The act of apology cannot be private,
it is essentially a call to arms demanding
that society bear down upon and condemn the individual's right to grieve
uninterrupted.
The event remains in the memory of both parties.
The intent is not denied.
What, then, is an apology?
It is a means by which the perpetrator
uses societal values to insinuate himself an audience,
holds up his guilt for inspection,
then relieves himself upon the victim.
It is an impertinence through which the perpetrator impales the victim on
the spike of magnaminity, forcing them either to betray their grief by bartering
it for the maudlin sentiments of an apology
[and, in doing so, equating the value of the two]
or open themselves to the universal condemnation that
accompanies the individual who refuses an apology.
In any case, the pure metal of their grief or anger is
fused with the cheap sentiment of the perpetrator.
They are bound in the public eye.
The alloy is a crumbly grey compound, fit for nothing.
Q: But what if an apology is heartfelt?
Consider this:
a man commits two murders,
then apologizes to the parents of the deceased girls.
It is infinitely more frightening that the murderer could be sincere
in his apology because this then shows that his original impulse was slight
enough to be regrettable: this, in turn, implies that these deaths are simply
a mistake, essentially causeless.
Q: Why does a man commit
an action that he cannot stand by or defend?
I'm sorry,
but I don't know.