Thanks for responding! Please accept my apologies for how my initial comment came across/how I chose to come across. I don't like to enter a discussion unless I am willing to change my perspective. For the most part, you've convinced me.
After I was screened, I read over my original comment. In your response, you said "I'm tired of authors choosing (white) sexist male as a POV when it comes time to decide how to present their story." You also said you don't trust the author. So. If the plot is an outlined drawing and the words are the colour, it seems I believed the author was just colouring in a picture that was handed to him by the Great Book God. I neglected the fact that he also drew the outline. I only really commented on the way the story was told, rather than the choice made by the author to create that story. Considering this important fact more carefully has shifted my perspectives on a number of points.
When I said "you have to be smart to get the book", please know that I genuinely did not mean "the reason you didn't like the book is because u r too DARN stupit". Obviously I can see that it looks like that's what I meant. I did not feel that anything you said was stupid or ill-informed. It was more of a general statement, and one which my response could have done without. It was a continuation of my point that in being granted with the power of narration, Austin comes across as a pretty fun guy, and very few times does he grace us with the opinions and thoughts of the other characters. If one is foolish enough to completely buy into Austin's views, they would miss these occasions, which were key, in my opinion. That is what I meant by being smart. You have clearly not bought into Austin's views at all, I think this is very evident in your response. I hope I cleared that up a little bit.
I see what you mean about the victim blaming. I feel like you understood my point but still disagreed. I guess it comes down to the fact that the wounds of society wrongly using this as an excuse are too fresh for it to be taken any other way. Because it is probably still being used as an excuse. This is what I assume you mean and I agree and see how that is inappropriate for Big Man Andy to use in his narrative, thus taking away any relevance from my initial point about why this was in the book.
Thanks for being open to discuss even though my initial comment was kinda impetuous. I'm only 18 and very impulsive. I'm still learning what's cool and what's uncool.
Re: You have been screened!
After I was screened, I read over my original comment. In your response, you said "I'm tired of authors choosing (white) sexist male as a POV when it comes time to decide how to present their story." You also said you don't trust the author. So. If the plot is an outlined drawing and the words are the colour, it seems I believed the author was just colouring in a picture that was handed to him by the Great Book God. I neglected the fact that he also drew the outline. I only really commented on the way the story was told, rather than the choice made by the author to create that story. Considering this important fact more carefully has shifted my perspectives on a number of points.
When I said "you have to be smart to get the book", please know that I genuinely did not mean "the reason you didn't like the book is because u r too DARN stupit". Obviously I can see that it looks like that's what I meant. I did not feel that anything you said was stupid or ill-informed. It was more of a general statement, and one which my response could have done without. It was a continuation of my point that in being granted with the power of narration, Austin comes across as a pretty fun guy, and very few times does he grace us with the opinions and thoughts of the other characters. If one is foolish enough to completely buy into Austin's views, they would miss these occasions, which were key, in my opinion. That is what I meant by being smart. You have clearly not bought into Austin's views at all, I think this is very evident in your response. I hope I cleared that up a little bit.
I see what you mean about the victim blaming. I feel like you understood my point but still disagreed. I guess it comes down to the fact that the wounds of society wrongly using this as an excuse are too fresh for it to be taken any other way. Because it is probably still being used as an excuse. This is what I assume you mean and I agree and see how that is inappropriate for Big Man Andy to use in his narrative, thus taking away any relevance from my initial point about why this was in the book.
To go back to my colouring book/drawing analogy, I think we can agree the outline of the book was questionable on a number of counts. You didn't like the colouring, whereas I did. It's probably something to do with immaturity if I'm being honest, but the simple nature of the book appealed to me. It reminded me of my favourite book ever, The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. Considering that book was originally in French, the simple wording and apparent bluntness of it is probably mostly due to the fact that it has been translated. And it's for children, so... Anyway, I always thought this style was quite comfortable and easy to read, the repetition making everything seem to come in a friendly bundle. That was what I thought, I see you found it not enjoyable to read. That's fine obviously, my opinion (enjoying the book) seems to have fallen on the problematic side of the opinions. Grasshopper Jungle is my new problematic fave, I guess.
Thanks for being open to discuss even though my initial comment was kinda impetuous. I'm only 18 and very impulsive. I'm still learning what's cool and what's uncool.
PS. These captchas are wild.