Replies

Attacking a writer's character on the basis of such scenes, however repugnant those scenes might be to a given reader, or--for that matter-- however badly written, does a disservice to the author,

Is it necessarily a "disservice" for people to say how they feel about this?

If there's nothing wrong in what Webb has written, why should he mind an honest discussion of his work?

You wrote, "Is it necessarily a "disservice" for people to say how they feel about this?"

You're being disingenuous. The argument I'm making is clearly stated. People can say what they like, of course, or rather, 'how they feel', but the insinuation is that Webb is morally deficient because of the fiction he writes. It would be one thing if Webb wrote pornography, another if he wrote puerile fantasies or outright penny-a-word crap, but that isn't the case, at least not on the basis of 'Fields of Fire', known as his best work. While no supporter of Webb's political views--and certainly skeptical of his motives for switching parties, which smacks of opportunism--I believe it is wrong to imply Webb--or any author anywhere--is somehow tainted on the basis of what a depraved character does in a given scene in a work of Webb's (or any author's) fiction. That implication of moral taint was the central point of the article originally posted. I thought the article's central argument poorly reasoned, and so responded to it.

I can't fully speak to your second question, "If there's nothing wrong in what Webb has written, why should he mind an honest discussion of his work?" since I don't know if Webb has addressed that particular passage (the child molestation scene) with anyone during the Allen-Webb senatorial campaign. I imagine any author would be leery of an 'honest discussion' of his or her work if the barely veiled purpose of the discussion is to cast aspersions on that author's character, rather than to address the literary merit of that work.

That this sort of attack by literary innuendo was mounted--probably by a well-meaning Allen supporter--is yet another reason Allen's presidential aspirations have been deferred to the end of time. Webb is a political novice, a newcomer to electoral politics, and Allen's people should be beating him handily, but they aren't. Allen's campaign has been marred by poor handling from the beginning. If Allen and his people are having a hard time campaigning against James Webb, how do you suppose they'd fare against a Democratic heavy hitter like, say, Hillary? From what I've seen of the Allen campaign so far, she'd beat him like a red-haired stepchild.