re: #426 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut

See, that’s the thing. The article clearly says that he’s a monster, that he’s the bomber. It doesn’t raise any ambivalence. I could understand this reaction better if it didn’t call him a monster right on the cover.

I don’t see how saying someone is a monster can be interpreted as glamorizing them.

Shouldn’t that be ‘alleged bomber’, ‘alleged monster’—he hasn’t been convicted of anything.