OnlineBookClub.org

Do you think think this book was too one-sided or too left-leaning? Or do you think it was fair? Why or why not? Do you have any specific examples from the text?

The book was definitely left-leaning, but it’s really sad that the “right” doesn’t see the importance of this issue. The author is aware that the book is one-sided. In the author’s note he mentions that he is probably “preaching to the choir.” I wish that he would have created a character that would have appealed more to the gun lovers out there. They need this novel more than anyone.

Right from the beginning, the author establishes his political leanings by the way it describes Fox News. Since I have the same leanings, I was fine with it. However, I can see this being a frustrating read for those who are anti gun control.

I agree that it is definitely left leaning. However, I don't see that as a problem personally. I can see where others may. Even if you aren't on the same side on this debate, it can still work to help to expand your views of the issues to read something from the other side. I more take the side of the author here, but do read articles and other things from the other side, because (for me) how can I really know what's going on if I'm not willing to read and understand both sides?

I haven't finished reading, so I have yet to decide. However so far I think it is a little bit one sided

I think it is definitely left-leaning or "one sided" but that doesn't mean it might not appeal to people who lean right. I have read many books where I haven't liked some or most characters but still got something from the book. I appreciate that this book is trying in its own way to delve into really complex questions.

The book is definitely one-sided but you know it right away. The author is upfront about it. And both sides are going to have their books. But I agree with the person who said that you should read both sides and understand where each is coming from. Personally, I see students every day getting stabbed and beaten and shot in inner city schools. Safety as a whole is an issue and its not just a gun issue. I mean, one incident last year six students held another down while they repeatedly stabbed the boy with pencils (it was gang affiliated but happened inside a school building). But you also have students who get suspended for assaults (physical and sexual), beating others up (students and faculty), threats, etc and at the end of the day they get to go back to school bc you cannot deny them their education. And half of the time its the victim who has to get a "safety transfer". There is something wrong with the picture and gun control is only part of the argument. Schools need to be made safe places to go again...for students and staff.

I agree it is left leaning as well. However, as one other reviewer mentioned reading articles and information from both sides of an issue allows you to become more educated on issue. You ccan develop a more informed opinion from there and possibly even change your original stance on an issue due to lack of information.

I am still reading the book but it is definitely one sided.

It's one sided, but in my opinion entirely fair (as I lean left, it's all about the real facts of lives affected negatively by guns). If that makes sense. I'm thankful for this book, and I'm recommending it to many friends already.

I think that the author has put his own views in the center. Especially with the incidents he used in the book, like the shooting at the school, it is perhaps jusitifiable that he had a left leaning on it. Perhaps one right character for gun lovers could have balanced the scales a bit, but I am not complaining.

I agree that it is definitely left leaning. However, I don't see that as a problem personally.

The story appears to be very one sided when it comes to guns. I tend to be more flexible in my opinions on guns. I also tend to be cantankerous and the one sided nature makes me want to go in the other direction.

The author acknowledges the left-leaning bias of the book. In its own way, that makes the book fair because he's honest about the slant.

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'd gladly stand the author a pint, though.