🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov10.210236.10527@thinkage.on.ca> jim@thinkage.on.ca (James Alan Gardner) writes:
>In article <92314.140929KVJLC@ASUACAD.BITNET> Jon L. Campbell <KVJLC@ASUACAD.BITNET> writes:
>>wherever theme is taught it is an abuse of mankinds
>>free choice.  The freedom to choose what is moral or not, the freedom to
>>decide for themselves what is morality and what is immoral.  To write a
>>moralistic theme into a story is equlivent to artistic incest.

>Strong writing can "convert" people; probably it won't produce a
>major change in their lives but it may nestle down in a corner of
>their brains and make itself at home.  Given this possibility, I
>for one make sure that I'm comfortable with the moral stance
>underlying everything I write.  The moral stance is there.  It's
>inescapable.  Only computers can write without projecting a moral
>context.

I suppose it depends what you mean by a "moral context".  Certainly,
aspects of an author's worldview will be expressed in his fiction, and
this includes his views towards morality.  If this is what you mean,
then I would agree.

On the other hand, not all authors try to "convert" readers to their
own views of right and wrong.  To take three very different examples,
consider Camus' _The_Stranger_, William Gibson's _Neuromancer_, and
Dave Sim's _Cerebus_.  Would you say that these works project a "moral
stance", and if so, what?
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________