Lionel Shriver (again)

A few months back I commented that I supported Lionel Shriver's assertion that fiction writers should be able to write what they would like.  I still believe that, though if I had known that she had actually shown up in a sombrero, there is a good chance I would have looked at her comments differently.  Obviously she wanted to cause an uproar and start a conversation, and it is debatable whether it could have been done as effectively without such an in your face visual.  I do think fiction writers should be able to write what they would like, but I also feel that if they do a poor job, and the community wronged expresses their opinions as to why, then the author should listen.  The commentary may or may not influence the author in future works, but listening and weighing those opinions allow an author to improve.  In The Guardian (UK), someone said she handled it crassly, but I honestly do think, as Trump proved, that an in your face so you can't ignore it approach is sometimes necessary.  The conversation was started; however gracelessly, and it is one that need to be broached.  We, as humans, regardless of race or creed, need to figure out how to get along, but with no conversation even begun, then there will be no road to resolution, and because it started a widespread discussion then it was a useful bit of theatrics.  Just because something is politically correct doesn't mean that it is effective, and for proof look at Mel Brooks' "Blazing Saddles," which is so politically incorrect, but still so terribly accurate with regards to the issues it explores-- in your face is sometimes what needs to be done, though it isn't comfortable, but it makes it harder to ignore and sweep under the carpet, or bury under polite terminology.

On a side note, the recent campaign had supporters of Trump saying they weren't racist, homophobic, or misogynist, but the fact that Trump's campaign was built, to some degree, on all three indicates that as a Trump supporter you are fine with those, even if you don't consider yourself a racist misogynist, or homophobe.  Clinton didn't run a campaign suggesting the government should move everything to private servers, and the government's internal watchdogs decided not to press charges for her perceived wrongs.  I don't pretend Clinton was the perfect candidate, but I still can't comprehend what was inherently wrong with her, because considering Trump, it wasn't her character, and considering the FBI basically cleared her on the email thing, it wasn't because there was dread over impending indictment, and considering her work as a Senator and as Secretary of State it wasn't because she was unqualified.  All that seems left is the female card, but I could be wrong and maybe there was something else (to do with the Clinton Foundation possibly?).  Anyway, my step-father's preferred candidate, one he called an idiot, is now president elect-- too bad I have no interest in supporting such a misogynistic, racist, and homophobe supporting bigot, so everyone will get at least four years of what I have listened to for the last eight.