1) Do you find this to be helpful as an examination of some crucial element of the vengeful disposition?
It’s an interesting description. I wonder if it’s correct.
The narrator seems a bit full of themself.
2) Irregardless of the above, are you of the view it works as fiction?
It works as monolog, though context always helps. (Consider—a spelling/grammar mistake, or claim that 19+32 is some number that doesn’t end in 1 is in error, but in dialogue, these all might be correct—what someone said is what they said, whether it is right or wrong (in contrast to what they meant).)
You can have a character be wrong in fiction, or change their mind. (Seeing how some arrives at a conclusion, or why they’re on the topic may add something.)
Right before I read this piece I was watching a fictional work which had a vengeful character that didn’t fit the description of vengeance in the monologue. The character is (seemingly) motivated by a perceived wrong (originally) not against themself, but an “injustice” wrought by “society/the world”. Thus, rather than trying to return things to an old equilibrium, they are trying to set things “right” for the first time (they don’t seem aware of a time when things were different), so things go differently in the future.
their response would be as false as that of a child which we asked to define a triangle and all we got was a crude drawing, revealing in the process that the child knew nothing of the defining principles of that specific geometrical form.
This seems weird IMO, because the worst lack of understanding lacks drawing. You can try to explain to someone why all triangles will have this or that property all you like, but if they do not draw a triangle and see it—without this start/grounding—then it may be impossible to impart this knowledge. (In order to have a discussion of triangles in the abstract, basic, concrete knowledge may be required.)
the defining aspect of your act isn’t that you harmed them, but that you did so in response to your own injury.
if asked, assuming they did destroy in a moment of rage, they will always explain away their action by speaking of reciprocals and closures. Because, as I already noted, they confuse the description of their operations with the meaning they had, not being the least bit conscious of the latter.
The distinction being made here isn’t clear.
knowing full well that the Law reserves its leniency only for those who act on impulse.
Finally something good on the subject, unlike all the “irrational” and “illogical” stuff, which adds nothing to what is discussed (just say they know what they’re doing, and the reason, but not the reason behind the reason). (This might vary, in that there might be more than two types, but it’s a good start.)
they will justified in acting
they will justify acting?
This, precisely, is how the sense we are neutralizing the actual source of pain and anxiety is at the same time real and mistaken: for we strike not the idol – which in us is real –
This part, the ending, is good. (Though it’s not clear how one would strike at something in the mind.)
Overall (Short):
1) Do you find this to be helpful as an examination of some crucial element of the vengeful disposition?
It’s an interesting description. I wonder if it’s correct.
The narrator seems a bit full of themself.
It works as monolog, though context always helps. (Consider—a spelling/grammar mistake, or claim that 19+32 is some number that doesn’t end in 1 is in error, but in dialogue, these all might be correct—what someone said is what they said, whether it is right or wrong (in contrast to what they meant).)
You can have a character be wrong in fiction, or change their mind. (Seeing how some arrives at a conclusion, or why they’re on the topic may add something.)
Right before I read this piece I was watching a fictional work which had a vengeful character that didn’t fit the description of vengeance in the monologue. The character is (seemingly) motivated by a perceived wrong (originally) not against themself, but an “injustice” wrought by “society/the world”. Thus, rather than trying to return things to an old equilibrium, they are trying to set things “right” for the first time (they don’t seem aware of a time when things were different), so things go differently in the future.
Point by point (Long):
This seems weird IMO, because the worst lack of understanding lacks drawing. You can try to explain to someone why all triangles will have this or that property all you like, but if they do not draw a triangle and see it—without this start/grounding—then it may be impossible to impart this knowledge. (In order to have a discussion of triangles in the abstract, basic, concrete knowledge may be required.)
The distinction being made here isn’t clear.
Finally something good on the subject, unlike all the “irrational” and “illogical” stuff, which adds nothing to what is discussed (just say they know what they’re doing, and the reason, but not the reason behind the reason). (This might vary, in that there might be more than two types, but it’s a good start.)
they will justify acting?
This part, the ending, is good. (Though it’s not clear how one would strike at something in the mind.)