[dropcap]F[/dropcap]ollowing their respective rampages, I don’t remember flattering photos of James Holmes or Adam Lanza running on the cover of Rolling Stone or any pop culture-slanted magazine. Like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, both are/were alienated young men who snapped and brought about unspeakable horror. Also like Tsarnaev, some conspiracy theorists think they were framed. But unlike Tsarnaev, those dudes are/were totally weird-looking. My guess it that there probably aren’t very many flattering pictures of Lanza or Holmes anywhere.
RELATED: Viewing the Tsarnaev Rolling Stone cover from another angle, July 17, 2013
Meanwhile, here’s Tsarnaev — who on first glance could maybe be a sentimental, painfully earnest singer-songwriter whose debut record just went platinum — until the reader gets to the big honkin’ headline: “THE BOMBER,” transfixed over his shoulder. Right below that, he’s described as a “popular” and “promising” strapping young lad who was “failed” by his nearest-and-dearest. I haven’t read the article (It’s probably pretty good!), but on its own, the cover paints a far rosier, more sympathetic picture than Tsarnaev deserves (assuming he’s proven guilty of the crimes he probably committed). I would guess the image doesn’t reflect the tone of the corresponding article particularly well, either.
RELATED: Rolling Stone puts Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on its cover; ‘The Bomber’ looks like a Jonas Brother, July 16, 2013
I’ve heard arguments along the lines of, “He looks non-threatening, and that’s supposed to show how good-looking people can also be totally fucking evil. You’ve read American Psycho, haven’t you?” Yeah, but I kind of doubt Rolling Stone ever really sets out to be truly arty or edgy. I think Rolling Stone sets out to sell magazines to people at supermarkets, and most people at supermarkets don’t want to buy statements about superficiality masking the darkness of the human soul. In all likelihood, Rolling Stone figured this particular picture on the cover would encourage people to buy the magazine. And it probably will.
Why is Tsarnaev’s cuteness a selling point? Why do we know all about the “Free Jahar movement” while the Justice for Holmes League has managed to stay out of the news?
Well, why is Charles Manson probably the most famous mass murderer in American history when, technically, he never personally, directly killed anyone? Manson’s charisma is the stuff of legend. He got laid friggin’ constantly! He said lots of cryptic-sounding pseudo-spiritual shit that sounded cool! Ever listen to his album, LIE: The Love and Terror Cult? It’s really good! Had Manson abandoned plans to send his followers on a bloodthirsty rampage, he would have gone on to be one of the great legends of folk rock, you bet’cha.
Coincidentally, Manson also made the cover of Rolling Stone in 1970. Like Tsarnaev, Manson resembled the rock stars of his era. In fact, circled by a big yellow sphere, kind of like a halo, Charlie appears downright Christ-like on his cover.
In April 2007, a bit more recently, Seung-Hui Cho slaughtered 32 people — technically a higher body count than the Manson Family and the Tsarnaevs combined — at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. In the footage of himself he sent to NBC as his definitive, post-massacre testament, he awkwardly vomits a bunch of melodrama and overdeveloped teen angst. Watching the video, one gets the impression that Cho’s real motive for mayhem was his own failure to convince anyone to give him a handjob. Cho was not cool or charismatic enough for a handjob, and he would have made a crappy celebrity. Not coincidentally, Cho was never on the cover of Rolling Stone.
Charming people are more marketable than not-so charming, repelling people, but everyone already knows that. Once a marketable person becomes famous, his or her potential to hold on to an audience’s attention is more important for maintaining and enhancing that fame than whatever that person did to get famous in the first place.
Rolling Stone isn’t simply depicting Tsarnaev like a celebrity — Tsarnaev is a celebrity, according to the same criteria that keeps every “famous for being famous” attention monger in the public eye. He’s on the cover of August’s Rolling Stone for the same reasons that, at one point, Snooki was on the cover of Rolling Stone.
And that is very fucked up, me thinks.