lurker

Or to paraphrase: "alliances are for pussies." Someone has never watched Survivor... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh please, I have enough reality in my life, I don't need it on my tv. I can see it now, next your going to start singing Simon and Garfunkel. Snowey the Happy Dog <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Reality tv bears little resemblance to the reality you experience. Of course, that might just be a matter of perspective. More importantly, though, I am not breaking out the harmony of hippie-dom. I just know that when my enemy's enemy is not necessarily my friend, keeping that hit list takes a lot more energy than it's often worth.

Or to paraphrase: "alliances are for pussies." Someone has never watched Survivor...

I'm going to respond to your comments in the blog in this thread, Snow Dog, along with the other remarks. Hopefully, this can keep the discussion consolidated (ha! yeah right!). Anyway, I felt that this was a chapter of vindication for me. Sean's words could have been mine. Davey has been playing super-hero in his Do Over, and we haven't really gotten any chance to see this narrative from the perspective of any other character. Everyone is always interacting with Davey, we get Davey's comments about how they all feel - and it always has come with the filter of Davey's view of the world. Davey, Davey, Davey. This chapter is no different in that we are still getting Davey's recounting of what happened, but it gives us a better sustained view of someone else's words about Davey than we've ever had before (with the exception of Brian). My perspective of Davey hasn't changed because of what Sean has said. He still is the exact same guy who f**ked up his life in TL1 and redeemed himself in TL2 under difficult circumstances. Since I never thought Davey was as perfect as he thought he was, hearing another voice does not change that. Nor does it change that he has been trying to be a good guy and do the right thing - often with great success. The interesting insight in this chapter is into Sean. He is bitter and depressed, of course, not to mention drunk. But his emotions are deliciously complex. He remembered Davey as a bully from TL1 years after the fact (usually a sign that he 'liked' the bully and hated him at the same time). His decision to come back and warn Davey now can be seen as guilt as much as friendship/love. He owes Davey because it is HIS fault that Davey is where he is, and this is the same Davey that 'repaid' his revenge with kindness in TL2. The fact that he harbors resentment and hostility from the past timelines clashes with the fact that Davey really is his friend now (from TL2) and is his only true friend in TL3. The most exciting parts to wait and see are: 1) How does Sean reconcile all his feelings and adjust to the Do Over? 2) How does Davey respond to being taken down a notch (which has been a long time coming)? Will he be more suspicious that his friends resent him? After all this time of being Davey Jones, can he actually act differently? So, I liked this chapter very much and await the next one...

Presenting dkstories: Master of the Single Entendre!

Way to throw Trebs to the wolves. Glad to see there is an evil side to Shmoopy.

The cable modem is SERIOUSLY just appreciation for a great author, plus selfishness over wanting both to see future works by that author as well as keeping an additional communication option open... Now... the movie and weekend... That was because he decided to take a chance and open his heart to possibilities... and caused me to do the same... It's still just at a beginning stage, but we're both hopeful. And if people hadn't figured it out by now, I guess this pretty much "outs" me - and I have no problem with that ;-) I think some of my past hesitation in saying anything is wanting to take it slow and not jinx things. Plus it makes me grin seeing Dan slip in little references here and there... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's ok if you had more than one motivation behind the cable modem. As I've said, intent can be a tricky thing. Information symmetry is the key. My only concern is: you aren't going to turn Dan all shmoopy, are you?

Of course you do ... I'm always right . Snow Dog the Domaholic Danderthal <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Right is just a value judgment that you label your opinion with. My theology dictates otherwise - oh wait- maybe those were just the voices in my head...

(Do Over, Chapter 2.) So that initial contact that changed everything with Brian and led to their relationship (as they themselves say in in DO chpt. 30) was based upon knowledge little Davey had no "right" to having at that time. Standing up to Brian was the same then as going to the shooting range in DOR or Steve buying a sunflower for Angela in our charming allegory. It seems to me that if it is decided that Davey's use of information from other timelines to forward his relationship is unethical, then he must find a new love in each timeline and put away all feelings for those he knew before. If he acts upon his knowledge, he has an unfair advantage, if he doesn't, he is not acting in an honest and open manner. Even if he could find a person for that clean start, he might still use his other knowledge unwittingly to his advantage, such as getting his boyfriend a nintendo before anyone knew what they were or how cool they would be. I think that it would be highly improbable for Davey not to use his other knowledge in some way. His ethical situation is nearly impossible to navigate if that is the stricture placed upon him. I believe we must consider the highly subjective "reasonableness" of the ethical demands we place on the character before passing judgement. Because my arguement above is based upon negative logic (the impossibility of the situation rather than its "rightness"), it's not terribly convincing even to myself. But I do believe it illustrates the unreasonableness of our expectations for Davey's actions. Hmm . . . I think I still need to think about this some more. I'm also always interested in getting second, third, and tertiary opinions. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree with you that Davey is in a very difficult ethical place in general. He has all this information from the future and the entire DO/DOR series forces Davey to come to terms with what he should and should not share and to whom he should share information with. When it comes to general information about the world, whether it be geopolitics or disease (AIDS), Davey has a much more difficult time in DO than in DOR. His being in the past was an accident. In DOR, it is much easier, because Davey is acting in his military capacity (and because he has worked through some basic questions having had the DO experience). It is more clear what Davey should and should not do. Dan has done a nice job setting up some rules for Davey and having him stick with them. The problem is how we view Davey's relationships with the people around him. He's always going to have information about other people from the past time lines to work with. Focusing on his intent is very complicated, because a person can have more than one intent for why he does things. I'm not saying motivation isn't important, but that it isn't the most important detail. To me, as I said, the key is letting the other person in the relationship KNOW that he has information. Davey can solve this problem simply by making sure that the other person is aware that he is a time traveler and has some general sense of the relationship they've had with Davey in the past. If not, then there is an asymmetry that relationship. Without the information hook, Davey is robbing the person of his or her own free will just a little bit. Once the person is aware that Davey may know something about them due to the type of relationship they've had, then he can choose how to respond and how to view what Davey presents. Thus, when Davey stands up to Brian to begin with, it doesn't matter quite as much whether his intention was more to befriend Brian or save his own behind. Because Brian does not know that Davey knows him - at least a little bit - from the past time line, Davey is manipulating Brian. I can let it slide in DO, because Davey does not rely on past information while building his friendship with Brian (because he wasn't close friends with Brian beforehand) and then he does come clean to Brian, curing that informational asymmetry. I think we accept in DO/DOR that sometimes Davey does and SHOULD manipulate others. An interesting example that better shows that we can accept Davey deliberately manipulating other people based on information is Davey's relationship with his father. In DO, Davey tries to manipulate his father to save his family. He clearly is acting with intent to manipulate and has information - but no one here would say it is unethical, because he's trying to prevent wrong from being done. Interestingly, Davey is more successful in shaping his father in DOR, where he has cured the informational asymmetry. My difficulty lies with Davey manipulating Brian when Brian does not know the truth about their past relationship. Once Davey tells him - if he does - then this problem is cured. The best justification for Davey deliberately manipulating Brian into a relationship is that he knows it to be necessary/right (the opposite of trying to get his father to not molest his sister). The problem, though, is that by interfering with Brian's free will just a touch and leading him into the relationship through manipulation, Davey undermines the equality/shared intimacy of that relationship in a fundamental way. So, the upshot is that Davey needs to TELL BRIAN THAT THEY WERE MARRIED! Edited to Add: Since Snow Dog and I posted at the exact same time, I didn't see his response when I wrote this. But I agree with what he said.

Engelbert Slaptiback, Engelbert Humperdinck, Slaptiback Humperdinck...no wait, go back!!!

Then to reply to the example, I don't understand how it is analogous to our discussion or either of our positions. It sounds like the statement of someone who undermines the fact-based premise he says by insisting on a value-laden judgment that differs with that premise. I don't think I've used a value-laden term that undermines my own position. It might disagree with yours, but hey, that's what the debate is about. [And rather than reporting you to the analogy police, I chose to accept it as rhetoric and move on initially.] Ok. I understand you. We disagree. The true fantasy can be good/bad in my world, and it can not be in yours. Personally, I view your system that bases moral judgment in a relationship with people or things to be a theology of its own. Here is a question about your relationship oriented view of morality: is it ever possible to do wrong to yourself? If you choose to focus on feelings and thoughts that are painful to you or refuse to forgive yourself for something, have you done yourself wrong? Does the relationship with the self ever mirror the 2 person situation you mention?

Snickle Farklepants reporting for duty, sir!

At the risk of ruining the victory you had arguing with yourself (of course, you knew your opponent well), I want to point out that you are using a legal definition of what constitutes sexual harrassment and then conflating it with proper ethics in dating-type of situations. This may come as a shock to some people, but the law does not always perfectly mirror the ethics of the situation. Sexual harrassment law was enacted to deal with a specific type of problem in a specific environment. Are the 'dating' games people play possibly unethical? Sometimes. It is one thing to put your best foot forward - e.g., wearing cologne when no one would think this means that you ALWAYS wear cologne or inherently smell like cologne. It is another thing to misrepresent who you are through a direct lie, omission, or a misleading statement deliberately meant to make you seem like you are something you aren't. Have most of us crossed this line before? Sure. The problem with Brian/Davey isn't that Davey is just putting his best foot forward. It isn't like Davey discovered from this Brian some clue that tells him that the gun range is an attractive option. He is relying on information that he has about Brian from the prior time line. This is information that Brian hasn't shared with Davey in this time line and that Brian isn't even aware that Davey would have. To bring the analogy of the dating scene back, imagine that Steve asked you what Angela liked as a gift, and you knew that she thought sunflowers were incredily romantic. So you tell this to Steve and he gives her a sunflower without indicating that he was tipped off to this preference. Now, Angela may deduce that Steve just asked someone. But what if it was the kind of thing she didn't really tell people? Let's say she only confessed it to you that she thought it would be romantic if some guy gave her a sunflower in confidence. She may think that Steve just 'gets' her unlike any guy previously, which would be mistaken. And in some way, Steve has manufactured a fake moment of shared intimacy. If Brian KNOWS that Davey knows all these things about him from the past because they were close, then he can choose how to view Davey's behavior. He could be happy anyway - because Davey is trying to make him happy - or he could feel manipulated. For all the talk about asymmetry between Davey and Brian in age, experience, maturity, etc., the real problem here is the asymmetry in information. Brian doesn't know to evaluate Davey in that lens until he really knows the nature of their past relationship.

Only pussies apologize for using the term pussies...

Ignoring your example, because I respond to substance and not rhetoric, I think you read my post through the filter of knowing that I am a Deist and missed a little of what I was trying to say. First, let me point out that I did not say that I personally viewed sex-without-meaning in fantasy as morally inferior to sex-with-meaning in fantasy. I haven't actually said anything in this thread about my value judgment on that issue, even though I have indicated that I deem sex-with-meaning in reality to be morally superior to sex-without-meaning (which you correctly deduce as stemming from my own theology). Second, I specifically pointed out that people can believe that sex-with-meaning is morally superior to sex-without-meaning for various reasons: because society tells them too, because of theology, because they believe in innate morality independent of that. There are people who believe in morality without theology - or at least think they do (personally, I think the 'non-believing' are far more influenced by being socialized in a religious world than they might think they are, though this is a tangent). As a Deist, I find morality without theology incoherent, but I don't find it nearly as incoherent as moral relativism. My suspicion, based on your comment about the literary world not posing any threats of exploitation, is that you believe in morality without theology rather than complete relativism. Otherwise, why would exploitation be wrong? But I don't purport to know what you believe. At the end of the day, if you are posting to say "Aha! See! You can't do anything without being informed by your theology," then by all means, you are correct. My belief core shapes my view of the outside world, and my view of the outside world informs my beliefs. It is a complementary cycle. But if you are posting to say, "I disagree with you, because you're just giving things value judgments based on your beliefs. There is no such thing as a bad fantasy, because nothing is really 'bad,'" then we fundamentally disagree on the existence of morality. If you are posting to say "I disagree with you, because you're just giving things value judgments based on your beliefs. There is no such thing as a bad fantasy, because fantasies are harmless," then we fundamentally disagree on the source of morality. You have decided that fantasies are all ok based on the value that 'if no one gets hurt, it is ok.' The fact that you have no specific theology in mind does not make this any less a value judgment. Nor does it even mean that our specific values - despite their different origins - differ in this regard.

I see nothing wrong with implying that one fantasy can be morally superior to another. Sex takes many forms and shapes. One of the biggest divisions I see is sex-with-meaning vs. sex-without-meaning. Sex can be one of the greatest expressions of intimacy that two people can share (or more than two, depending on how you feel about polyamory). Or it can be a physical pleasure/enjoyment independent of meaning. This is the dichotomy that this thread raises. I think you're right that the hetero and homo labels can be red herrings. The anti-gay sentiments of the past century often turn on labeling homosexual sex as sex without meaning - no love, no relationship, just physical sex. Acceptance of gay rights has been linked to the realization of gay relationships as no different from straight ones in a romantic/sex-with-meaning sense. And to the extent people conflate sexual intimacy with marriage, the debate spills over into the issue of same-sex marriage. Many (though not all) of those who reject same-sex marriage are rejecting the idea of gay relationships as having sex-with-meaning intimacy. It is the societal norm to believe that sex-with-meaning is better than sex-without-meaning. But this is also a point that I think many of us can substantiate from our own experiences. Perhaps it is the societal construct that tells us so, perhaps it is our theology, perhaps it is an innate sense related to our desire to connect with other people - the reasons differ. The evidence, though, favors sex-with-meaning. Taking the reality to the fantasy world alters things. Morality forces us to draw lines in different places. Some people reject even the fantasy of sex-without-meaning because they find that for them it demeans sexuality and lessens the experience in reality. Many people who don't want to experience sex-without-meaning in real life enjoy the fantasy of sex-without-meaning precisely because they crave/desire the physical without the intimate connection at times, though they would not act on these feelings. I disagree with the argument you seem to be making that fantasy is fantasy and no fantasy is morally better than any other, because no one gets hurt. On one level, I disagree with the 'no one gets hurt' issue as it relates to questions of how societal norms develop. But that's not the real debate here. Let's say I assumed that fantasy is victimless. Even then, I think the expression of a morally superior reality through fantasy can indeed make the fantasy morally superior. If I think that sex-without-meaning is porn and sex-with-meaning is erotica (which is not what I've said, but seems to be a common opinion in this thread), then perhaps I am rightfully saying that sex-with-meaning EVEN in literary fantasy is morally better than sex-without-meaning. This doesn't mean that literary fantasies (if victimless) should EVER be suppressed. It just explains why some people might think one fantasy type is morally 'better' than another, with good reason.

I'd rather see him hook up with the ghost. Also, don't you think that there is really something going on between Rosencrantz and Guildenstern? Maybe we could see a spinoff or something about how they met and fell in love? Rigel - I'm glad I had just put down my drink when I read your post. Otherwise, my keyboard would have been very unhappy.

Oh no! I've totally lost ownership over shmoopy. I didn't mean to be coining the phrase to be used so willy-nilly...

Lucy is no feminist. True, she picked on Charlie Brown, but they are two halfs of the same coin in insecurity. Charlie Brown is the lovable loser. We like him even though he has low self-esteem, because he is so nice and earnest. Lucy also has low-esteem, and it manifests itself as a superiority complex. You can see this the most in her exchanges with Schroeder, though it bleeds through in other places.

This discussion reminds me of The Naked and the Nude, a poem by Robert Graves.

Edited to move this to the Editor's Corner...heh.

Edited to move this to the Editor's Corner...heh.

Dom, I'm sorry that you are feeling stress from the writing/posting process. This is especially disturbing, because there are so many people who really do enjoy your stories, and it seems like you are getting hammered from both sides (people who hate you for who you are and people who love your stories SO much that they forget to appreciate that you are not their personal author). I hope venting has helped; I'm happy to 'listen' anytime. To the extent you're seeking advice, I'm not sure I can give much. Though I've been writing, I haven't posted anything, partially because I want to have a set number of chapters completed, certain story issues resolved, etc. before I turn it over for public consumption. Beyond the ideas you've already suggested (changing email, limiting access, hitting 'delete' a lot), I would just add that you should write what you WANT to. Writing shouldn't feel like a burden. Maybe you need to shake things up and write something else if one story (or a few) have gotten you stressed. I know other readers may not like this advice, because I'm saying that it's ok if you put on hold the stories that they are desperate to continue reading. But you have to write for yourself first and foremost, whereever that takes you. And FWIW, if you gave your fans a choice between seeing the stories you've posted completed sooner and not getting anything else OR waiting a little longer and knowing that you'll keep on writing new stuff and posting, the smart ones will pick the latter anyway. Happy Writing!

Stupid double post...