OK, I've had a night to sleep on this whole mess and reread things. Yes, I can see where Holly did not directly accuse the poster of being an apalling excuse for a human being. I do believe she did say that if he believed X, Y, and Z (which he had said he believed in the post she was replying to), then you are pathetic, or somesuch. Yes, I can see where the poster did say he thought his acts of writing were heroic. To me, this does not mean he's calling himself a hero, but I can see how it would be interpreted that way. My biggest problem with the whole mess is that Holly has said that sentiments such as what this poster has express belong to an abhorrent group of writers she can't stand. Again, she did not directly state that this poster was such a person, but the implication, I felt was clear. And extremely disturbing. I find it commendable that she stands by her beliefs and opinions. But I find it distressing that she could call any other opinion on the matter wrong or even "fucking wrong." That attitude, to me, is more abhorrent than someone believing their words have the ability to change people. And it's just as arrogant as the writer that thinks her words are God's gift and that it will save the world.
Every time something like this comes up, I try very hard to be open. To look at my opinions and my expression of them objectively. To look at my logic and see where it's flawed. Am I wrong in thinking that discerning the value of someone's profession or ability to be heroic is a personal thing? I don't think so. But I also am willing to think that I might be wrong. I have all sorts of opinions and beliefs. And they work for me right now, at this point in my life. Will they change? Maybe. Maybe not. Will I always hold these views close to my heart? Certainly. Will I argue in their favor? Yes, but never at the expense or belittlement of another's opinion, regardless of how ridiculous I think it is. I fear the day that I say, "I am right and you are wrong" on anything related to an opinion. On that day, I think my own opinions and beliefs become moot.
Who knows? Maybe I'm much too quick to take something personally, to rail against a perceived injustice that isn't really an injustice, just a bad choice of words or a big misunderstanding. All I know is that I'm proud of myself for at least considering my fault in this nonsense. To at least look at the possibility and rethink and re-examine.
All I know is that it felt good to bitch and moan and whine and yell and scream and rant and rave in my previous post. It felt good just to say it all. It's given me a sense of closure, of peace on this matter. I think I might've even managed to make a few good points. Did I attack? Was I overly dramatic? Did I exaggerate? Did I misunderstand Holly's points and unfairly accuse her of things? I'm sure I did that, too. Did Holly do the same? No one can know but her.
One thing that's got me confused, though (only one thing you say?), is that both Holly and Mercedes Lackey have written that fiction is lies, entertainment. That they write stories just to tell a story. If that's the case, and they think they have no chance to change the world or even make a difference with their words, then why have a theme at all? Why make a point? Why try to say "love conquers all" with your story and hope the reader will believe it?