OnlineBookClub.org

I am just 10% done with the book so far. However, from what I can tell from the pages I have read, it does seem to be left-leaning. Obviously so.

It is definitely left-leaning but not to extreme levels. The author doesn't say anything about the NRA that isn't true.

Of course it's left-leaning! I knew that it would be so before I began, but I have some very good friends who are also left-leaning, so I might be more broad-minded than some of my less liberal compatriots.
In all honesty, I did not think that the book was "fair" at all. The author definitely went out of his way to make his point - did you notice that all the "bad guys" were white and ignorant? That may be the author's perspective on what's wrong with America, but ignorant people come in all races and from all backgrounds, just like "good people" do.

It is definitely on the side of gun control. I would still recommend this to both sides. If we educate ourselves both ways maybe we can find a way to meet in the middle and help stop the senseless violence.

As others have said, it is one-sided in that there is no tense situation where a likeable character with good morals faces an agonizing moral dilemma. At the same time, characters like Dwayne LaPlant and Todey Creud are grotesque stereotypes. A situation where a principal weighs up the pros and cons of arming his teachers might be interesting to see.

I thought the book was fair. Was it obvious that the author leans to the left? Yes. Yet, I didn't feel that made it unfair because of the inclusion of certain characters (without spoiling anything) like McAdam. I think many different perspectives were engaged, even if one of them was perhaps not from someone anti-gun control, for example. I think it was less about attacking the right and more about revealing the big corporations and politicians who partner at the expense of citizens.

I believe the book is biased against gun-lovers though I understand where Fleisher is coming from when he mentioned the shooting occurrences in schools....I would have appreciated it more if the authour's style of writing was more expository on a neutral platform rather than persuasive as showing the pros and cons for and against guns would have been a more overall satisfying debate for a wider audience.

I found it to be a little one sided. And a little left leaning. I'm not sure though which side it inclined more.

I think the reason why I enjoyed this book so much was because it was so left-leaning. In regards to fairness, the NRA/CNN interviews that Vince and Trudi watched seemed to almost be ripped from the headlines. The NRA spokesperson's reaction to the shooting at Rasha's school basically mirrored the NRA's approach to dealing with the Parkland shooting: give more teachers guns and this wouldn't have happened. I was stunned to see that this book was published nearly a month before the Parkland school shooting occurred, and yet, it almost predicted how the NRA would react to such a tragedy.

The author makes it obvious on which side the book is on. This makes it fair. There are many books out there which support the other view on gun control. People need to view gun control from both sides, so it's okay.

The book is definitely left-leaning but I still thought it was fair because the author was pretty upfront about it. There are other books out there that lean more to the right, so it's ok to have diversity of opinions. This book took an obvious stand and wasn't really trying to appeal to both sides.

Libs_Books wrote: ↑04 Mar 2018, 15:47 I don't think fiction is meant to be fair, but it has to be true - that is, expressing the truth as the writer sees it. However, it also has to have imaginative validity - the writer has to allow things to happen that don't fit neatly with his or her vision. Keats (the poet) talks about something called "negative capability" and many others have had interesting things to say about morality in literature and how it fits with the artistic vision. Great literature somehow combines imaginative authenticity with moral vision - Van Fleisher, in my view, doesn't quite manage that. It's a good, honest and warm-hearted expression of a view I happen to wholeheartedly agree with, but it lacks that sense of authenticity.

I can't like this post enough, I agree that it lacks a sense of authenticity across the board. No question the story is offered from a left-perspective however I felt the author tried, through the back and forth decisions of Trudi and Vince, to convey the struggle with taking a position. For me, their personal struggle was the most authentic part of the book.

I personally feel that it was left leaning and fair at the same time. The centre does not have te monopoly on truth.

It was very much one-sided but how is it not fair to express one's point of view using whatever medium one wishes to use? Unless you picked this book up and didn't bother to gain any knowledge about it's contents and the author, you should have been aware of the author's perspective. The summary of the book and the author's bio on Amazon give a great deal of insight into the direction this novel takes. Not only was it fair for him to be one-sided, it was expected.

This was Fleisher's tool of persuasion which I don't see as being any different from an academic paper or verbal debate. He thought writing this novel was an effective way to share HIS beliefs. The thing I am most happy about in reading Fleisher's point of view on so many political matters is that his concern always seemed to be for the well-being of any person. If you are one-sided about this, I'm kool with it

I think the book was biased, but its okay, because that was the message that the author wished to send: to warn against that side of our nature, using guns in this case.
I agree with fellow reviewers, that it is an issue with human natures and our attitudes to crime, not guns. The guns are simply tools we use to perpetrate our acts. Humans are nothing if not innovative. If its not guns, it will be something else.