Missing The Point

I’ve often said that the appreciation of a story is largely subjective.  Every reader has a different mindset and reads things on varying terms than another person.  That’s what makes criticism so challenging to sort through – what is a legitimate critique that might make an impact, and what is just a subjective critique that means more to one person than another?

That said, it is certainly frustrating when folks read something I’ve written and completely miss the point(in my opinion).  Two that come to mind are some critiques I’ve gotten regarding Schism and Homecoming.

Schism is not supposed to take a side.  It’s a novel of a second American Civil War, and its sole purpose is to show how bad I think things can get.  It is not meant to impart a certain political point of view.  In that sense, it’s more observational than being in advocacy.  I’m not rah-rah’ing one side or the other along and trying to say that all (conservatives/liberals/anarchists/religious fundamentalists) are evil bastards who we all need to unite against.  I’m reading the political and cultural environment and trying to warn everyone that things could get really bad.  Unfortunately, a few folks have taken exception precisely because I’m not taking a side.  Some folks are so caught up in their tribal partisan politics that they’re outraged I haven’t supported them.  “We red states have all the guns and would whip the asses of the libs!” I hear, or “Those damn rightwing Nazis wouldn’t stand a chance because we blue staters are more intelligent!”  It looks exactly like the landscape of the pre-1861 battlefield.  Schism isn’t about promoting republicans or democrats, conservatives or liberals – it’s about the country going down in flames if we don’t figure out how to pull back.  The folks that don’t get that should go find another writer who will more play to their biases.

Homecoming, on the other hand, although set in a science-fiction universe, is not about giant space battles and intricate alien civilizations.  Instead, it’s a novel about how our expectations don’t always match reality, and that our past may not match the way things actually were since it’s written by those in prominence.  If you’re focused on the way FTL travel works or why there are no subtle maneuvers involving intergalactic diplomacy, you’ve again missed the point.  Homecoming isn’t “traditional” sci-fi in the way that Earthclan or Way of the Pilgrim are.  Human victory over a malevolent enemy is a given, and the other alien races are merely props in the play of how humanity reacts to discovering unpleasant parts of its past, as well as finding out that it’s not as noble of a species as it likes to think it is.  You’ve got to delve deeper to figure out which questions are being asked before you can ponder how to answer them.

I know that I’ve said such stuff shouldn’t bother a writer, but it does become annoying when folks go extravagantly miss the point of the story in the first place.  I need more of you who are deeper than casual readers to go in and see how things are written to restore my faith in the audience.  Please?