Replies

Well, then, you should read the chapter at least before defending it. There is no suggestion in the chapter of any "reprehension" you should have toward the character, no explanation of why he did what he did, why nobody thought it was odd, nothing at all. It's just there, as if Webb was thinking about doing it and thought it would be fun to write it.

Because, as a writer, you must understand that you can't write something down if you haven't imagined it first in your head. You can't write what you can't think about.

Sure, you could totally disagree with something a character does -- that's true a lot of times. But if I write about a child molester, i'm doing it based on what my brain has absorbed over the years about child molestation. I've read what they do in the papers, seen it on TV shows and in movies, and I can write about it.

Name me one place where Webb would have read about or otherwise been introduced to the concept that a father would pick up his naked son and perform a sex act on him in public. It makes no sense, it's not something I've ever heard of, which is why it seems to be revealing of something in Webb's brain that just isn't quite "right".

Because he was able to imagine that happening, thought it made sense for the character to do so, and didn't expect the reader to be grossed out or to gain a harshly negative view of the character as a result of it.

Couldn't have said it better myself, CharlesWayne. It takes a sick mind to imagine such a sick act. What is wrong in a world that carries several weeks of stories about Allen and what he may or may not have said, about his religious heritage, and inane words he said decades ago and then completely ignore the weird and grotesque words that are published in Webb's novel? These words are far more socially damning than anything Mark Foley ever wrote to anyone and should make him unfit for office -- and a novelist.

You wrote, "Well, then, you should read the chapter at least before defending it."

And I'm telling you I don't need to read that chapter, nor am I defending it, in terms of necessity of inclusion or any other measure of literary merit. A line by line scansion of Webb's fiction is not necessary for the argument I'm making. I'm arguing that Webb should be criticized on the basis of his political views and personal philosophy, and that his fiction--while its themes may offer clues to his personal concerns--is not a legitimate source of political criticism.

Vote against Webb because he betrayed the trust of Reagan Administration, vote against Webb because he is an opportunist who switched parties and hitched his wagon to the antiwar Left, vote against Webb because he has overseen one of the dirtiest campaigns in political memory, but don't bring excerpts from his fiction into it as some kind of code to his character. 'Fields of Fire' established Webb as a serious writer. What he did with that reputation with subsequent books, I don't know; I haven't read his subsequent books. I don't need to read his subsequent books to detect the fallacy in the article author's argument.

Name me one place where Webb would have read about or otherwise been introduced to the concept that a father would pick up his naked son and perform a sex act on him in public. It makes no sense, it's not something I've ever heard of, which is why it seems to be revealing of something in Webb's brain that just isn't quite "right".

God forbid I should do anything to defend Webb, but ...

almost 30 years ago, as a youngish Episcopal priest, I was suddenly confronted with a family crisis involving a long long history of father/daughter incest with both daughters AND alcohol addiction.

I needed all the information I could get before I got into this situation. I went to the local NOW office. They had the most extensive library of sexual abuse and perversion and all that in the area. I gave them a donation (all the while holding my nose, but they WERE inadvertently serving a good cause that day). I sat down and read as much as I could as fast as I could about father/daughter incest.

I learned way more than I wanted to know.

Or ask me about, of, I don't know, say how about the couple who tried to strangle their child. I have a lot of things roaming around the old cranium that I didn't really want to be there, but, well, compost occurs, y'know ....

I don't know how Webb could have come across this nonsense, but, well sometimes you learn stuff or see stuff you had no intention of learning or seeing.