Sherry~
My first impression upon arriving home after a tiring shift, and reading your message, was one of bewilderment. Soon, however, I began to feel sympathetic toward you for having made such a painful and needless misinterpretation of my post. Have I had any cause to insult, ridicule, belittle or hurt the REAL Sherry? What cause could I possibly have had? What cause could you have imagined I had?
You know Sherry, the SI Bb's are replete with fantasies and stories, where groups of people attempt to make serious or entertaining points--through parody, satire, etc.; rarely is any real rancor encountered, or displayed, between folks of this ilk. Indeed, amongst those people that enjoy this type of fun, there exists an ability (and often a desire) to laugh at one self and/or with others. It is a test of maturity to be able to do so, and it is refreshing to break out of the aloofness of the ego. I refer you to the Muffy thread for countless examples of instructive "roasting"--far more flamboyant and suggestive than the little story I wrote the other day. I also refer you to the "Flame Thread" where the recent postings about the exploits of Nasty Nathanc were far more (how shall we say)...abominable, than the ribald romp which has troubled you so much (and might I remind you)...without any objection, defense, or moral outrage on your part.
Sherry, I am genuinely saddened that my post caused any embarrassment to you whatsoever. You have apparently personalized and internalized these fictional events, but it had nothing to do with the REAL you, no more than the Wizard Druss is Druss, or the Demon Lee is Lee, or the Dog Solon is Solon. You have taken out of this story the one thing that I never contemplated nor intended...an intent to hurt you in any way.
I have spoken to Lee by PM and consider him a fine person; Likewise Druss and many others. They have their imperfections as do you and I--they simply have more of them; but imperfections do not negate the value of people. The creatures I wrote about were archetypes and were meant to represent Everyman and Everywoman, as Bunyan would say. I had no desire to insult any person, least of all yourself. It was a piece of fiction meant to be thought provoking, entertaining, and frivolous all at the same time. It was not meant to belittle, humiliate, insult, or relate...to any of the REAL persons on this thread
Let me tell you something about me: Ever since I can remember I have been offended by people that use force as a badge of entitlement. The sanctity of individuals is often being profaned in this world, and I have tried to take a stand against that. The little skit I wrote had a serious side in that I hoped it would provoke thought in those that cared to look past the frivolity and so forth. For instance: when Solon enters the sleeping camp, he is already aware that these three (fictional) people, which embody evil, are growing synergistically in power--and thus ability to do harm. The reader is already aware that these men are brutes. Their language, although veiled by me, makes it clear that they do not consider the feelings of the woman, and that they consider the superiority of force to be the sole claim necessary to any of their wishes. The most powerful and brutal of these men makes it even clearer by stating matter of fact, and without compunction or feeling, that he is prepared to kill them both...simply because he can. Solon (the dog) is aware that their evil will grow and may destroy him, and perhaps countless others. He is presented with a moral dilemma: does the end justify the means? It is in his power to destroy all three of these seeds at that moment (with the possible exception of the Wizard Druss) before they have grown in might. Does he embrace their tool of initiated force, and commit an evil act for the greater future good? What would you do? Finally, he decides that the possibility of redemption through free will must stay his paws, for neither good nor evil are immutable amongst mankind. Did he make the right decision? I don't know.
My point in taking this side path is to point out just one of the themes in this frivolous but serious story, and to tell you again that the story was not about Druss or Lee or Sherry.
Some psychologists believe that sex is all an act of power and is separate from caring and nurturing. What do you think? How do victims and victimizers find one another, and why do they so often seem to seek one another. Do you think that examining these ideas in a fanciful or literary manner is wrong. Should society rope off areas of thought as taboo or off limits? Will this serve the ends of truth seeking or of truth reaching?
Once again, Sherry. I had no cause to wish any hurt upon you. I did not put together a couple of hours of writing with any such intent, and I am not spending this time at 4:30 in the morning through any bad motive. I feel terrible that you took this as a personal embarrassment. Believe me, YOU were not in the story...not anywhere. I am intensely against censorship of ideas; but I am also very much opposed to causing any pain for others. If you still wish the post removed...I willingly lend my voice to yours.
Respectfully yours,
Savage Noire |
