Works of Fiction

MJ on Amazon says this about my book David Gideon:

One thing to note is that the story is very political and leans conservative or libertarian. Which is certainly not a bad thing in itself, however, the format of the dialog, which often takes the form of debate, does not reliably present the other side, so it all feels like a kind of paper tiger argument where the protagonist will always provide the right, which is politically conservative, answer to any question or controversy. I would hope that a literary novel, which this declares itself to be, would present more of the push and pull of characters, the conflict of political debate, and the very real potential outcomes of the decision from both sides. Unfortunately, we don’t get that. On a certain level, David Gideon doesn’t feel very real, but rather, the personification of an idealized concept.

I don't actually disagree with a lot of that. Yet my friend MJ apparently means it as a criticism. I'm not sure how to respond on those grounds.

To start with, the book is not 'very' political. It's a personal story with the political world as an incidental driving force, a plot device. Very philosophical, maybe. But very political? No.

Yes, David Gideon is libertarian-conservative. He was meant to be. He is indeed 'the personification of an idealized concept'. As such, David argues, when he does argue politics and philosophy (which really isn't that much, and typically more the latter than the former) he's going to come across that way. It's part of his character; it's his story. Of course his point of view is paramount. Why am I obliged to present the other side? 

To demonstrate 'the push and pull' of characters? But there's constant push and pull during the course of the story in fact, and on far more than just the political aspects. That's what novels are all about. Characters with different outlooks interact, and the story moves along. The charge that it doesn't happen in David Gideon is simply hogwash.

Because it's a literary novel? I'm not sure that I understand what MJ means there. Works of literature can't take a point of view and endorse it? If that's their intention then we have a very serious disagreement. I can't see where a novel writer must offer any particular support to any and all to positions. Sherlock Holmes doesn't allow his adversary Professor Moriarty to justify his actions, and there is no Fairness Doctrine for any work of fiction. It would be interesting to know whether MJ would apply that litmus test against a more liberal tome.

And that's the rub, for me anyway. MJ I believe is criticizing the book on partisan rather than literary grounds, despite what they say. MJ wants me to make David Gideon into something he's not: namely, someone MJ agrees with. That I will not do. If they want a book with a different character and different outlook, then they may write it. But leave David alone.