Encounter With a Nice Man

If fiction does not have a message it can never be good fiction. Good fiction relies on its Trojan horse/virus abilities. If one does not identify with it in the positive or the negative it has not done its job. The message portrayed is irrelevant to this fact. He could be writing pro-baby-molestation fiction and it would have been the same as a person writing a coming of age dark comedy about overcoming an abusive past. The very fact that you have so vehemently attacked the topic and the way the topic is formed is a confirmation of his efficacy as a fiction writer, in the realm of simply getting his message across.

A better story would have been more subtle and character driven. It would have couched his message rhetorically in the character's action and reaction to herself etc... But it seems he got his message across effectively.

So you fell for his "trap" tsk tsk, and there is no need for apologies for your opinions and deeply held beliefs. My intent here was not to defend his position, it was to defend the medium in which it was presented.

Meh, it ain't worth it, I'll wait until some mod sets up specific guidlines for this section. The argument is one of extreme belief, and there is no changing a person's belief with reason.

I am working on taking care of some guidelines for the section so it doesn't get filled with pure junk and to improve its function.

I disagree with you xris. If you want to criticize the writers beliefs and arguments, do it in the other forums. As I have said, Bonaventurian made an attempt at taking a belief of his and writing a story about it. By making the story more human, it wouldn't be that bad of a premise. One could also write a pro-choice piece that would be very similar. Writing is re-writing, and with editing, it could be a decent piece of creative writing.

I could write a satire about eating babies to solve the population growth problem in the world--oh wait, someone already did write that back in the 1700s. My point is sometimes creative writing can be used as a vehicle to share beliefs that others may not even consider reading in non-fiction works.

My main reason for not criticizing the subject material is that as a creative writer myself, I often write certain characters to be bigots in order to get a point across. If I were to post a piece that was like this, I would be expressing views that I do not personally hold through a character. While we all know Bona well enough to know his views on an abortion, so we know his ulterior motive. But if we knew nothing about the author, then the only thing left to look at is the text itself. When criticizing creative writing, biography should be left out, because the discussion is purely speculation.

My main reason for not criticizing the subject material is that as a creative writer myself, I often write certain characters to be bigots in order to get a point across. If I were to post a piece that was like this, I would be expressing views that I do not personally hold through a character. While we all know Bona well enough to know his views on an abortion, so we know his ulterior motive. But if we knew nothing about the author, then the only thing left to look at is the text itself. When criticizing creative writing, biography should be left out, because the discussion is purely speculation.

Well, would it not be up to the author of the piece to defend himself if someone did get a certain impression of political bias from his writing, right or wrong?

In other words, I think Bonaventurian should be able to post his pro-life agenda tales if he wishes, but I think other people should be allowed to say "I think this is nothing more than some thinly veiled pro-life propaganda", and if Bonaventurian wishes to respond he may.

What I think would be rubbish would be if someone were to post up stories motivated by the desire to make a political point, and if others were prevented from voicing their positions or opinions on the matter just because it wouldn't technically count as constructive criticism.

I would totally agree with you dave were it not for the fact that we have the whole rest of the forum to post political and ethical issues for argument's sake. If this section of the forum is specific to presenting creative writing and critique for the betterment of that presentation it should be kept for that. Heavens knows we have argued this particular issue over and over again in other sections of the forum.

If, however, this section of the forum is not reserved specifically for writing and technical critique of that writing then I withdraw all objections. But bear in mind people who are not trawling for controversy will also feel less comfortable poresenting their creative writing in this forum if it is open for topical knitpicking and open to what i concider counter-trolls, who are just as big of a problem as trolls.

On a personal opinon: Having an Anti-abortion political stance is not biggoted, although some people present it rather rudely, the counter attacks against them are just a rude and closed minded. The acid spewed against this story is an example of the above concern about people being too shy to present their own creative writings. Granted the vitriol against Bo will likely not affect him and his postings but it would definitly make me think twice before posting my creative writing here, as creative writing at its heart exposes the most vulnerable and most easily breakable parts of one's ego.

Well, would it not be up to the author of the piece to defend himself if someone did get a certain impression of political bias from his writing, right or wrong?

In other words, I think Bonaventurian should be able to post his pro-life agenda tales if he wishes, but I think other people should be allowed to say "I think this is nothing more than some thinly veiled pro-life propaganda", and if Bonaventurian wishes to respond he may.

What I think would be rubbish would be if someone were to post up stories motivated by the desire to make a political point, and if others were prevented from voicing their positions or opinions on the matter just because it wouldn't technically count as constructive criticism.