When I think of some of the psychological issues this essay raises for me, I am struck by one right off.

Does Griffin want her reader to feel sympathetic for Himmler? Does she want to see if there is some kind of psychological explanation that doesn't depend on the assumption that he is wacko? I know that there are a couple theories about psychotic people--one, that they are made by their environment (there is some really compelling new evidence about this in the latest neurobiological research), and that they are just born, genetically (mis)wired freaks, that pop up every once and a while.

I am not sure where Griffin sits. I do feel some kind of sympathy for the little boy curled up in the fetal position who is, presumably, both Himmler and the result of that very busy DNA strand that is introduced at the beginning of the essay. I know somewhere in my head and heart that Himmler was once some woman's innocent baby, and that something went wrong somewhere. Was he a genetic timebomb that was "programmed" (like that rocket) to end up where he did? Did his rigid father and weak mother create the monster he became? Was it indulgence of his weaknesses and distortions by a culture that demanded an unemotional and calculated response to the world instead of compassion that did it?

Those are the kind of problems/questions that catch me when I think of what and why she is exploring this man's life. What do you think?