inexplicable actions that night were made fatally and terribly worse by his easy access to a weapon. America's passion for gun ownership, and the obscene numbers of firearms that flood your cities and communities share some responsibility for Mr. Bowman's death.
29
Look to Richard Wagner on how to respond to works created by those who have committed horrific crimes (or have horrific attitudes towards fellow beings and endorse horrific crimes against humanity.)
But how does one respond to the perpetual punishment, calls for torture and the nature of blood thirstiness towards those serving for the crimes they committed?
But how does one respond to the perpetual punishment, calls for torture and the nature of blood thirstiness towards those serving for the crimes they committed?
6
This case is a strong argument for prompt execution. Dawkins was a worthless killer and is still a worthless killer.
9
It seems that some of the commentators are forgetting that Mr Dawkins has been severely punished for his crime...life in prison. I understand and agree that his crime was horrific...he took the life of an unarmed and innocent man. However, human beings are complex creatures and shouldn't be defined by one act, no matter how heinous. Most people are not all good or all bad. I am not suggesting that his punishment of incarceration for the rest of his life should not stand. However, denying him access to an activity while in prison that could conceivably bring some degree oF redemption, sounds more reasonable and civilized than further punishment. The profit from his book, if there even is any, is said to be going into an education fund for his children, also innocent victims of his crime. Can't we as human beings, living in a civilized society, at least allow for the possibility of some good coming out of evil? If Mr Dawkins can truly repent through his writing and have others benefit in some small way, then I can continue to hope for a world that is more equitable, cooperative and peaceful for my children.
113
How has this murderer "repented" through his writing? Do you think it will deter future crimes, because I doubt that will be the case.
He should stay in prison forever. We don't need to hear from him, either. I'm sure the victim's family feels the same way.
He should stay in prison forever. We don't need to hear from him, either. I'm sure the victim's family feels the same way.
If I had a shred of sympathy left for the american publishing industry, it's pretty much gone now.
10
This wouldn't be so morally reprehensible if the book was either a memoir or written under a pseudonym. According to the article, it's literary fiction. As a prisoner, he has a right to publish same as anyone else. But, if this was just about sharing his work he could do it under a pseudonym. Instead, the publishing house splashed his name across the cover in a font that's larger than the title and absurd for a debut author. They're trying to sell books, and fetishizing a murderer in the process. If the book is any good it can stand for its self instead of teasing people into buying it so they can see what goes on in a murderer's head.
16
Totally agree. Take a page from Elena Ferrante, a brilliant author who resists to use her (deserved) fame for nauseating PR because "all the readers need to know is my work!". Apalling, this whole spectacle. Whatever heinous thing males do - there is ALWAYS a chance for them to turn into something fake, fancy and "dangerous". Women murderers are just sad, ugly shrews. This article - by the way - is another "bro"-glorification of the worst kind!
9
Is Mr. Dawkins a deeply flawed individual? Yes. Is he guilty of the crime and serving his time for causing such personal misery to the victims family? Absolutely. Is he remorseful? Seems he is.
I don't have a problem with inmates publishing on a mass scale. So long as the proceeds are all properly disbursed to the the real victims of the criminal vagaries committed by this adult- the innocents- the children.
I don't have a problem with inmates publishing on a mass scale. So long as the proceeds are all properly disbursed to the the real victims of the criminal vagaries committed by this adult- the innocents- the children.
10
I hope whatever earnings the crackhead has, hopefully goes to the victim's family.
11
Why do so many of these stories have to reveal the religion of various people. What has that got to do with the story? I feel those comments are just space filler which this writer does not need. It is written as if saying someone is a Christian is a good person. There is no such connection.
3
Graybar Hotel is exactly what we need to read. Welcome to the world of addiction, relapse and the psychotic break that comes with drug and alcohol use after a 'dry' period. Any alcoholic in recovery knows that this story is, truly is, 'my next drink' if I go 'out' again. On another note, if this guy was incarcerated in Europe, he'd have been rehabilitated, back in AA and recovery counseling and would be working with dozens of others, to prevent such crimes from happening. Dawkins would have saved dozens, if not hundreds of addicts and victims. Welcome to the Incarcerated States of America.
24
I'm blown away by the self-righteous condemnation in so many of the comments submitted about the author and his book. Surely with time, introspection, and grace, he's not the same person today as he was at the time of the crime. Writing is a transformative process. Let him be. Let him write. You don't have to buy or read his book.
25
Marcia, he profiting from his crime. Sorry, but taxpayers are providing his food, housing, and medical care while he gets to express his literary ambitions. I don't know any working writer who has that kind of set-up AND gets a big-name publishing contract. As someone else pointed out, it's not even a memoir, but fiction, so the reader doesn't get a sense of "remorse", if any from the criminal. He's just getting lots of dough (and yes, there will be people reading it and buying the book, thereby contributing to his profits for crime).
2
Do the names Judith Regan or O.J. Simpson ring any bells? How about a book called "If I Did It"?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/business/media/26books.html
And while we're at it, when is Charles Manson getting a recoring deal with a major music label, huh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson_discography
I guess we never learn from past "mistakes".
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/business/media/26books.html
And while we're at it, when is Charles Manson getting a recoring deal with a major music label, huh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson_discography
I guess we never learn from past "mistakes".
4
Thank you Ricardo...how quickly some forget.
4
You're welcome, Marilyn. (FYI, "recoring" was supposed to be "recording".)
The NYT is systematically destroying the credibility of the Left by running articles like this.
That said, as a 20 yr old, I loved Soul on Ice by Eldridge Cleaver, but in retrospect, I think Cleaver was mostly a self-serving thug who used revolution talk to conceal his own moral shortcomings. Maybe I'm overreacting.
Anyhow, the sooner the Left separates itself from moral anarchists and self-hating liberals, the happier I will be. I want an American Left with the mental sobriety of the American moderate middle, if that's possible. 'If I can't be moderate-minded, I don't want to be part of your revolution." Is that a paradox?
That said, as a 20 yr old, I loved Soul on Ice by Eldridge Cleaver, but in retrospect, I think Cleaver was mostly a self-serving thug who used revolution talk to conceal his own moral shortcomings. Maybe I'm overreacting.
Anyhow, the sooner the Left separates itself from moral anarchists and self-hating liberals, the happier I will be. I want an American Left with the mental sobriety of the American moderate middle, if that's possible. 'If I can't be moderate-minded, I don't want to be part of your revolution." Is that a paradox?
7
1. The 'right' loves to describe itself in limiting ways. if you aren't in agreement with the limiting and often inhuman and unAmerican aspects of their ideology, then you aren't a 'real American'.
Please be careful. The ideological 'left' is just as prejudiced as the ideological 'right'. The real 'evil' is ideology...period! Ideology doesn't care about the reality their ideas and plots will cause...just the PURITY of their ideology. Government is ALWAYS about compromise. Ideology doesn't see, much less, care about governing for all. Ideological purity has never been able to govern...nor should it.
You are young and can be forgiven for not understanding that the 'left' is a BIG tent. It already includes the moderate middle, who do NOT have a monopoly on 'sober' thought. When human rights, free thought, free expression and much of what is ACTUALLY in your Constitution, are the goals, there is no way to shrink the left...nor, should there be.
Please be careful. The ideological 'left' is just as prejudiced as the ideological 'right'. The real 'evil' is ideology...period! Ideology doesn't care about the reality their ideas and plots will cause...just the PURITY of their ideology. Government is ALWAYS about compromise. Ideology doesn't see, much less, care about governing for all. Ideological purity has never been able to govern...nor should it.
You are young and can be forgiven for not understanding that the 'left' is a BIG tent. It already includes the moderate middle, who do NOT have a monopoly on 'sober' thought. When human rights, free thought, free expression and much of what is ACTUALLY in your Constitution, are the goals, there is no way to shrink the left...nor, should there be.
3
at least cleaver invented "cleavers" http://www.messynessychic.com/2013/08/01/the-1970s-political-activist-wh...
I have no problem with Mr. Dawkins publishing a book, if it is well written. He should not, however, receive any proceeds from the sale of the book. The proceeds should be given to the victim's family.
16
Proceeds should be given to the victim's family and Mr. Dawkin's family. His children, spouse, didn't commit any crime her nor are they responsible for his additions or homicide. They are victims, too.
10
Abbott wasn't arrested in New York City - he fled, spent several weeks on the run, and was finally tracked down and arrested in Louisiana where he was working as a roughneck on an offshore oil rig. He was convicted of manslaughter for the killing of the waiter, was sentenced to 15 years to life and hanged himself in prison in 2002. The Wikipedia entry on Abbott makes for interesting reading about the how gullible cultural figures can be with regard to these criminals:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abbott_(author)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abbott_(author)
7
Wow a 6 figure advance. And this all you have to do?
8
I guess crime pays after all.
9
He has the opening of Mr. Pynchon’s “Gravity’s Rainbow” tattooed across his chest: “A screaming comes across the sky. It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.”
It was between that and, "it was a cold and stormy night...
It was between that and, "it was a cold and stormy night...
6
Dawkins doesn't seem at all remorseful and lacking insight, since he's still asking "How'd you end up here?" and thinks he's probably never getting out.
At least it's LWOP (life without parole), so the most he'll ever get to spend is what he can buy at the prison commissary.
At least it's LWOP (life without parole), so the most he'll ever get to spend is what he can buy at the prison commissary.
7
There are thousands of brilliant writers out there who's stories are “authentic and rare". I will somehow find the resolve to not add this individual's words to my bucket list of "must read" before I die.
17
Being a writer with a book series that my agent is trying to sell, but not being a morally reprehensible killer, takes me out of the running for the nice 6-figure advance.
12
I rest my case. I sincerely wish you the best of luck with your book series. Hopefully I will be reading some of your words in the near future.
3
I hope so too! :)
4
This country is so messed up, it's pathetic.
14
So, does this mean fiction has replaced patriotism as the last refuge of scoundrels?
4
I'm a nursing student who previously had a degree in English and all I could think of was - wow, prescription drugs.
We think of the current epidemic as being rooted in recent years. Here is another story where this problem involves prescription drugs and untreated addictions. Will our politicians ever get a clue -- we need better laws and ways to treat people. Instead, we are shutting the health system off from people like this guy and his victim. Don't forget - their immediate family members are very much victims too. This tragedy impacted them too
We think of the current epidemic as being rooted in recent years. Here is another story where this problem involves prescription drugs and untreated addictions. Will our politicians ever get a clue -- we need better laws and ways to treat people. Instead, we are shutting the health system off from people like this guy and his victim. Don't forget - their immediate family members are very much victims too. This tragedy impacted them too
19
In 1981 Norman Mailer and the NY literati fawned over Jack Henry Abbott, a convicted killer who had written a book, "In The Belly Of the Beast". Mr. Abbott, newly released from prison, was suddenly the toast of the town and an overnight celebrity. Shortly thereafter Abbott stabbed to death Richard Adan, a 23 year old actor, over a minor disagreement at the restaurant where Adan was working. Richie was a talented, quiet, gentle young man with his whole life ahead of him. Of course the despicable Mailer and his pals immediately abandoned Abbott. They were never interested in Abbott the man, only Abbott the writer.
12
fun, a novel about living in a prison, written by a convicted murderer. who picks these stories? pls go back to the drawing board...
2
Scribner is a disgrace. I agree that all proceeds should go to his children, but the book should never have been published to begin with.
9
'"There are a lot of people in prison who try to learn how to write, but there aren’t very many people who go into prison with an M.F.A. and with the tool kit to write fiction,” she said.
Absurd. As if any one of the greatest writers down through history had completed a MFA.
Most of those in US prisons incarcerated for life are African American and Mexican American males with low IQs, next to no formal schooling, and raised by their teenage mothers in poverty.
Dawkins has no such excuse. He's a remorseless, manipulative psychopath who finds it very easy to con people, just like the current so-called President of the USA.
Absurd. As if any one of the greatest writers down through history had completed a MFA.
Most of those in US prisons incarcerated for life are African American and Mexican American males with low IQs, next to no formal schooling, and raised by their teenage mothers in poverty.
Dawkins has no such excuse. He's a remorseless, manipulative psychopath who finds it very easy to con people, just like the current so-called President of the USA.
9
I won't even bother to be outraged by yet another effort by the New York Times to elevate the diseased and destructive in our culture by endowing it with some spurious, lurid glamour.
I'm satisfied that after his undeserved 15 minutes of fame, this murderous miscreant will continue to rot away in a grim, ugly prison cell. I hope the victim's family can still sue him and take away any dime of profit that comes from this dubious publishing event.
I'm satisfied that after his undeserved 15 minutes of fame, this murderous miscreant will continue to rot away in a grim, ugly prison cell. I hope the victim's family can still sue him and take away any dime of profit that comes from this dubious publishing event.
37
Well, I agree with you ... but .... telling stories about good people who were senselessly killed by a drug addicted piece of garbage, does tell people that as hard as he has tried and however much he has changed and I am sure he regrets his senseless act, he is in prison !
but the truth is .. telling the ugly story and getting it out there and read by people who might learn something from it is a good thing.
He is still going to spend his life in prison. Remembering and regretting until he dies, an old man in a prison cell with no one to regret that he is dead.
but the truth is .. telling the ugly story and getting it out there and read by people who might learn something from it is a good thing.
He is still going to spend his life in prison. Remembering and regretting until he dies, an old man in a prison cell with no one to regret that he is dead.
4
I think I read the article carefully, parts of it more than once. I nowhere found evidence of any effort by any one (including the writers and editors of the Times) "to elevate" Dawkins's actions. He is a "miscreant". He committed murder. Whether he is by nature or by his life and actions taken as a whole "murderous" is, I think, doubtful. Dawkins's life is scarcely endowed with any "spurious, lurid glamour". Rather, it is evidence of the great harm done as a consequence of using mind-altering drugs like crack.
11
"It’s surprising how little contemporary fiction has emerged from American prisons."
Only a person with zero experience of the criminal class could write something this silly.
Only a person with zero experience of the criminal class could write something this silly.
12
Class?
2
Lots of commentators seem very concerned about the children of the victim, Thomas Bowman.
According to his obituary (which took 2 seconds to find), he didn't have any. It has a brief mention of the victim's own hard life, which included learning disabilities, failed businesses and his own jail time. Before he was killed, Mr Bowman seems to have turned his life around. Rehabilitation and redemption in action.
If Mr Bowman's mother, Ms Hilton, can forgive Mr Dawkins, who are we to judge? And if she is glad he is has found a purpose in writing, who are the anonymous pundits of the NYTimes to judge?
https://www.lifestorynet.com/obituaries/thomas-bowman.4728
According to his obituary (which took 2 seconds to find), he didn't have any. It has a brief mention of the victim's own hard life, which included learning disabilities, failed businesses and his own jail time. Before he was killed, Mr Bowman seems to have turned his life around. Rehabilitation and redemption in action.
If Mr Bowman's mother, Ms Hilton, can forgive Mr Dawkins, who are we to judge? And if she is glad he is has found a purpose in writing, who are the anonymous pundits of the NYTimes to judge?
https://www.lifestorynet.com/obituaries/thomas-bowman.4728
16
Excellent point Mr. or Ms. X. Well done. However, even though Mr. Bowman did not have any children, he did have a mother, brothers, sisters, nieces and nephews who no doubt, mourn his loss every day of their lives. The question remains the same, although revised - shouldn't any proceeds of this manuscript benefit the Bowman family rather than the Dawkins family? Just asking. I think it's a very difficult ethical dilemma.
7
The victim's mother is OK with it. That's enough for me.
3
We all can choose to buy the book, or NOT. That is also freedom of the press. And, of the marketplace.
7
Unfortunately, tax payers cannot choose not to feed, clothe, house, and give medical care to this "author" who gets all that and then profits from his book. He's already gotten a hefty advance and then there's people who won't care (or at least won't notice) that he's a convicted felon using literary fiction to profit from his crime, and who will read/purchase his book. Yes, it's freedom of the press, but there are so many more deserving authors out there who don't commit atrocities and yet cannot get a book deal---especially from a big-name publisher.
1
As pat of his punishment, he should not be able to publish. Why? Because the man he senselessly murdered cannot have the same liberty to do so. You lose certain liberties when you commit a serious crime. Being a literary star should be one of them, especially if your notoriety is connected with you crime and punishment.
9
I am reminded of Stanley "Tookie" Williams, the founder of the notorious and violent Crips gang, who was himself executed in 2005. Mr. Williams committed himself in the mid 90's to writing books and advocating non-violence to young people in order to keep them out of the gang lifestyle he founded and glorified.
Mr. Williams was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize five times and the Nobel Prize in literature four times. He committed horrible, unforgivable crimes -- but one cannot understate the effect his work has had on the dismantling of the LA Gang culture and on young people growing up in the most difficult of circumstances.
Unfortunately, Mr. Dawkins' book does not seem to hold the same weight as Tookie's work. That said, the reader should make the final decision as to whether or not to purchase the book. So long as there is a mention of Mr. Dawkins' current circumstance and the events that put him there in the forward, I have no problem with it being published.
Mr. Williams was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize five times and the Nobel Prize in literature four times. He committed horrible, unforgivable crimes -- but one cannot understate the effect his work has had on the dismantling of the LA Gang culture and on young people growing up in the most difficult of circumstances.
Unfortunately, Mr. Dawkins' book does not seem to hold the same weight as Tookie's work. That said, the reader should make the final decision as to whether or not to purchase the book. So long as there is a mention of Mr. Dawkins' current circumstance and the events that put him there in the forward, I have no problem with it being published.
16
This reads like a warm and affecting story of a heinous man and his family.
There should be a strong, clear federal law against his profiting from the murder of another man.
In fact, I thought there was.
There should be a strong, clear federal law against his profiting from the murder of another man.
In fact, I thought there was.
24
This was something pointed to in the article, that NY's Son of Sam law was struck down.
1
Insofar as writing appears to have always been something of great importance to Mr. Dawkins, the most appropriate punishment I could conceive for him (Constitution aside) would be that any files of his writings be erased, and any physical copies destroyed, repeatedly and in perpetuity. That anyone would publish anything other than an abject apology written by this man, irrespective its merit, is really pretty reprehensible.
13
"Mr. Bowman’s mother, Sharon Hilton, confronted him, and said that she forgave him despite the pain he had caused. “Obviously it wasn’t easy,” Ms. Hilton, a devout Christian, said in a phone interview from her home in Crab Orchard, Tenn. Now, she feels pity for Mr. Dawkins more than anything, and said she was happy that he’s found a purpose through writing. “I can’t think of anything more horrific than having to spend your life in prison,” she said."
Well, now that I've read the ENTIRE article, all I can say is if Mr. Bowman's own mother was able to find forgiveness and have pity for him, who am I to judge his actions and motives? There are only losers in this entire scenario. I think it will do my soul and heart good to not hate, judge or condemn anyone, especially this individual, for the hurt and pain caused. I will work on being more tolerant and understanding, but I'm still not going to purchase his stupid book. It's more of an ethical issue than anything else. Deepest condolences to the Bowman family.
31
Hopefully, the proceeds from the sales of the book can be used to pay restitution to the family, his room and board in prison, and his children.
5
The whole story is so so sad ... you put it well, there are no winners here ..
5
Brava to you, Marge for your almost complete about-face. Few of us are ever capable of that, and yet you did it in a matter of minutes.
I'm impressed.
I'm impressed.
From the headline alone, I knew this had to be a white guy. I simply can't imagine an African-American or woman getting this second chance.
80
'Soul on Ice' by Eldridge Cleaver
3
I do not even talk to the police, they sure are not going to talk to me.
1
What second chance? He's probably going to be in prison for the rest of life - which he deserves.
1
People should be really careful when they endorse the writings of a savage murderer who should have gotten the death penalty. I don't care if he was or is a drug addict. He is still responsible for his heinous crime. Every cent of royalties from this poor excuse for a human should go to his victims family.
There was an interesting case in Austria where a serial killer was sentenced to life in prison. He also became a talented writer. Psychopaths are very good at weaving stories to cover their crimes. There was a public push to have him released because they wrongly thought he somehow recovered from his murder addiction because he wrote so well. He came to Los Angeles and picked up right where he left off. He returned to being a serial killer.
Anytime we idolize a murderer, we demean the victim's family. If he was allowed to publish at all, it should have been under a fictitious name with all proceeds going to his victim's family. This person deserves to rot in anonymity in his prison cell till the day he dies, not receiving kudos for his writing.
There was an interesting case in Austria where a serial killer was sentenced to life in prison. He also became a talented writer. Psychopaths are very good at weaving stories to cover their crimes. There was a public push to have him released because they wrongly thought he somehow recovered from his murder addiction because he wrote so well. He came to Los Angeles and picked up right where he left off. He returned to being a serial killer.
Anytime we idolize a murderer, we demean the victim's family. If he was allowed to publish at all, it should have been under a fictitious name with all proceeds going to his victim's family. This person deserves to rot in anonymity in his prison cell till the day he dies, not receiving kudos for his writing.
17
All of life is a continuum. Tragedy on one end, resilience, triumph on the other.
In tragedy, Dawkins found his purpose and took the opprtunity to share his story of despair and anguish with us. While this book is a pyrrhic victory, it serves as a cautionary tale about the horrific consequences of substance abuse. Of course not all addicts murder someone, and certainly the pain and suffering of Mr. Bowman's family and Dawkin's children should never be diminished. Yet, to deny Dawkins the chance to write his story, would have been to deny us the right to better understand how easily a life can unravel. An awful choice that bore tragic results. It could happen to anyone.
In tragedy, Dawkins found his purpose and took the opprtunity to share his story of despair and anguish with us. While this book is a pyrrhic victory, it serves as a cautionary tale about the horrific consequences of substance abuse. Of course not all addicts murder someone, and certainly the pain and suffering of Mr. Bowman's family and Dawkin's children should never be diminished. Yet, to deny Dawkins the chance to write his story, would have been to deny us the right to better understand how easily a life can unravel. An awful choice that bore tragic results. It could happen to anyone.
7
Use of psychotropic substances does not usually lead to murder, nor is use of psychotropic substances an excuse for murder.
2
No, committing a crime does not "happen" to everyone. It's a choice and this criminal chose to murder, despite having had a good education and having been involved in AA. Spare me the tears. There's plenty of people who come from disadvantage who don't commit crimes.
Yes, the author has a first amendment right to freedom of speech, but no one has a right to be published by anyone, let alone a "major" house like Scribner.
It's like when Bill Maher gave a national TV platform to "alt-reich" white nationalist and pedophile apologist Milo Yiannoapoulis.
Or when Megyn Kelly gave a national TV platform to the guy who harasses the parents of the 20 six- and seven-year-old children killed in the Newtown, CT massacre, and the families of the six adults who were also murdered, because of his evidence-free conspiracy theory that the shooting was a "hoax."
Let them have all the free speech they want, standing on a soap box, tweeting on Twitter or self-publishing.
I guess Scribner learned nothing from Random House's Jack Henry Abbott fiasco. Or they just don't care about embarrassing themselves, especially if the author goes on to commit a prison murder. "There's no such thing as bad publicity." Anything to make a buck.
Gotta love that cover. As if this story collection is some kind of early 20th century classic, like The Great Gatsby.
Also gotta love the pun in the title. The "gray-bar" hotel, get it? Yuk, yuk. And in case you *don't* immediately get it, the cover design helpfully supplies a series of vertical gray bars covering the image. If this kind of pun is an example of the author's writing talent (and subtlety), we've got aesthetic as well as moral reasons to decline to buy his book.
It's like when Bill Maher gave a national TV platform to "alt-reich" white nationalist and pedophile apologist Milo Yiannoapoulis.
Or when Megyn Kelly gave a national TV platform to the guy who harasses the parents of the 20 six- and seven-year-old children killed in the Newtown, CT massacre, and the families of the six adults who were also murdered, because of his evidence-free conspiracy theory that the shooting was a "hoax."
Let them have all the free speech they want, standing on a soap box, tweeting on Twitter or self-publishing.
I guess Scribner learned nothing from Random House's Jack Henry Abbott fiasco. Or they just don't care about embarrassing themselves, especially if the author goes on to commit a prison murder. "There's no such thing as bad publicity." Anything to make a buck.
Gotta love that cover. As if this story collection is some kind of early 20th century classic, like The Great Gatsby.
Also gotta love the pun in the title. The "gray-bar" hotel, get it? Yuk, yuk. And in case you *don't* immediately get it, the cover design helpfully supplies a series of vertical gray bars covering the image. If this kind of pun is an example of the author's writing talent (and subtlety), we've got aesthetic as well as moral reasons to decline to buy his book.
5
What I keep reading over and over is that Mr Bowman had a severe disability that prevented him from learning to read until the age of 17.
Not sure he to feel about his killer publishing. Ironic in a way. But, really, just sadness all around.
Not sure he to feel about his killer publishing. Ironic in a way. But, really, just sadness all around.
5
I'm sorry, but this is absolutely outrageous. It's bad enough this criminal's book is being published in the first place, but by Scribner's--a major publishing house.
Who cares that he's a good writer and has advanced degrees (which he obtained prior to committing murder). I know many excellent budding writers who would love this opportunity, but gee, they would probably have to commit a major crime in order to get noticed.
Cry me a river about his drug addiction. This criminal already had been to A.A., but he chose to dive right back into his addiction after starting a family (and with education under his belt, no less).
What's even more outrageous is that he's profiting from his crimes--literally. Why isn't at least some of that money going to the victim's family?
I'm all for rehabilitation, but no one should gain accolades from their crime--no matter how good of a writer or artist they may be. The same is true for people like John Wayne Gacy and his paintings which are still apparently quite profitable and sought after.
Scribners dropped the ball on this one. What a shame.
Who cares that he's a good writer and has advanced degrees (which he obtained prior to committing murder). I know many excellent budding writers who would love this opportunity, but gee, they would probably have to commit a major crime in order to get noticed.
Cry me a river about his drug addiction. This criminal already had been to A.A., but he chose to dive right back into his addiction after starting a family (and with education under his belt, no less).
What's even more outrageous is that he's profiting from his crimes--literally. Why isn't at least some of that money going to the victim's family?
I'm all for rehabilitation, but no one should gain accolades from their crime--no matter how good of a writer or artist they may be. The same is true for people like John Wayne Gacy and his paintings which are still apparently quite profitable and sought after.
Scribners dropped the ball on this one. What a shame.
10
Moral of the story is victims should always get a civil judgment.
11
Never underestimate the number of chances given to white men.
21
How can people, without reading the book, without knowing if he was able to give any useful insight into what and why he did what he did, deny that there is nothing to be gained by publishing this book.
9
define "gained"?
a) don't become a drug addict.
b) don't murder people.
Is that knowledge that needs to be GAINED?
a) don't become a drug addict.
b) don't murder people.
Is that knowledge that needs to be GAINED?
2
Why wouldn't you read a book by this person if he's a good writer and you like his work? Do you inspect the "goodness" of everyone who provides you with services and products directly and indirectly? You might be surprised if you did gentle flower.
12
We have had politicians who have been involved in the killing of innocent thousands (Nixon, Kissinger, W., etc) publishing books so I guess we can stand a book by this guy.
29
"In 'The Boy Who Dreamed Too Much,' the narrator is quarantined and undergoes psychological evaluation before being assigned to one of Michigan’s prisons."
Oh, you mean the old cliche of the psychiatrist interviewing the protagonist? A neat device for showing how much the protag is suffering, guilt-ridden, navel-gazing, etc?
"The protagonist’s crime is never revealed, but his guilt is palpable. The smell of burning tobacco 'caused me to think of home and all the pain I’d caused,' he reflects. 'I thought of my children and freedom, everything I’d taken and lost'."
So he thinks of HIS home, HIS children, and the pain he'd caused (to whom? the victim or his own family? context suggests the latter), and while he does think for a moment about what he'd "taken," he immediately turns to what he "lost." He also places the idea of what he'd "taken" in the weakest part of the sentence (second to last phrase), while saving the strongest, most powerful part of the sentence -- the very last word -- to what he'd "lost."
It's all "me, me, me" and "MY children, MY home," with barely a glance at the victim(s) and his/her/their family. Narcissism is always deadly to writing fiction, and here we've got narcissism juxtaposed with murder.
And that story title? Can you say "excuse"? Can you say "begging for sympathy." Yes, addiction and devastating crime, all because the protag was a poor, innocent widdle "boy who dreamed too much."
Oh, you mean the old cliche of the psychiatrist interviewing the protagonist? A neat device for showing how much the protag is suffering, guilt-ridden, navel-gazing, etc?
"The protagonist’s crime is never revealed, but his guilt is palpable. The smell of burning tobacco 'caused me to think of home and all the pain I’d caused,' he reflects. 'I thought of my children and freedom, everything I’d taken and lost'."
So he thinks of HIS home, HIS children, and the pain he'd caused (to whom? the victim or his own family? context suggests the latter), and while he does think for a moment about what he'd "taken," he immediately turns to what he "lost." He also places the idea of what he'd "taken" in the weakest part of the sentence (second to last phrase), while saving the strongest, most powerful part of the sentence -- the very last word -- to what he'd "lost."
It's all "me, me, me" and "MY children, MY home," with barely a glance at the victim(s) and his/her/their family. Narcissism is always deadly to writing fiction, and here we've got narcissism juxtaposed with murder.
And that story title? Can you say "excuse"? Can you say "begging for sympathy." Yes, addiction and devastating crime, all because the protag was a poor, innocent widdle "boy who dreamed too much."
13
Would publishers, or the public, feel so sympathetic if Mr. Dawkins were black? My colleagues and I -- black educators, writers, counselors -- frequently shake our heads at how whites can pull off crimes for which no black person would be forgiven. The idea of whites smoking crack and murdering people is treated as a one-off deserving of compassion, but expected and scorned when the perpetrator is black.
The same goes for the opioid crisis now blazing through the country, which is largely destroying white communities. My peers and I remember, as teens in the 90s, when the black community was plagued by the crack epidemic and the law's subsequent vicious crackdown on people caught with it. Our families, neighborhoods, and schools were devastated by the mass incarceration of our males. Now, here in Philadelphia, we watch aghast as "opium tourists" -- largely white -- flock to our city from across the country to get high, OD'ing on the front lawn of public facilities where even librarians are now trained and stocked with Narcan to rush out and save their lives. Black crack addicts were roundly mocked, the term "crack baby" stigmatizing a generation of kids. If the reaction to this new epidemic isn't a powerful example of white privilege, the deep-rooted social value placed on white lives over others, I don't know what is.
I'm sure that the gatekeepers in publishing, also overwhelmingly white, are exploiting Dawkins' "white crack killer anomaly effect" to sell books.
The same goes for the opioid crisis now blazing through the country, which is largely destroying white communities. My peers and I remember, as teens in the 90s, when the black community was plagued by the crack epidemic and the law's subsequent vicious crackdown on people caught with it. Our families, neighborhoods, and schools were devastated by the mass incarceration of our males. Now, here in Philadelphia, we watch aghast as "opium tourists" -- largely white -- flock to our city from across the country to get high, OD'ing on the front lawn of public facilities where even librarians are now trained and stocked with Narcan to rush out and save their lives. Black crack addicts were roundly mocked, the term "crack baby" stigmatizing a generation of kids. If the reaction to this new epidemic isn't a powerful example of white privilege, the deep-rooted social value placed on white lives over others, I don't know what is.
I'm sure that the gatekeepers in publishing, also overwhelmingly white, are exploiting Dawkins' "white crack killer anomaly effect" to sell books.
64
As a member of the public, I can assure you I'd feel exactly the same -- sickened and furious that the New York Times, in a typical wallow in the sordid and perverse because of the dubious shock value, is giving this miscreant attention that he most certainly does not deserve.
The only satisfaction I get out of this piece is the comforting knowledge that after his 15-minutes of infamy this killer will continue to rot in a prison for decades. I hope its as grim and ugly as I imagine it to be.
The only satisfaction I get out of this piece is the comforting knowledge that after his 15-minutes of infamy this killer will continue to rot in a prison for decades. I hope its as grim and ugly as I imagine it to be.
3
During a campaign visit to New Hampshire, John Kasich actually made that very point. I almost drove my car off the road when he said, in essence (I'm paraphrasing here), "I wonder how the African-American community feels after the way we treated them during the crack epidemic, and now, all of a sudden when opioids are affecting the white community, it's a 'public health crisis.'" He went on to say that he wasn't minimizing the impact of opioids on anyone, but he made that point. And it IS a powerful example of white privilege. Interestingly, my novel has a white guy sent to prison for a crime he didn't commit, and his roommate is a black guy whom he ends up teaching to read. It's set in the early 1970s. Both are in prison for crimes they didn't commit. But it's fiction, right?
2
Nita, I have to fully agree with your comment, glad you made it. However, please be aware that there are plenty of people of all colors who will absolutely not buy this book, who do not agree that it is ok for this individual to have pulled off this crime and be forgiven by society. The victims have the right to forgive if they so choose; society should not do it. There is value in deterrance: people who are mentally ill will tell you this...fear of punishment if they act on their hallucinations saves them, and others.
This man should indeed die in prison.
This man should indeed die in prison.
6
Every penny should go to the family of his victims. Not one sent should go to his family. The publisher should also donate all of its profits to benefit the victims of crime.
7
If Nan Graham wants to publish him, Dawkin's is free to have his book out there.
I'm free to say "EWWWW" and ignore it. Starting now.
I'm free to say "EWWWW" and ignore it. Starting now.
8
In my humble opinion: The victim's family should receive profits from this book.
87
Whatever profits from the book, if ANY, should go to Dawkins' children and still devoted ex-spouse. THEY are completely innocent of the crime, have and continue to suffer greatly from the whole tragedy. He seems like the sort of person who would also offer some reparation to the victim's survivors without being asked.
The victim, Thomas Bowman, was unmarried with no dependents. His grief-stricken mother, Sharon Hilton, found the incredible Christian strength to forgive Dawkins and expressed pity for his life imprisonment. She even lauded his finding of a purpose through his writing.
Readers who complain that this man is going to make money from another man's death don't seem to remember that he is in prison for life.
The victim, Thomas Bowman, was unmarried with no dependents. His grief-stricken mother, Sharon Hilton, found the incredible Christian strength to forgive Dawkins and expressed pity for his life imprisonment. She even lauded his finding of a purpose through his writing.
Readers who complain that this man is going to make money from another man's death don't seem to remember that he is in prison for life.
6
Sounds like his kids are just as much victims. Horrible situation. Also sounds like the mother of the murdered man is a good woman with a working moral compass. I hope she and the kids can find a middle ground with the finances that works for all of them.
3
That's one way of looking at it, but Dawkins children have also suffered, so I don't think it would be inappropriate if the money is used for their benefit.
1
I have never gotten over the Jack Henry Abbott/Noman Mailer tragic story. I remember when it happened; and never forgiven Mr. Mailer for his misuse of his celebrity and influece to obtain Mr. Abbotts release from prison. The next day he killed a young waiter in Greenwich Village in NYC. Having an artistic talent doesn't make one a better person, or emotionally healthier one. I love good writing and love reading. Mr. Dawson might be a wonderful writer; but I question creating an aura of celebrity about him that this article describes. A major publisher using PR to promote a book, which in turn creates a celebriy, which in turn.......It's another example of "celebrity addiction" that plagues our culture at the moment. There are ways to support Mr. Dawson's writing ability without confusing his talent for writing - an accomplishment - for anything more than it is. It doesn't make him more deserving than other prisoners; nor should he be exploited for his commercial PR potential. This is the perfect weekend to take a step back, as a society, and look at what we celebrate as opposed to what we should celebrate in order to "form a more perfect union."
61
I don't think Mailer is a good writer.
1
the book should have used "author anonymous", with book proceeds going to his children, as they are now. this author's name should not be heralded in any way, shape or form. he should have received the death penalty.
12
Not his children. The victim's family.
4
I think people can be incredibly good at one thing and savagely bad at another. Even murder doesn't make a person evil. Everyone is capable of things they can't imagine doing.
20
murder doesn't make someone evil? then what on earth does? being part of the 1%? being ugly?
of COURSE, murder makes someone evil. are you serious? murder and rape are the worst things that one can do.
of COURSE, murder makes someone evil. are you serious? murder and rape are the worst things that one can do.
5
A good friend of mine stabbed his wife to death. He wasn't an inherently evil person. He was lost in a fog of anti-depressants that he shouldn't have been prescribed without being confined to a hospital.
This is hardly unprecedented in the creative arts. Today, people gush over works produced by people now universally considered geniuses with the highest reputations — except that, in their own day, they were considered murderous rogues.
8
I find I agree with Mr Bowman. Yet I know that prison is not for inflicting abuse or making the convicts life miserable. It is meant to be incarceration for the crime, then rehabilitation from whatever state of being the convict is in into a more well adjusted person. Finally it is meant to be a place where the convicts can self improve by going to school. After all most convicts will be a part of society again some day and what happens inside matters. We barely succeed at the incarceration part of that concept of prison as a sentence. I don't think we do any rehabilitation of the person as far as correcting failure to be given the developmental knowledge people who have good homes get and school is available but I don't know of many who manage much more than a GED.
I don't think that Mr Dawkins stories can possibly be good enough, in fact no ones stories could be good enough to overcome the significance of those crimes. He should not be getting a break like this. There are consequences for things done and while he is serving his time in prison that should not mean that in all other areas of life he gets to have normalcy or the benefit of the doubt the rest of us have a right to. I think the publisher has made a mistake. It will probably do well but it will also still be a mistake. There are some crimes from which a person should not be allowed to return.
I don't think that Mr Dawkins stories can possibly be good enough, in fact no ones stories could be good enough to overcome the significance of those crimes. He should not be getting a break like this. There are consequences for things done and while he is serving his time in prison that should not mean that in all other areas of life he gets to have normalcy or the benefit of the doubt the rest of us have a right to. I think the publisher has made a mistake. It will probably do well but it will also still be a mistake. There are some crimes from which a person should not be allowed to return.
12
As a writer who's in the process of publishing my first novel at the age of 69, I can say that it is a thrill to see one's work come to life. However, I have not been able to get through to any agents, no matter how hard I have tried, no matter how much shoe leather I have expended, no matter how many phone calls and e-mails I have sent. I do have a publisher, but certainly not in the Scribner ballpark. While I do not question his credentials, after reading the places where he studied, I wonder how much his notoriety helped in getting the attention of an agent.
I simply don't know what to say to his victims. The one whom he murdered is not the only victim here. The others he terrorized also have to live with that experience on a daily basis.
Please don't get me wrong; I am glad that he will be able to provide for his children's education, even as he serves a life sentence behind bars. However, after having attempted to break into the dog-eat-dog world of publishing, I am asking questions. And yes, I know, everyone calls him- or herself a writer. So yes, "there aren't very many people who go into prison with an MFA and have the tool kit to write fiction."
I remain conflicted.
I simply don't know what to say to his victims. The one whom he murdered is not the only victim here. The others he terrorized also have to live with that experience on a daily basis.
Please don't get me wrong; I am glad that he will be able to provide for his children's education, even as he serves a life sentence behind bars. However, after having attempted to break into the dog-eat-dog world of publishing, I am asking questions. And yes, I know, everyone calls him- or herself a writer. So yes, "there aren't very many people who go into prison with an MFA and have the tool kit to write fiction."
I remain conflicted.
31
"While I do not question his credentials, after reading the places where he studied, I wonder how much his notoriety helped in getting the attention of an agent."
I've never even heard of those schools. My friends got their MFA's at Brown, Iowa, Sarah Lawrence, and NYU.
If this guy never went to prison, he'd probably never get published. It's not like he was a publishing writer BEFORE his crime/conviction. it's not like he attended a top MFA program. I don't see large passages of his novel reprinted here to show us his fine literary style. He just happens to be not illiterate and a prisoner. Perhaps that is a very rare combination. It doesn't make him Updike.
I've never even heard of those schools. My friends got their MFA's at Brown, Iowa, Sarah Lawrence, and NYU.
If this guy never went to prison, he'd probably never get published. It's not like he was a publishing writer BEFORE his crime/conviction. it's not like he attended a top MFA program. I don't see large passages of his novel reprinted here to show us his fine literary style. He just happens to be not illiterate and a prisoner. Perhaps that is a very rare combination. It doesn't make him Updike.
5
"There aren't very many people who go into prison with an MFA and have the tool kit to write fiction"? Make me laugh.
Just because the MFA industry that cropped up in the 1990s found a way to create (underpaid) jobs for thousands of writing teachers, it doesn't change the eternal fact that "You can't teach writing." You can teach a bunch of "rules" -- i.e., the current intellectual fashions in writing, like "you gotta have a grabber" -- but it takes talent to know when to ignore them. You can also teach a few basics like "avoid cliches" & "omit needless words," but that's not much of a "tool kit."
Just because the MFA industry that cropped up in the 1990s found a way to create (underpaid) jobs for thousands of writing teachers, it doesn't change the eternal fact that "You can't teach writing." You can teach a bunch of "rules" -- i.e., the current intellectual fashions in writing, like "you gotta have a grabber" -- but it takes talent to know when to ignore them. You can also teach a few basics like "avoid cliches" & "omit needless words," but that's not much of a "tool kit."
At least you are thinking.
1
I think prisoners like Dawkins, who have expressed remorse, have something to contribute to the marketplace of ideas. They have had to endure tedium, hopelessness, despair, fears, isolation, grief, rejection, shame, remorse. Their insights on how to survive these experiences are beneficial to society at large. The life of a prisoner is not to be aspired to, but it shouldn't be covered up and forgotten as if it doesn't exist at all. Prisoners are humans too. So it is important to allow prisoner voices to enter into the the literary and the intellectual worlds.
147
"Prisoners are humans too." How come we don't hear half as much about the victims. They were/are humans also and they experienced the same despair, fears, etc. I know because I've been a crime victim, as well as friend to serious crime victims (one friend was kidnapped, tortured before she escaped her captors--she eventually complete suicide). Where are their stories? Enough with the sob stories of the criminals. They chose that life.
Let's not glamorize prisoners by giving them huge, undeserved book deals for one thing.
Let's not glamorize prisoners by giving them huge, undeserved book deals for one thing.
one goal: money. have you seen the excrement the major houses publish every day?
15
I wonder how many people who enjoy and have felt uplifted by the hymn "Amazing Grace" know it was written by a reformed notorious slave trader. Following the logic of the commenters below, this man should never have been allowed to disgrace sacred spaces with his work because of his crime.
24
I had no idea at all. Thanks.
3
Not the same. Slave trading was not face to face murder. Salve trading is very immoral, but it's NOT the same as killing a man with your hands or a weapon in your hands. Back then, slave trading was more acceptable. That doesn't make it right, but it wasn't seen as wrong by many people. whereas murder is viewed as wrong by everybody.
It is estimated that at least 2 million people died on slave ships. Someone involved in the slave trade was, at the very least, guilty of reckless disregard for human life on a massive scale.
2
Selling books plays off a person's fame, in this case infamy. It feels wrong to promote his books, even if not related to his lifestyle, when a large focus and amount of interest derives from his murdering another person. He should find a job where killing someone doesn't give him an edge in the market.
11
The reading public will have a real Sohie's choice", as did the publisher and agent. Who knows what the right thing to do will be?
2
I'd like to see more books by women who have served time in prison. But apparently white males possess so much publishing magic that they're the only ones who seem to be able to transcend anything horrible in their background just by writing about it.
34
Orange is the New Black was written by a female prisoner, finished after she was released. (She wasn't a murderer though). It is a good description of a minimum security prison and how she survived that difficult incarceration.
4
This is a strange response. There is not very much publishing of this sort at all, and Piper Kiernan's Orange is the New Black has received significant publicity, support, and even a hit TV show. Remember OJ's book? Yes. This crime is worse than Pipers, but I think it is false to presume that white men in the prison population are really being treated well.
1
She was imprisoned for one year on a ten year old drug charge. Hardly the equivalent.
1
Once again "drugs,"empowered as cause and effect violators of norms, values, people, families, communities and life itself, and their users, oft times dehumanized and stereotyped, are a critical focus in the complex life of a fellow human being.This time an additional pseudo- ethical is raised;;
the right to profit from one's heinous crime. Consider: a "drug," defined pharmacologically/ scientifically is any active chemical which affects the structure and functioning of any living organism. Nicotine.Caffeine.Alcoholic beverages. A range of "medicines," used non-medically. And many more types and categories, whatever their legal status and/or social acceptance. Now. Then. Sometime and somewhere.Does an arms dealer who smokes,
enjoys coffee, tea, a single malt or ordinary bottle of beer deserve to profit from mass murders? Does a coke drinking drone operator who writes about his unending experiences, as part of his trauma treatments, have the right to publish and be paid? What are the questions which need to be asked, examined, touched from unconstrained angles, and aren't, during these times of increasing violence to the "other?" What are the issues to be uncovered- if any-when considering a book of short stories by an adjudicated-lifer-murderer with an MFA and a Wharton School graduate-President- CNN basher?
the right to profit from one's heinous crime. Consider: a "drug," defined pharmacologically/ scientifically is any active chemical which affects the structure and functioning of any living organism. Nicotine.Caffeine.Alcoholic beverages. A range of "medicines," used non-medically. And many more types and categories, whatever their legal status and/or social acceptance. Now. Then. Sometime and somewhere.Does an arms dealer who smokes,
enjoys coffee, tea, a single malt or ordinary bottle of beer deserve to profit from mass murders? Does a coke drinking drone operator who writes about his unending experiences, as part of his trauma treatments, have the right to publish and be paid? What are the questions which need to be asked, examined, touched from unconstrained angles, and aren't, during these times of increasing violence to the "other?" What are the issues to be uncovered- if any-when considering a book of short stories by an adjudicated-lifer-murderer with an MFA and a Wharton School graduate-President- CNN basher?
2
White men smokes crack, murders, becomes author in prison. Countless black men AND women are summarily executed on the street every single day by "law enforcement".
We see you, America.
We see you, America.
7
The Times should not be publishing readers' comments in foreign languages. Is there anyone who can translate s. Einstein's comment into something bearing a reasonable resemblance to the English language?
3
Mr. Dawkins should be busy making amends - in the sense of the 12-step program of AA. What AA does, unlike other treatment programs, is address a spiritual side of addiction. This is far more visceral - and therefore more substantial - than the knowledge based training of treatment programs.
I say this because of the gravity of Mr. Dawkings' experience. For himself he needs to dedicate the proceeds of his book to the victims of his crime. He needs to take care of his person, including the soul of his person. I am not speaking from any religious dogma here.
I say this because of the gravity of Mr. Dawkings' experience. For himself he needs to dedicate the proceeds of his book to the victims of his crime. He needs to take care of his person, including the soul of his person. I am not speaking from any religious dogma here.
2
Did you read the article? He went to AA.
2
"Amends" are often different from "apologies." One can make an amends by living differently than one did when creating chaos or, in this case, committing murder. Though it might be reasonable to hope he would contribute something to the family of the man he murdered, his writing and providing for the education of his own children are potentially a form of amends. It is not for us to decide how he makes his amends. It is for him in consultation with his sponsor and his higher power.
A truly fascinating work. There is no way to alleviate his pain, nor the pain of the family he has destroyed. I trust that this kind of work would be terribly interesting.
4
I don't know why the small-mindedness of many commenters here surprises and disappoints me; I'm old enough to have learned many times over that most humans are extremely small minded. What Mr. Curtis did was horrendous. He is paying for his crime with a life in prison, without possibility of parole. He is where he belongs. What he does with that life now is his business. His victim's brother's idea that Mr. Curtis should be dead makes him no better than Mr. Curtis - without thought or caring for the lives of others. People objecting to his children's getting some money from his work are equally mean minded. The children are innocent victims of Mr. Curtis's lack of self-control just as much as Mr. Bowman's family. If Curtis were making plumbing widgets and the money was going to his children, not a single one of these "judges" would say a word, I'm sure. But making money from "art" just doesn't seem as legitimate "real" work, does it? And the peanut gallery can chime in. Guess it's just too much fun to make art, and too much fun to denigrate other folks.
18
"Denigrate" means "to blacken". This guy is getting all the white privilege he needs. I suggest consulting a thesaurus.
2
Thank You SFR. You are correct. Our culture discovers cruelty and mistakes it for being tough, rugged, and brave. Humane values are whispered in ethics classes and buddhist monasteries. What is to be done?
1
I believe you have missed a significant point: this murderer is going to make money buy telling stories about his prison experiences - experiences he would not have had if he had not killed one person and terrorized others. So, his money making, in real life, is not comparable to making money from plumbing work.
Along the same lines: you accuse the dead man's brother of being no better than the murderer because he said he wishes the latter had been given the death penalty. But, thinking a murderer should be executed is not comparable to actually killing an innocent person. And, I say this as one who does not believe we should execute people.
Finally, your complaint about what you imagine others think is the 'fun' of artistic work is just... strange.
Along the same lines: you accuse the dead man's brother of being no better than the murderer because he said he wishes the latter had been given the death penalty. But, thinking a murderer should be executed is not comparable to actually killing an innocent person. And, I say this as one who does not believe we should execute people.
Finally, your complaint about what you imagine others think is the 'fun' of artistic work is just... strange.
3
I thought he had every right to publish and to be read until I wondered how galling it must be for the victim's family to see Dawkins making money, basically because he killed their loved one. I feel sorry for Dawkins' kids too, but the money should be split between them and the victim's family. It's just not right to profit from murder.
144
Some of these comments are themselves commentaries on education in America and people's abilities to READ. THE VICTIM'S MOTHER herself said she was "happy that he's found a purpose through writing." She also gave him Christian FORGIVENESS him for his crime at his trial 13 years ago. I don't think she is GALLED to see him making money, if he even does make money. She is much bigger spirited than NYT commenters on other people's sins committed while under the influence of a hopeless drug addiction.
3
I have many well-loved and long-forgiven drug addicts, and even one felon, in my family. But if one of them ever writes a book, I hope he/she shares the profits with some of the people whose lives they ravaged.
5
JB: you are actually arguing for incarceration of drug addicts who are "hopelessly" addicted. Do you realize this? Drug addicts do not need to kill, mentally ill people do not need to kill. It is critical that people are held responsible for their heinous crimes regardless of whether they are addicted or mentally ill.
3
It is interesting that the victim's mother can forgive Dawkins and accept, even welcome, the fact that his writing may bring him some comfort and purpose while he spends the rest of his life in prison, but most NYT commentators can not.
63
Yes, it is interesting. But nobody - NOBODY - can forgive, or even has the right to forgive, Mr. Dawkins for his crime except the person against whom he committed it, and that person, unfortunately, is dead. That may be the reason why murder is usually considered the ultimate crime, because you take away everything from the victim, and leave him nothing to proceed with but six feet of ground. The victim's mother has a right to refuse to hate Mr. Dawkins but neither she nor anyone else still living has the right to forgive him.
1
Joe: actually, she does have the right to forgive him for what he took from her. But society has to hold him accountable. He is dangerous under the influence. He should not be allowed back out into society.
6
Great point
Figures the New York Times would glorify a drug addict.
6
This seems to me to be reporting of a human interest story. Tragedy is the dominant theme I see here. I see no glorification, even as it highlights a story of murder and its aftermath. Where do you see glorification?
To Linda5, DR and a few others who voiced similar concerns for the 'victims' of this man's crimes, I ask, who bothered to take into account the victims of the employees of the failed DJT bankruptcy businesses or the DJT cheated small business folks? I further ask, who is taking into account the victims of the loss of clean water, clean air, health care, thanks to DJT and the Republicans, etc. If your morality forces you to center upon the victims of bad behavior, then don't turn a blind eye to a lot of other victims of the crass and immoral actions of another person, individual or politicans.
7
But that is not the topic that is being discussed here.
3
I addressed your issue regarding no mention of victims. Yes, this gentleman committed a terrible crime. But what he did, pales in comparison. It is important that we all evaluate what we see and read. This is afterall the real world.
I don't have a problem with this author/killer obtaining an agent and publishing his work as long as he does not personally profit from the proceeds (Is he personally profiting if his children receive the profits?) and half the proceeds go to the victim's family. Might also another potential killer out there be positively steered by this man's words?
On another note it appears the publishing industry has at least learned a few lessons from the Jack Abbott episode. I remember the laudatory aura the progressive literati heaped upon Abbott as his book was first published. I was one of those 'cool non- judgmental liberals' who bought his book and then had to recoil in horror as Abbott stabbed to death a waiter outside a restaurant following an absurd miscommunication between the two men.
But now there is a more deliberate and cautious tone as the publishing industry, the victims' groups, and legal authorities grapple with these issues in a somewhat more sensitive and pensive pose.
On another note it appears the publishing industry has at least learned a few lessons from the Jack Abbott episode. I remember the laudatory aura the progressive literati heaped upon Abbott as his book was first published. I was one of those 'cool non- judgmental liberals' who bought his book and then had to recoil in horror as Abbott stabbed to death a waiter outside a restaurant following an absurd miscommunication between the two men.
But now there is a more deliberate and cautious tone as the publishing industry, the victims' groups, and legal authorities grapple with these issues in a somewhat more sensitive and pensive pose.
7
An interesting article. It raises difficult and probably unanswerable questions about what to do with individuals who have committed horrific crimes (and caused ongoing personal pain to others) while intoxicated or otherwise mentally impaired and now appear to be genuinely remorseful and rehabilitated.
4
Dawkins had no grudge against his victim, did not seek to profit from him, and his vicious actions were clearly the result of a horrible decision to indulge in mind-altering substances that led him down a path he otherwise would have avoided. The man he was before that decision and after is not a mindless sadist, even if he acted as one while in the grip of a chemical insanity. Hating him to feel better about ourselves is a petty, hollow comfort that does less honor to his victim than some compassion for all involved might.
105
What? This is a NYT pick? For good reason, American penal law does NOT recognize intoxication of any kind as either an excuse or a mitigating circumstance. The murderer *chose* to become intoxicated. He may have had a predisposition, but he still *chose* to become an addict.
And, no, the murder was NOT "the result" of the murderer's decision to take drugs -- not "clearly,"* and not at all.
Even the murderer admits as much. ("I don't want to blame the drugs and say that it wasn't me, because part of it was me," he says -- although I doubt he sincerely believes that admission, and has merely managed to break through his otherwise seamless narcissism enough to realize that "blaming the drugs" doesn't fly anymore & he should pretend to "take personal responsibility.")
*And note the use of "clearly." One of the first things they teach in law school is that when a person uses the word "clearly" in an argument, it's a tipoff to an assumption or unexamined opinion. It's the least "clear" part of the argument.
And, no, the murder was NOT "the result" of the murderer's decision to take drugs -- not "clearly,"* and not at all.
Even the murderer admits as much. ("I don't want to blame the drugs and say that it wasn't me, because part of it was me," he says -- although I doubt he sincerely believes that admission, and has merely managed to break through his otherwise seamless narcissism enough to realize that "blaming the drugs" doesn't fly anymore & he should pretend to "take personal responsibility.")
*And note the use of "clearly." One of the first things they teach in law school is that when a person uses the word "clearly" in an argument, it's a tipoff to an assumption or unexamined opinion. It's the least "clear" part of the argument.
1
Yes, DRUGS are to blame for this crime and heroin and other drugs just keep pouring into our country. Escobar may be dead and El Chapo may be in prison but what is this country doing about the epidemic. Practically no one buys that stuff but Americans.
Prescription painkillers were also to blame for Dawkin's addictions and why aren't doctors who prescribe them doing a better job of protecting their patients from this trail to hell? Dawkins flipped out and went to prison but where's the doctor?
Prescription painkillers were also to blame for Dawkin's addictions and why aren't doctors who prescribe them doing a better job of protecting their patients from this trail to hell? Dawkins flipped out and went to prison but where's the doctor?
1
Just for the record Mr. Williams, I do not "hate' this individual. I loath his actions and the decision he made regarding what his wishes are for the profits he will reap with the sale of his book. I respectfully take exception with the assumption that I would feel better about myself by hating this individual and that I would find hollow comfort in that act. Please - speak for yourself and do not put me in your global view of humankind. Making such generalizations and assumptions are petty and hollow. PERIOD. I sincerely apologize if I offended anyone.
2
This white, educated middle-class boy's rehabilitation and eventual release has begun. Too bad we've already forgotten the name of the house painter who brought meals to seniors in his neighborhood. Killed because he wouldn't give the writer some money. He paid for his "mistake." Will the writer pay for his, in full?
17
I fail to see the hard question here. Dawkins and his publisher are profiting from a murder he committed. No murder, no book deal. I won't be buying or reading it.
What's more concerning is that the Times chose not to identify Scribner's owner, going only so far as to describe Scribner as "a literary imprint of one of the country's top publishing houses." Did a well-placed someone perhaps ask for this discretion, and did the Times accede to the request?
Amazingly and brazenly, the article discusses the 1991 Supreme Court Son of Sam ruling and the success of the profiting publisher/plaintiff in that case, Simon & Schuster. So who is profiting this time around? What do you know, it is Simon & Schuster once again, the owner of Scribner. But you'd never know that from the article. Why?
What's more concerning is that the Times chose not to identify Scribner's owner, going only so far as to describe Scribner as "a literary imprint of one of the country's top publishing houses." Did a well-placed someone perhaps ask for this discretion, and did the Times accede to the request?
Amazingly and brazenly, the article discusses the 1991 Supreme Court Son of Sam ruling and the success of the profiting publisher/plaintiff in that case, Simon & Schuster. So who is profiting this time around? What do you know, it is Simon & Schuster once again, the owner of Scribner. But you'd never know that from the article. Why?
19
I thought it was odd that Simon and Schuster was not listed as the parent company either Mr. Budde. Something's weird about disguising that entire sentence as "a literary imprint of one of the country's top publishing houses." That eloquent writing practically begged me to see who owned Scribner. Regardless, it is Mr. Dawkins right to write and it is my right to not bite and buy his book. It just seems wrong in my heart to support something I find unethical on so many levels. Solid comment Mr. Budde. Thank you.
1
A violent thug kills a man, barricades himself in a house, fires shots and tells the police he will kill them if they attempt to enter the house. The police then ask this thug if has a personal relationship with God and offer God's forgiveness. Really? This is disgusting. If the statute of limitations has not expired, I hope Mr. Bowman's family files a wrongful death claim against Dawkins so they can get a share of the book's earnings.
7
Scribner shouldn't have published this, for ethical reasons.
I don't care how much artistic merit the work shows. Countless short-story writers whose work manifests supreme artistic merit go unpublished every year.
As usual, publishers are more interested in the author (specifically the attention-grabbing circumstances of the author's circumstances) than the text itself. James Frey. J.T. Leroy/Laura Albert. Margaret B. Jones/Margaret Seltzer. Misha Defonseca/Monique De Wael.
Perhaps Scribner thinks it's skirted the ethical deadfall trap bc it's labeled this collection "fiction." It has not. Readers should boycott Scribner.
As for the author (I won't further publicize his name), based on the description of his stories in this article, his work appears to focus on his experiences as a prisoner. The story bearing the title of his prisoner number. The work-in-progress novel is set in a futuristic subterranean prison (gee, that's original; guess he's never seen Metropolis?). The "devastating stories [created] out of tedium." He writes, he says, to "live through this," meaning his life sentence.
It's all about him.
No, he's not supposed to profit from his crime. But he could've written a story about, for example, a fictional set of characters experiencing the well-known ripple-effect of trauma that violent crime inflicts on the victim's family, friends, and co-workers, the police and emergency workers, and so on.
He could've written about the trauma suffered by his kids.
I don't care how much artistic merit the work shows. Countless short-story writers whose work manifests supreme artistic merit go unpublished every year.
As usual, publishers are more interested in the author (specifically the attention-grabbing circumstances of the author's circumstances) than the text itself. James Frey. J.T. Leroy/Laura Albert. Margaret B. Jones/Margaret Seltzer. Misha Defonseca/Monique De Wael.
Perhaps Scribner thinks it's skirted the ethical deadfall trap bc it's labeled this collection "fiction." It has not. Readers should boycott Scribner.
As for the author (I won't further publicize his name), based on the description of his stories in this article, his work appears to focus on his experiences as a prisoner. The story bearing the title of his prisoner number. The work-in-progress novel is set in a futuristic subterranean prison (gee, that's original; guess he's never seen Metropolis?). The "devastating stories [created] out of tedium." He writes, he says, to "live through this," meaning his life sentence.
It's all about him.
No, he's not supposed to profit from his crime. But he could've written a story about, for example, a fictional set of characters experiencing the well-known ripple-effect of trauma that violent crime inflicts on the victim's family, friends, and co-workers, the police and emergency workers, and so on.
He could've written about the trauma suffered by his kids.
14
Based on the comments here, many are upset that Mr. Dawkins is allowed to earn money from the stories and think that the money should go to the victim's family instead, but it is stated that the money is going to Mr. Dawkins' children for their education. I would argue that in many ways his children were also victims and that at least the money is to be used for good.
164
The murderer author should have thought about his offspring long before he returned to drugs (after sobriety, no less) and certainly long before he chose to commit a crime.
The fact that he chose an education fund speaks volumes on his intent to better their lives. I'm quite sure he knows the hurt he inflicted on his children as depicted in "The Boy Who Dreamed Too Much".
but the victim's family should come first. i am sorry for the seed of this brutal murderer, but far more concerned about the victim's familly.
It is said that "the unexamined life is not worth living." Mr. Dawkins obviously has more work to do until he understands why he did what he did. Writing often helps people understand themselves better and Dawkins should continue to write for that reason.
I agree that the proceeds of his writing should go to those he harmed -- the victim's family and his own children. I will not buy his book or even check it out of the library but others will and perhaps it will help them and Dawkins to understand why he committed such an awful crime.
I agree that the proceeds of his writing should go to those he harmed -- the victim's family and his own children. I will not buy his book or even check it out of the library but others will and perhaps it will help them and Dawkins to understand why he committed such an awful crime.
5
When people are completely crazy on drugs, there cannot be the kind of "self examination" you want. They are not themselves. Dawkins was not a killer when he wasn't on drugs.
If Mr. Dawkins earns money from book sales and can manage to help his still devoted ex-wife and two virtually fatherless children, all 3 of whom have been without any support from him for the last 13 years, it will be a Very Good Thing.
How commenters below could wish Dawkins' family's sorrow and hardship over the last 13 years should continue when he has a writing gift that may be able to help them out, is simply beyond me. He will never leave prison, what could be worse than that?
If he were a minority who had first experienced addiction to alcohol at the age of 12, moving on to prescription painkillers, ketamine, and heroin and was on crack when he committed his irrational crime, NYT readers would not only be lauding the publication of his book, but clamoring for his release from prison.
How commenters below could wish Dawkins' family's sorrow and hardship over the last 13 years should continue when he has a writing gift that may be able to help them out, is simply beyond me. He will never leave prison, what could be worse than that?
If he were a minority who had first experienced addiction to alcohol at the age of 12, moving on to prescription painkillers, ketamine, and heroin and was on crack when he committed his irrational crime, NYT readers would not only be lauding the publication of his book, but clamoring for his release from prison.
8
I disagree and as a minority I am saddened and insulted by your comment. If this man were a minority, especially if black, he would likely have never gotten a book deal no matter how good the book was. And wanting to see less harsher sentences for non violent minority offenders similar to those given to whites for the same exact crime is world's away from advocating for murderers of any race or ethnicity. Let's stop pitting ourselves against each other.
12
It's truly frightening, JB, but your last paragraph is about the truest thing I've seen in any of these comments. Sad, isn't it?
1
There should be a picture of the victim, too. Any profits from the sale should be divided between his children, the murdered victim's family, and the other people (victims) who were traumatized by having the gun held to their heads.
I think he has the right to write and publish. But those types of really dark stories don't appeal to me (neither does DeLillo), so I won't be reading this book.
I think he has the right to write and publish. But those types of really dark stories don't appeal to me (neither does DeLillo), so I won't be reading this book.
3
Great article. But I was surprised to see that the Times misuses the word "flesh" to describe the color of the Halloween mask. Whose flesh, exactly?
15
Underneath the upper layers of skin we are all the same reddish/pinkish color. So that flesh color, presumably.
If the proceeds of the book were being split between his children and his victims family I'd support the book. But unfortunately he's focusing solely on himself with little to no thought about how his actions impacted his victims family. Actions speak louder than words.
3
oo, and free publicity for his book, now, courtesy of the paper of record. How low can you go? Anything for clicks, eh?
10
I know this story is painful for many. But it reminded me of Sidney Willliam Porter, a bank teller who went into jail for embezzelment, and came out "O'Henry. " He was one of America's best short story writers. Most people know him for writing "The Gift of the Magi" a Christmas movie where a woman cuts off her glorious hair to buy her husband a watch, and he sells his watch to buy her combs for her hair. He also wrote my personal favorite "The Ransom of Red Chief" where thieves kidnap a child so nasty the parents refuse to pay the ransom. The kidnappers keep reducing the price, and finally, drop the child on the parents lawn to get rid of him.
As a reader I can't help but wonder what roads I can go down reading his work. I have to say I will be downloading this book.
As a reader I can't help but wonder what roads I can go down reading his work. I have to say I will be downloading this book.
1
Nice. But Mr. Porter stole some money from a bank; he did not murder his co-workers, or the bank's customers, or even anyone living down the street from the bank.. And Mr. Porter did not write his stories from a prison cell or get (what I expect will be) a considerable advance for his published work. He wrote them after he got out. Not to be insulting about it, but Karen, you're being silly!
4
1. Embezzlement is not murder.
2. O. Henry was talented. Based on the punning title of the book; the narcissism evident in the virtually exclusive focus of the writer's alter ego protagonist on himself; the mawkish, self-pitying story title, "The Boy Who Dreamed Too Much"; and the lack of originality in the premise of his upcoming novel (a "massive, hivelike subterranean prison," oh, you mean like in "Metropolis"?), I see little sign that this murderer-cum-author has any talent.
2. O. Henry was talented. Based on the punning title of the book; the narcissism evident in the virtually exclusive focus of the writer's alter ego protagonist on himself; the mawkish, self-pitying story title, "The Boy Who Dreamed Too Much"; and the lack of originality in the premise of his upcoming novel (a "massive, hivelike subterranean prison," oh, you mean like in "Metropolis"?), I see little sign that this murderer-cum-author has any talent.
2
Your actions do not define your works. If Hitler were as good as Velazquez his paintings would be admired thusly. Luckily for humanity they are not.
It's an interesting tale. Profit motive overcomes all things, beauty is where you find it, newspapers need stories. If every serious inmate practiced some form of creative expression with the hope of reward much of rehabilitation would be accomplished, although whether society cares about lifers is an open question but certainly in the grander scheme of things it would be good. If I were Dawkins ethical advisor I'd suggest he pay out to his victim's families too.
It's an interesting tale. Profit motive overcomes all things, beauty is where you find it, newspapers need stories. If every serious inmate practiced some form of creative expression with the hope of reward much of rehabilitation would be accomplished, although whether society cares about lifers is an open question but certainly in the grander scheme of things it would be good. If I were Dawkins ethical advisor I'd suggest he pay out to his victim's families too.
4
You know what? I don't give a fig about a killer's remorse and wanting forgiveness from the victim's family. That is for his God to take care of. I want him to stay in jail until his murdered victim comes back to life. And he shouldn't profit from his crime either.
16
So am I to believe that he cranks out this manuscript then sends it off to Scribner who then contacts someone at the Times to say do a story on this guy?
There is so much missing from this story. Anyway, It's not on my summer reading list. I hope any money that is made before it hits the 40% off shelf at Barnes and Noble, goes to the victim's families.
There is so much missing from this story. Anyway, It's not on my summer reading list. I hope any money that is made before it hits the 40% off shelf at Barnes and Noble, goes to the victim's families.
13
The sanctimony of people who think they could never take a life is ridiculous. Crime of this kind happen every day, multiple times. The difference is the perpetrator or the vitim may have less social "value." Drugs, gangs, crime, desperation, abuse. No I am not in favor of just letting people back into society. But creating a more human prison existence for them is actually a good idea. And reading their fiction, well what an excellent idea.
4
"If I did it" ostensibly by OJ Simpson is a category of book that didn't *need* to be written , but it was published for commercial purposes. Each creative excess was published as fiction. Both are fathers, monsters who hid their true selves from the world, and real life murderers. If there is a market for books like this, let the profit be split evenly between the children of the victims and the children of the murderer. All of them have been robbed of a parent and will have great financial disadvantages in life as a result.
Financial profiteering by anyone connected to a crime should be required to make restitution to their victims in the form of royalties before they see a single cent. In the case of murder, the restitution doesn't have a limit. Let them write.
Financial profiteering by anyone connected to a crime should be required to make restitution to their victims in the form of royalties before they see a single cent. In the case of murder, the restitution doesn't have a limit. Let them write.
1
If you read the article, AJ, you would know that the victim was unmarried and had no children. Tick up another point for American education.
*"If there is a market for books like this, let the profit be split evenly between the children of the victims and *the children of the murderer*. All of them have been robbed of a parent and will have great financial disadvantages in life as a result."*
The subject of the paragraph "market for books like this" was not referring to Mr. Dawkins. I was referring to the market for literary (and other artistic) murderabilia.
In addition to your mental stability, JB, let's discuss your own logic and reading skills. The paragraph above didn't preserve the paragraph spacing, and once I hit "send", it couldn't be corrected. This is a called a line-spacing typo.
The subject of the paragraph "market for books like this" was not referring to Mr. Dawkins. I was referring to the market for literary (and other artistic) murderabilia.
In addition to your mental stability, JB, let's discuss your own logic and reading skills. The paragraph above didn't preserve the paragraph spacing, and once I hit "send", it couldn't be corrected. This is a called a line-spacing typo.
We grossly under advertise the effects of alcohol and drugs on young brains. Parents laugh at kids caught drinking or passed out at parties. The chemistry of developing brains is changed forever. In someone with a predisposition to addiction, the effect of early substance use and abuse is devastating. The author will serve his life behind bars. Victims will not be resurrected by boycotts or moralizing. His children will continue to suffer.
Men who sent our young troops off to die because of a lie still prosper.
The GOP will sentence the sick, elderly, disabled to suffering or death.
Stock of for-profit prisons & youth detention centers to warehouse non-dangerous individuals are making pals of Trump/Bush richer.
Land of the Free Home of the Brave War on Christmas Lost (ask Trump)
Men who sent our young troops off to die because of a lie still prosper.
The GOP will sentence the sick, elderly, disabled to suffering or death.
Stock of for-profit prisons & youth detention centers to warehouse non-dangerous individuals are making pals of Trump/Bush richer.
Land of the Free Home of the Brave War on Christmas Lost (ask Trump)
19
" I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters. " Donald Trump
And yet there is condemnation - maybe from some of the same people who would still vote for Trump? - because this man manages to write short stories from a life-in-prison?
And yet there is condemnation - maybe from some of the same people who would still vote for Trump? - because this man manages to write short stories from a life-in-prison?
76
Yes, but Vanessa, Trump didn't stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot anyone. Mr. Dawkins killed a real, live, innocent human being. Can't you see how psychotic your thinking has become when you try to politicize this Dawkins situation by making Trump some kind of grand villain in comparison to him? You must read the Times Opinion Page on a daily basis to get this way.
10
Vanessa Hall there is a BIG difference between saying '" I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters. " Donald Trump, and actually killing someone and making money off ones crime. Crime should NOT pay.
5
You're missing the mark. What people are condemning is the idea of a murderer financially benefiting from his crime.
3
"Remorse" covers all sins, it would appear. To aggrandize Dawkins, as if he were just another grifter turned politician, turns my stomach. I have known and worked with many addicts and very, very few of them do anything at all this murderer.
17
The many faces of everyday tragedies.
18
Boycott his book. Boycott the publisher.
70
Since the "Son of Sam" case was upheld by the Supreme Court, allowing criminals to profit from writing about their heinous crimes and making a profit from it, it's up to us to boycott such books and to persuade others to do the same. Crime does not pay has been an old adage and we all should endeavor to keep it that way.
5
This kind of thing upsets me; two photos of the criminal and not one of the victim. A victim, by the way, who had a rough life but managed to do good.
I'm conflicted about who should receive the monetary gain from this criminal's endeavors. The family of the criminal (and the publishing house) or the victim and society who has to deal with the crimes that were committed and the cost of keeping him incarcerated. I'm not against rehabilitation but this whole situation just seems so awkward.
I'm conflicted about who should receive the monetary gain from this criminal's endeavors. The family of the criminal (and the publishing house) or the victim and society who has to deal with the crimes that were committed and the cost of keeping him incarcerated. I'm not against rehabilitation but this whole situation just seems so awkward.
138
Sorry, but not every crime story in the news has to be about the victim. That said, if YOU see a story in Mr. Bowman, by all means, feel free to write it. And maybe, if you write well, your story might find mention in the NYT Book Review.
DR - I could not agree with you more. I too felt and still feel extremely conflicted by this article. At the very least, I think 2/3 of the profits should go to Mr. Bowman's family and the other third back to the prison to help compensate for his incarceration. But by NO means, should this individual profit on any level. What could make this situation worse in my humble opinion is if this book became a series on Netflex down the road. I'm sorry, I just don't think convicted killers should be financially rewarded in situations like these. Once again, it seems the victim is forgotten and lost along the way meanwhile the convicted killer reaps the benefits. I realize that statement is pretty cold, callous and mean, but I could not help but think of Mr. Bowman's family the entire time I was reading this article.
9
Spot on DR. I totally agree with your post.
1
"; Mr. Dawkins’s share goes into an education fund for his children."
Shouldn't it go to the children of the man he killed?
Shouldn't it go to the children of the man he killed?
186
My thoughts exactly.
3
I was going to say - it should go to both sets of traumatized children, but it looks as if Mr Bowman may not have had children. Mr Dawkins' children also need support, and he -if he earns anything - has an obligation to them. They did nothing wrong. Mr Bowman's family also has a justified claim on any proceeds.
I have no problem with someone writing, or doing anything in prison which is legal, and helps keep the peace in that environment. But I would have advised the writers of this report to be wary of representing Mr Dawkins statements as gospel truth. E.g., instead of STATING that "Mr Dawkins still cannot fathom what drove him to murder": - it should be clarified that Mr Dawkins makes this claim, one they cannot possibly verify.
I would have requested Mr. Dawkins' permission to read over any court ordered psych tests done in hopes of developing more understanding of his personality - as a pre-condition of reviewing his book. (Was there conjecture that the drugs triggered psychosis? Rage? was this the only violent episode in his history? Is there anything to be learned?)
Apologies to recovering addicts out there - but personal experience with addicts is that chronic pervasive dishonesty and re-tailoring of facts to fit their narrative is often the norm. Some have memory gaps to fill. Some are convincing story tellers, tho' their skill rarely extends to forceful writing. And Dawkins murdered a man: he has a lot to hide, including from himself.
But, I'd read it.
I have no problem with someone writing, or doing anything in prison which is legal, and helps keep the peace in that environment. But I would have advised the writers of this report to be wary of representing Mr Dawkins statements as gospel truth. E.g., instead of STATING that "Mr Dawkins still cannot fathom what drove him to murder": - it should be clarified that Mr Dawkins makes this claim, one they cannot possibly verify.
I would have requested Mr. Dawkins' permission to read over any court ordered psych tests done in hopes of developing more understanding of his personality - as a pre-condition of reviewing his book. (Was there conjecture that the drugs triggered psychosis? Rage? was this the only violent episode in his history? Is there anything to be learned?)
Apologies to recovering addicts out there - but personal experience with addicts is that chronic pervasive dishonesty and re-tailoring of facts to fit their narrative is often the norm. Some have memory gaps to fill. Some are convincing story tellers, tho' their skill rarely extends to forceful writing. And Dawkins murdered a man: he has a lot to hide, including from himself.
But, I'd read it.
1
I think the money from his book should go to both -- his kids and his victim's family.
That said, the bigger question is this: How does a man who has known heroin, drug, and alcohol, and anger problems have such easy access to a gun? I know a lot of people in this country think everyone -- even the mentally unstable -- have a right to a run. They shouldn't have this access. His ex-wife and others should've notified authorities that Dawkins has serious mental problems and addictions and he has a gun. He should've been considered dangerous.
If he didn't have such easy access to a gun, there is no victim and this man most likely isn't in prison for life.
That said, the bigger question is this: How does a man who has known heroin, drug, and alcohol, and anger problems have such easy access to a gun? I know a lot of people in this country think everyone -- even the mentally unstable -- have a right to a run. They shouldn't have this access. His ex-wife and others should've notified authorities that Dawkins has serious mental problems and addictions and he has a gun. He should've been considered dangerous.
If he didn't have such easy access to a gun, there is no victim and this man most likely isn't in prison for life.
I'd like to know what the psychological evaluation said.
12
So much pain and sorrow that perhaps writing will offer some relief. It's clear that those who are so self- destructively addicted have undiagnosed (and more importantly untreated) psychiatric conditions. There is an anxiousness and frenzy that drove him into chaos and messiness even before the awful event. Just seems like prisons are mostly mental health facilities with no treatment available.
22
What better treatment than being allowed and encouraged to write and what a gift to all of us who often wonder about things we wish we hadn't done.
1
Yes, he should write or do whatever activity keeps him peaceful while in prison, but this book should not have been published, or as long as it is being published, 100% of the profits (revenue?) should go to pay for his lockup and to victim rights groups.
5
His "psychiatric condition" was using crack, an illegal drug. I've been anxious and in occasional frenzies, and haven't used illegal drugs nor killed anyone. Save your empathy for the victim's family and society which has been financially supporting this killer. all these years. Of course any profit from this ill-begotten book should go for reparations for the damage he has done.
13
An interesting, if unanswerable question "How'd you end up here?"
None of us asks to be born and the vast majority of us haven't a clue as to what makes us who we are, but the early most rudimentary years are the period of time and influence which more than any other shape us for life.
Like most people I don't have a clue about how the the first few years of my existence shaped my mind, but like Mr Dawkins I started drinking early and while never attracted to hard drugs have continued to use mind altering substances. While not to remotely to the same degree I too inexplicably and shamefully engaged in violence.
My sense is Mr Dawkins stepped over a line which he knew existed, but chose to reject in an unacceptable manner. His unattended anger and frustration carried throughout his life finally exhibited itself in the destruction of another human being.
Shaped and distorted by the people within his surroundings, whatever seed of experience allowed him to cross the threshold of violence was planted early in his life. It isn't as though he stepped full grown into the role of murderer.
The better question to be asked is how do so many in our society avoid ending up in his shoes?
None of us asks to be born and the vast majority of us haven't a clue as to what makes us who we are, but the early most rudimentary years are the period of time and influence which more than any other shape us for life.
Like most people I don't have a clue about how the the first few years of my existence shaped my mind, but like Mr Dawkins I started drinking early and while never attracted to hard drugs have continued to use mind altering substances. While not to remotely to the same degree I too inexplicably and shamefully engaged in violence.
My sense is Mr Dawkins stepped over a line which he knew existed, but chose to reject in an unacceptable manner. His unattended anger and frustration carried throughout his life finally exhibited itself in the destruction of another human being.
Shaped and distorted by the people within his surroundings, whatever seed of experience allowed him to cross the threshold of violence was planted early in his life. It isn't as though he stepped full grown into the role of murderer.
The better question to be asked is how do so many in our society avoid ending up in his shoes?
42
Your theory has a legitimate concept yet I have to point out that the vast majority, I want to say 99.999999% but I have no stats to back it, of people whom had an early life that was awful do not become violent and the destruction they wreak is mostly upon themselves and those close to them until they figure things out, or don't.
How? I was taught young that most people are good and want to get along. in spite of the ubiquity of media images and stories that seem to prove otherwise it is the truth.
How? I was taught young that most people are good and want to get along. in spite of the ubiquity of media images and stories that seem to prove otherwise it is the truth.
4
Dawkins,no doubt,is where he belongs,and I'm surprised that his own family keeps in such close touch with him,seeing that they were estranged. However,the man has a gift,and we are all the sum of our parts.If he writes well enough to be published,he should be.That has nothing to do with his crime and punishment.Possibly,the profits from his book shouild go to his victims family.
26
profits should go to victims...even though those in his own family are victims, they don't deserve to be enriched over the family of the man he killed
5
Possibly? How about definitely, with no other morally right choice possible?
1
Lefty--sorry to disappoint you but lots of nonsense is published--even by bigger publishers--on a regular basis. Just because he's being published by Scribner is no guarantee he has a writing gift--in fact lots of fluff comes out of even big-name publishers and readers are left scratching their heads.
Yes, it does have something to do with crime and punishment because without the crime, this criminal would probably not have attracted the interest of Scribners.
Yes, it does have something to do with crime and punishment because without the crime, this criminal would probably not have attracted the interest of Scribners.
So, did I miss in my reading of whether he gets to make money off of murdering people? You mention states have different laws. Thismis Michigan ... What is law? Wouldn't buy/read this book and think its messed up that NYT writing about him a s they wouldn't be if he hadn't murdered someone. Sickening.
30
A good point left unanswered (probably because unasked) in the story. A Son of Sam law is a US English term for any law designed to keep criminals from profiting from the publicity of their crimes, often by selling their stories to publishers.
A thought-provoking article in many ways - thank you NY Times for sharing this story with your readers.
27
Er, isn't that the whole point of a newspaper?
Let's keep it real here - the only reason any publisher gave this individual's work a first glance at all is because they were intrigued by his situation, being a confessed killer, doing a life sentence without parole. If he did not have that notoriety, his book would be on a mile high pile, like all of the other submissions, waiting to be read by some editor. That said, so what if he can write? I assume that since this individual locked in an agent and his book is being published, he is able to profit "by writing books or creating other forms of entertainment based on his crimes." Sorry Supreme Court, I just don't think it's right, I think it's not only in bad taste, but also insulting to Thomas Bowman and his family. However, if Curtis Dawkins has a conscious, truly feels remorse and decides to donate half or more of his profits to Mr. Bowman's family, I would feel more inclined to read this book and other potential works. But not today. For any reason.
105
Why do you think that Mr. Dawkins's book wouldn't have been published if not for his being a confessed killer? The article indicates that it is well written and has received good reviews. The article also indicates that plenty of prisoners write, but hardly any are published. Your revulsion is understandable, and I have no problem with your inclination not to purchase the book. But, if you haven't read it, how do you know it is no good?
2
as someone who works in the publishing industry, i disagree with the assumption that the author's status as a prisoner was an advantage in getting looked at by a publisher. prisoners constantly submit their work to agents, editors, and publishers, and almost none of this work ends up published. Prisoners have more time than most to write, but most of the writing isn't near a publishable level. it is hard enough to find someone with a great writing voice; to find someone with such talent who is writing from inside a prison, and can make the experience of being a prisoner real and tangible to readers, is a rare and special thing.
5
Thank you for your comment. Interesting how pathological people like this, by definition, outlive the one whose life they stole. So then they get to do the revisionist history. Oh, Moynihan, where are you now, with "Defining Deviancy Down"?
4
Why should we hesitate to celebrate the insight of a murderer when we have a president who openly admits to using his money and resultant power to walk into model's dressing rooms while they're changing and also grab women's genitals without their consent? I'm not trying to take us off subject in this comment, rather, we are probably undergoing a broader cultural moral re-examination, some of it helpful, some of it maybe not so much.
I can see the value in a criminal's voice, with the footnote that said criminal is very likely just another rather dull, self-involved bozo. Sure, though, let them contribute if they can. If Americans view "owning" one's transgressions (regardless of remorse) to be evidence of a strong character, maybe that means the moral code being transgressed is no longer the consensus? We'll have to build a new consensus.
I can see the value in a criminal's voice, with the footnote that said criminal is very likely just another rather dull, self-involved bozo. Sure, though, let them contribute if they can. If Americans view "owning" one's transgressions (regardless of remorse) to be evidence of a strong character, maybe that means the moral code being transgressed is no longer the consensus? We'll have to build a new consensus.
10
Why that's exactly the same thing as murdering someone. Why didn't anyone else think of that?
1
It probably was the drugs. However, Dawkins did not kill more people that night because the police talked him out of it. I feel very bad for the brother of the victim, who deserved to grow old with his "best friend". Children were also victimized by the lousy boyfriend. Just because this criminal can write, doesn't mean he should, and especially not profit from his prison experiences. That's another moral decision Dawkins has failed at.
27
And no mention of thriller writer and inmate Alaric Hunt?