Actually, I'd been thinking about a problem I had with someone I work with at church, and I as I was waking up I thought about how I deny people freedom to choose but never giving them a choice. It is more common to deny freedom by making people's choices for them, but both deny the personhood of the other. Both ways lack trust. Both treat others not as real people, but as those "posing as people" to paraphrase Petra Delphiki.

The preachy writer tells the reader what to think. I'm not sure if you see a lot of the other kind of writing, because people like myself tend not to finish and submit their work. But I think Card very often exemplifies the goal. He allows himself to be judged. His readers are free to hate him, to fear him, or to embrace him.

I used to think it mattered to not care what people think of you, but I guess you do hope to be loved. But love allows agency, or choice. Love places people in the garden with the fruit and the serpent, so that those who think on it see either imperfection or a trap. But it was trust, that opening of the thread that passes over the bobbin to effect the miracle of a sewing machine.

Certainly stories have been used for didactic purposes. Stories have also been used for artistic expression. Sometimes stories are purely for entertainment. Sometimes all three, or in combinations.

In a sense our lives are a series of stories. We encounter problems, act to mitigate/eliminate them, and sometimes reach resolutions. Sometimes these life episodes are dramatic, but most often they aren't. We also have an inborn interest in the stories of those around us, probably because we can learn from them, and can relate to them in some primal way. Those things in combination leave an extremely broad range of where a writer can go with a story, and how a story can be embraced by a reader.

I am not familiar with enough of OSC's work to see where he's laying himself open to judgement over and above what any author does when he puts a work out there for the world, nor have the half dozen of his books I've read seemed in any way preachy.

I won't try to speculate on the artistic, because I believe that is largely in the eye of the beholder. My goal as a writer is simply to create stories that a reader can enjoy because it touches that inborn/primal attractions humans have to stories. I try not to be didactic, or preachy, because I think that dilutes to power a story has to involve a reader. To my way of thinking, a good fictional story should stir the native thoughts of the reader (emotions too, if they can be separated) rather than implant a particular conclusion in them.

quote:

---

But I think Card very often exemplifies the goal. He allows himself to be judged. His readers are free to hate him, to fear him, or to embrace him.

---

This personal hangup was really made clear recently when I thought someone had, to my face, outright challenged my honesty. I was somewhat bugged about it, but realized I wasn't near as upset as when I thought people were challenging, well, not only my artistic ability, but even my right to want to create, care about what I create, or care if anyone else cares--particularly people whose opinions I value. All this has come under severe attack lately, (well, just lately because I happen to mention it--in reality probably all along--) and if even my intent in writing is attacked, how much more will the writing itself be attacked when I'm ready to show it to anyone? When confronted, the person I thought had an issue about my honesty was much, MUCH more upset (at the thought that they would do that) than I was (at the belief that it was done)! This made me really question: hey, *where* are my priorities? Obviously, my "worth" as a writer is so important it comes before personal character issues such as honesty. I guess what I mean is, writing has become such a sacred cow it's really hard for me to deal with, and I HAVE to deal with this.

As far as the honesty thing...I've had over a month to think about this, which I have, being really tickled by the other person's reaction and bemused by my own, and I've decided: I KNOW I'm honest! I don't need some other person's opinion on it. Even if another person really DID have a negative opinion, whether my checks are good (the issue in question) and such can be checked and documented and I'm not worried about what would be found if they WERE checked! Whereas if someone said or implied (which, again, I'm not saying anyone did, I'm just so attuned to it as to cringe at the idea that they might) that I'm not talented, even that I might be a nice person (which is better than nothing) but my creative efforts are for naught, how do I PROVE that I am talented and my creativity is worthwhile? Unlike my honesty, which is up to me, judgement of my creativity is ALL up to other people--not only that, but a certain NUMBER of the RIGHT people. That's the real reason why I got more upset over the one thing, than the other, not because honesty is less important to me--though the incident had me questioning my priorities there!

Edited to add: I also obviously took the honesty question to be generally directed--if this person thought my check might not be good, they had the same opinion as to the checks of others--whereas remarks directed against my work are REALLY personal!

Do other people have this problem, and how do they deal with it?