I am disturbed by this. This, to me, is not about anti-semitic tinged bullying Allen Kurzsweil suffered as a ten-year-old. It is beyond the need to forget and to move on. This is about Allen Kurzweil seeking vengeance forty years later against a twelve-year-old boy.
This is about the lack of a literary statute of limitations. It is similar to Dylan Farrow and Nicholas D. Kristof's twenty years later attempt to ruin Woody Allen, who at least was an adult at the time Farrow accuses him of raping her. Both cases are about revenge. Both are, Kurzweil's is more, about ambush.
Cesar Augusto Viana III has only the vaguest recollection of Kurzweil and little, if you believe Kurzweil, no, if you believe Viana, recollection of bullying Kurzweil. Viana apologized "for any harm I may have done," according to Kurzweil, because Viana really could not remember according to Kurzweil. That apology is the basis for Kurzweil's claim of a confession. That's the case against Viana!
Kurzweil says be spent, off and on, forty years tracking down Viana. Tricked him with ingratiation into meeting with him. A coward, Kurzweil wanted to make sure Viana was not "dangerous." Tricked him again with false trust established into meeting with him a second time to confront him with the bullying allegations. He stalked him. Why, except revenge?
Now, forty years later, Kurzweil has gotten his revenge, he has seen Viana punished. When I first searched for Cesar Augusto, Google prompted me with "cesar augusto, bully." That is who he is now, forty years after the fact. He is an international target of opprobrium.
The photo at top left, from a Phillipine site. "This story didn't make us proud to be Filipino," it says. Viana is now a disgrace to the Phillipine nation for actions taken when he was twelve! The photo at top right is from the Daily Telegraph, UK, who tracked Viana down in San Francisco.
Viana says he now can't sleep at night and wants to sue Kurzweil.
As I understand it, Kurzweil ends the book with a realization that the culmination of his forty year obsession did not bring him closure, that he came to realize that his obsession said more about
himself than about Viana. I believe that last.
I am ready to rule: Allen Kurzweil, your book, your acts of trickery in the cause of vengeance, as
a fifty year old Jewish man, against a twelve year old Filipino Christian boy forty years after the fact, those are morally and ethically wrong acts, they are reprehensible and are a shame on the character of the Jewish people.
*UPDATED: March 24, 3:57 am. I hadn't read Ms. Kipnis' entire review last night and missed this: "All writers are stalkers," Kurzweil announces while crisscrossing the country in pursuit of Cesar..." Actually no, Kurzweil, all writers are not stalkers. YOU are a stalker, you are correct about that, you are a bully, a coward, you are cruel, you are disingenuous, you have a small pee pee, you are neurotic, you are weak, you are obsessive, and your are Jewish which is redundant with a lot of the above? Have you condidered electro-shock? Or suicide?
This is about the lack of a literary statute of limitations. It is similar to Dylan Farrow and Nicholas D. Kristof's twenty years later attempt to ruin Woody Allen, who at least was an adult at the time Farrow accuses him of raping her. Both cases are about revenge. Both are, Kurzweil's is more, about ambush.
Cesar Augusto Viana III has only the vaguest recollection of Kurzweil and little, if you believe Kurzweil, no, if you believe Viana, recollection of bullying Kurzweil. Viana apologized "for any harm I may have done," according to Kurzweil, because Viana really could not remember according to Kurzweil. That apology is the basis for Kurzweil's claim of a confession. That's the case against Viana!
Kurzweil says be spent, off and on, forty years tracking down Viana. Tricked him with ingratiation into meeting with him. A coward, Kurzweil wanted to make sure Viana was not "dangerous." Tricked him again with false trust established into meeting with him a second time to confront him with the bullying allegations. He stalked him. Why, except revenge?
Now, forty years later, Kurzweil has gotten his revenge, he has seen Viana punished. When I first searched for Cesar Augusto, Google prompted me with "cesar augusto, bully." That is who he is now, forty years after the fact. He is an international target of opprobrium.
The photo at top left, from a Phillipine site. "This story didn't make us proud to be Filipino," it says. Viana is now a disgrace to the Phillipine nation for actions taken when he was twelve! The photo at top right is from the Daily Telegraph, UK, who tracked Viana down in San Francisco.
Viana says he now can't sleep at night and wants to sue Kurzweil.
As I understand it, Kurzweil ends the book with a realization that the culmination of his forty year obsession did not bring him closure, that he came to realize that his obsession said more about
himself than about Viana. I believe that last.
I am ready to rule: Allen Kurzweil, your book, your acts of trickery in the cause of vengeance, as
a fifty year old Jewish man, against a twelve year old Filipino Christian boy forty years after the fact, those are morally and ethically wrong acts, they are reprehensible and are a shame on the character of the Jewish people.
*UPDATED: March 24, 3:57 am. I hadn't read Ms. Kipnis' entire review last night and missed this: "All writers are stalkers," Kurzweil announces while crisscrossing the country in pursuit of Cesar..." Actually no, Kurzweil, all writers are not stalkers. YOU are a stalker, you are correct about that, you are a bully, a coward, you are cruel, you are disingenuous, you have a small pee pee, you are neurotic, you are weak, you are obsessive, and your are Jewish which is redundant with a lot of the above? Have you condidered electro-shock? Or suicide?
