![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
My admittedly short and cursory review of Clockwork Phoenix has merited a response from![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
johncwright. The Internet, being a series of tubes, evidently can be a very small place.
So what is the source of the indignation? Ah. To answer that, you will have to look at the indignation, and not at the story.
Is the point lost on me? No, I fear it is crystal clear. I never understand why those who uphold bumpersticker dogmas as conformist, sheeplike, and simplistic as "Four legs Good! Two legs ba-aa-ad!" opine their thoughts are somehow too high flown or deeply spiritual for the rest of us working Joes. (In my case, a working Joe with a classical education and a doctorate in law.) I wrote a story where the hero had two legs. But two legs bad! Aristotle male. Male bad!
Got it. Point taken.
An interviewer once asked me if my Christianity or my political philosophy would offend readers, by which he meant readers to the Left of Center. I answered that since such readers get offended at plain, ordinary and decent things like heroism, romance and marriage, I have no need to expend effort to offend them with more abstract or topical questions.
I hope I made it clear that I intended no ad hominem attacks against Mr. Wright himself in my comments on his story--certainly he's a technically impeccable writer, and I personally don't know him. I also hope I made it clear that I suspected my reaction to his story was wholly idiosyncratic in the most Greek sense of the word, and in that sense I wholly agree that "the source of the indignation" is my own opinions, and not his story itself. However, I certainly never stated, and do not think, that my "thoughts are somehow too high flown or deeply spiritual for the rest of us working Joes", and I personally have nothing against Christianity per se (I attended a Christian college, for starters), or against conservativism (if Mr. Wright does indeed define himself as conservative vis-a-vis those whom he calls "left of center"), or against diversity of opinion or "intellectual diversity."
I do, however, have a quarrel with patriarchy, with misogyny, and with heteronormativity, and this journal is an unabashed testament to those disagreements.
johncwright. The Internet, being a series of tubes, evidently can be a very small place. So what is the source of the indignation? Ah. To answer that, you will have to look at the indignation, and not at the story.
Is the point lost on me? No, I fear it is crystal clear. I never understand why those who uphold bumpersticker dogmas as conformist, sheeplike, and simplistic as "Four legs Good! Two legs ba-aa-ad!" opine their thoughts are somehow too high flown or deeply spiritual for the rest of us working Joes. (In my case, a working Joe with a classical education and a doctorate in law.) I wrote a story where the hero had two legs. But two legs bad! Aristotle male. Male bad!
Got it. Point taken.
An interviewer once asked me if my Christianity or my political philosophy would offend readers, by which he meant readers to the Left of Center. I answered that since such readers get offended at plain, ordinary and decent things like heroism, romance and marriage, I have no need to expend effort to offend them with more abstract or topical questions.
I hope I made it clear that I intended no ad hominem attacks against Mr. Wright himself in my comments on his story--certainly he's a technically impeccable writer, and I personally don't know him. I also hope I made it clear that I suspected my reaction to his story was wholly idiosyncratic in the most Greek sense of the word, and in that sense I wholly agree that "the source of the indignation" is my own opinions, and not his story itself. However, I certainly never stated, and do not think, that my "thoughts are somehow too high flown or deeply spiritual for the rest of us working Joes", and I personally have nothing against Christianity per se (I attended a Christian college, for starters), or against conservativism (if Mr. Wright does indeed define himself as conservative vis-a-vis those whom he calls "left of center"), or against diversity of opinion or "intellectual diversity."
I do, however, have a quarrel with patriarchy, with misogyny, and with heteronormativity, and this journal is an unabashed testament to those disagreements.