The first article is vague and provides a brief telling. Next we see a series of pictures. It is interesting to contrast to those we see in contemporary articles. These images are straightforward and do not elicit feelings of pathos like those seen before. They point to locations that are integral parts of the murder, but do not reveal anything else. At this point I wondered if pictures of the murderers would ever emerge. Next, without even addressing Leopold or Loeb directly, the third article makes claims about them. The killers are clearly educated, as the ransom letter was well written. The article is inquisitive in nature and makes general claims about the nature of the murder, citing an inability to name a real cause of death. The overarching statements reveal how little was known at the beginning. We also learn about the murderers when the glasses are discovered. We are told they would fit someone with a very small head and we now that Bobby did not wear glasses. The piecing together we see here allows for an understanding of how the authorities struggled to make sense of what little information they had. It also reveals how they may have come to suspect the individuals they did. While I am not versed in the nature of crime, I fail to see what the article about handwriting brought to the table. Maybe an examination of the writing allowed the police to hone in on certain candidates? I hoped to see a greater explanation here as opposed to a brief telling.
Next, I was intrigued about the article about the neglect of Judaism. We read that this murder concerns the Jewish whole and that things would not have gone wrong if these men were consciously Jewish. The are described as having empty hearts and living a life of moral anarchy. I was shocked at the leaps made in this article. It appears to be written by someone who does not know either of the boys. The feelings of outrage are understandable, but they call into question the character of strangers. Perhaps this can be seen to express the sentiments felt by a community, but I struggled to see how bold statements could be made about men the author probably knew little to nothing about. The act of making bold claims emerges again in the next article. The author believes the men needed to be disciplined, and because this never happened, they committed a murder. The article also is very revealing. We learn that Leopold "wanted to try something of everything", a fact that can explain his involvement in the murder. He comes across as intelligent but arrogant, and likens himself to a historian. He is painted as a terrible person here due to his lack of emotion and inability to take anything seriously.
We read about Loeb next. His school work is described as his obsession, which is an important fact. We can understand how he was able to focus so much on finding the person they would murder and create such a detailed plan. He appears neurotic and confusing in this particular article. The author also believes that Loeb was allowed to be like this because his behavior was engaged during childhood. I was intrigued by the description of his features as feminine, as in the book, he came across as somewhat of a ladies man. The article after places the blame on the parents. It cites a lack of physical and emotional growth for the men's behavior. I find it interesting that no articles seem to point to the boys themselves. Can they not be the ones responsible for what happened? Do we need to blame it on their upbringing or a lack of religion? It seems to become an obsession to look for a lack of values as the means of understanding the situation. This points to what we talked about in class: the fact that murder was seen as an immoral act during this time.
In another article, the men are defined as antinomians. It seems that people are emerging who have their own differing opinions about the nature of Leopold and Loeb. Do these individuals know the men, or do they simply want their own 15 minutes of fame? What does it mean that they fail to see the moral law as binding? Is this not incredibly obvious, given the nature of the crime? The men blatantly said that their victim was random, a fact that makes the neutrality of the crime that much more haunting. The final paragraph in this article was absurd. This situation is likened to modern Rome. I fail to see what this commentary does to shed light on what has happened. The most ridiculous article was the one about hypnotism. It never crossed my mind that Leopold forced Loeb to participate by hypnotizing him. Sources seem to be grasping for anything they can find. They say it also may have been moonshine insanity. How valid are either of these arguments? Overall, the men appear crazy and unemotional regarding their behavior. But how valid is this conceptualization if it comes from people they have never met?
Perhaps the most important element is how different the two men were. This makes their behavior more understandable, as the course of events is the product of their different mindsets and skills. Leopold and Loeb emerge as egotistical men who were indulged and allowed to believe that they were intelligent and better than other people. This becomes blatant when Leopold would never commit suicide because he knows the trial will be interesting and he will learn a lot from it. The murder and trial become an opportunity to further his own intellectual capacity and sense of understanding. Perhaps this whole thing was a game to them, and they wanted to see if they could pull it off. While the book we read provided a good overall depiction of the events, these articles delve deeper into the men's character. I wonder if we should buy into the information provided by outside sources. The most valuable facts we get are the quotes from Leopold and Loeb and the analyses of their character. It seems they both fail to feel remorse and become viewed as insane in at least some capacities. I am curious to see how everything will pan out after coming to understand them better. Their upbringing makes their current behavior understandable. The men were allowed to pursue whatever interested them and seemed encouraged to believe in their own intelligence and superiority.
No comments:
Post a Comment