The Ice Man

[pontalba]

Maybe it secretly turned him on and it's tucked down the back of the couch (in a brown paper bag, of course) until a quiet moment, when everyone's out.

Stewart
That is a revolting and mean attack Stewart, ah, but perhaps you are referring to yourself?

Steffee I absolutely agree with you. Peder should not buy something that is repellent to him, just to satisfy someones prurient interest.

Stewart, Shade If you are so all fired anxious to read the back cover Amazon US has the capability for one to read some of the inside of any book and/or the back cover.

 

[Stewart]

Stewart
That is a revolting and mean attack Stewart, ah, but perhaps you are referring to yourself?

No, not referring to myself.

It's neither revolting nor mean; it's not even an attack. Revolting may be to suggest that he doesn't read it but shoves it where the sun don't shine to get off. Luckily, I didn't say that.

Peder should not buy something that is repellent to him, just to satisfy someones prurient interest.

But he must have, if he's willing to copy the text into a PM.

Stewart, Shade If you are so all fired anxious to read the back cover Amazon US has the capability for one to read some of the inside of any book and/or the back cover.

Only if the publisher has submitted it for such an action, which they haven't.

 

[pontalba]

It's neither revolting nor mean; it's not even an attack. Revolting may be to suggest that he doesn't read it but shoves it where the sun don't shine to get off. Luckily, I didn't say that.

A smilie doesn't cover up a snarky and vulgar remark.

 

[Stewart]

WHAT SNIDE REMARK?

Perhaps you have been reading too much Nabokov and are reading too far into things.

 

[Shade]

Stewart, Shade If you are so all fired anxious to read the back cover Amazon US has the capability for one to read some of the inside of any book and/or the back cover.

Not always, it depends on the publisher giving them permission. In this case there isn't (yet) the capability to read the back cover or extracts on Amazon.com - this is what I was referring to earlier.

I should add that my own interest is not 'prurient' (I can't speak for Stewart...) nor am I 'all fired anxious' to read it: but I am curious to find out what it says because it has had such an air of mystique built up around it, and a couple of significant points have come up as a result of it which cannot be resolved without knowledge of what it says.

For example when Peder commented on the review which referred to the subject of The Ice Man as a 'devoted husband' and expressed disbelief, Zolipara responded by saying that it was possible that he could be a devoted husband and that Peder shouldn't conclude a view on that without reading the book. In response to that, Peder said Zolipara should read the back cover before making such a comment. So we need to see the content of the back cover to determine whether or not it does exclude the possibility of 'The Ice Man' being a 'devoted husband.'

In addition, Peder initially suggested this book was relevant to the present thread (on what books should be available to children in schools and libraries) because the content of the back cover was so horrible that it could help people

"calibrate [their] dials as to what should be freely available for people of tender years to read."

I expect, however, that nobody is really suggesting that this book "should be freely available for people of tender years to read." It may be that reading the back cover will make this clear.

In a wider context, it's common for tabloid newspapers in the UK to whip up hysteria about an issue by exaggerating or choosing non-representative extreme examples. Back in the late 1980s tabloids were obsessed with 'loony left' councils, which (they said) promoted 'politically correct' ideas to impressionable children. One example given was a book entitled something like Janet Lives With Mark and John, about a young girl who lives with her father and his male partner. This was cited as appearing in school libraries, being foisted on our children etc. etc. in a Helen Lovejoy style. The truth of it was that the book was never available to children and existed only as a reference copy in a teachers' resource centre, to assist teachers in discussing the subject of homosexuality with pupils where necessary. So using extreme examples can often mislead and distort the discussion.

Sorry to go on but I hope that clarifies my position.

EDIT: I see this thread has been moved to a place of its own per Peder's request. For the record I don't think it should have been moved, since most of the tenor of my discussion around it has been whether or not it was ever relevant to the thread it was in, and renders most of my comments redundant. Which is not to say I don't still want to read that mysterious back cover.

 

[pontalba]

Shade
Thanks for your clarification, I understand your views and appreciate your response.

 

[Peder]

Words from the back cover are now PM'd to Shade, Stewart.
Have I missed anyone?
Anyone else interested?
For the curious: The book itself is earmarked for the bottom of the largest trash hauler I can find, unopened. It will indeed get an appropriate burial someplace where it won't see the sun again.
Peder

 

[abecedarian]

Words from the back cover are now PM'd to Shade, Stewart.
Have I missed anyone?
Anyone else interested?
For the curious: The book itself is earmarked for the bottom of the largest trash hauler I can find, unopened. It will indeed get an appropriate burial someplace where it won't see the sun again.
Peder

You can't return it and say it was not readable? It would be true if it makes you want to hurl...I hate to see you waste your money!

 

[sirmyk]

What's the big deal with the back cover text?

 

[StillILearn]

I'm completely clueless and incredibly curious -- and my nearest book store is far, far away. What on earth are we talking about here?

(Maybe somebody could just spell it?)

 

[StillILearn]

Never mind. I just looked on amazon.com

I wasn't even up for In Cold Blood, so this one won't be tempting me in the least.

Uplifting. I need uplifting.

 

[Stewart]

What's the big deal with the back cover text?

Having read it, I have absolutely no idea.

 

[Shade]

I have posted the back cover text in a separate 18-certificate thread here, so only those who want to read it can.

The content clearly, in my view, supports Peder's notion that whoever called 'The Ice Man' a "devoted husband" was using the term extremely generously.

Having said that the extract in itself didn't make shivers run up and down my spine, or physically repel me as I was expecting it might. That, of course, may be because all the talk of it was leading me to expect something American Psycho-ish in its livid and graphic brutality.

 

[sirmyk]

Having read it, I have absolutely no idea.

Ditto.....

 

[Shade]

Reflecting on the back cover extract further, I have to admit that part of my brain read it in a blackly comic light. If written by a satirist, in fiction, it would be hilarious. Which brings to mind the editorial review by Publisher's Weekly, which comes down pretty harshly on the book, mainly for the author seeming more to celebrate the subject than condemn him.

Of course, we shouldn't need explicit condemnation of multiple murder, so that may be superfluous. But I have to say that if the extract (particularly the stuff about doing it out of love... how she was his favourite etc) was intended to be read with a straight face and unironically, and to engender any sort of empathy for 'The Ice Man,' then the author has a lot to learn, and not just about literature.

Peder, I know you want to dispose of this book as quickly as possible, but do you feel like reading a chapter at random to see if this apparently dewey-eyed tone is maintained throughout?

 

[Peder]

Peder, I know you want to dispose of this book as quickly as possible, but do you feel like reading a chapter at random to see if this apparently dewey-eyed tone is maintained throughout?

Shade, others interested,
I regret to say, no, change that to: I am glad to say the book is already gone, unread and unopened. I also have to say that I regret the day I ever saw it, not so much because of its back cover -- although I could have done without that -- but because by mentioning it I completely derailed an otherwise sensible discussion of 100 Challenged Books in another thread, and caused quite a bit of needless acrimony. My mention of The Ice Man, as an example in support of my contentions there, was not necessary for the points I was trying to make; in retrospect, it was a blunder and I offer my apologies to everyone affected.
However, back to the topic. It would not surprise me that the reviewer who referred to The Ice Man as a devoted family man did not in fact see the extract on the back cover, so I'll concede the point that has been made that the question, for some, may still remain up in the air short of reading further in the book, or even reading the entire book. I cannot help with that, or with the question you ask.
My opinions have already been stated once, up above, and since I am apparently the odd-man-out here, I am reluctant to elaborate them any further for fear of starting yet another ad hominem firefight. Nobody's attitudes are going to change based on anything I have to say. So, since a discussion of The Ice Man was never my intention in the first place, I have folded my hand and will be staying out.
However, on a different day, a different topic, I would have been glad to help you all out. This one is beyond me.

Peder

 

[StillILearn]

I am reluctant to elaborate them any further for fear of starting yet another ad hominem firefight. Nobody's attitudes are going to change based on anything Ihave to say.

Peder's right. We're all pretty much attached to our own opinions already. I do have to say that I think the entire discussion was worth it though, if only to see the phrase ad hominem used so aptly.

 

[Zolipara]

May I politely request that you read the back cover of the book before you make generalizing statements about what I can and cannot know?
Please?
I'm sorry you seem to be offended by my remarks
Peder

It seems its you that is offended.

Making a blanket statement based on a tiny extract from the back cover does not seem right to me. You could probably take a few lines like that from Lolita and make Humbert seem like a very nice guy.

Having read the back cover in shades thread this guy doesnt look like much of a family guy, but I still dont think you can say much about him before you have actually read the book. I expect the reviewer in question has actually read the book.

After all the talk about the text on the back cover, it was a bit of a letdown to actually read it.

 

[SFG75]

I assume the book is the one written by Philip Carlo? There are three books with similar, yet, somewhat different titles. In regards to the "devoted family man" part, it is perhaps one of the more ironic things in life that people like him or nazi officers were brutal killers in their professional lives, but were for the most part, "good" family men according to children and observers. I haven't read the book or done any research on him in particular, but his claim of having killed over two-hundred people leads me to doubt whether or not he tucked in the kids at night and had a conscience, heart-warming experience while doing so. Then again, some people can disassociate their emotions.

I doubt schools would use the book to teach anything. I could see it in a criminal justice course or something like that, but it would be of little literary value in any other setting. Yes, it is shocking, but we have a morbid fascination with that kind of stuff. Have you ever watched The Sorpanos? Even CBS is coming out with a show called The Brotherhood or something like that about the mob. I admit, I read a lot of books in regards to the mob. They make an offer I just can't refuse.

 

[StillILearn]

SFG 75=

Then again, some people can disassociate their emotions.

We are all capable of doing this. It's what has made it possible for us to continue sending our children of to kill other people's children down through the ages.