Julie Hilden is a commentator on First Amendment issues over at Findlaw, a strong believer in free speech as well as usually providing a well rounded point of view. Her latest on withholding media materials to prisoners fits the pattern, if anything, a bit stronger than some others. Hilden's last bit on the right of prisoners' children to retain contact and her emphasizing her dissent respecting the precedent being balanced underlines the point. She also is an author: both of another confessional biography (sexually explicit, cruel to mother), but also to a sorta fictional takeoff on the genre.
If you click the link, you can follow things to the biographical statement, which provides the titles as well as her website. Where you can read an excerpt of 3. The last ten or so pages were a bit annoying, including shades of the end of a Sue Grafton mystery novel (with the usual adventure ending), the book as a whole is well written and striking. It concerns a young woman -- one always wonders how much these things are patterned after the author -- who comes under the influence of a man who likes to control her in bed. This leads to an arraignment where she allows him to have a lover, but she has to be there and have veto power.
This allows Maya to have some sense of control and not worry about the husband falling in love with one of the women involved. But, control is not something that she has much of in the relationship, even though one side of her receives a lot of pleasure in it. It clearly is unhealthy, but questions arise -- just how much control does one have in such situations? Do we sometimes (women in particular) make calculated decisions that are clearly dubious on various levels, but do satisfy us on a core level? The husband is ultimately an unpleasant character (though he provides Maya with financial satisfaction too -- an easy path that did annoy too, adding to the fantasy nature of things), but the book is seen through Maya's eyes.
The poor rich girl type might annoy: product of a failed marriage, both of her parents than had five children a piece, but still could send her to a good school. Quiet and introverted as a child, Ilan (annoyingly pretentious name fits his character) reached her unlike her other two lovers before him. ["Lover" is her term -- curiously used here since it doesn't seem see really "loved" the other two.] They are expelled from college on trumped up charges, but really because they was too proud to defend themselves. But, Ilan's father (mother died young) is rich and owned a magazine to allow them a living. She turns out to be great at it. The fantasy life aspects of the story did bother me to some degree.
But, overall, the relatively short (218pg) book is a good read. The sexual dynamics are well explored, providing a "you are there" feel to her desire, passion, and regrets. Maya is a complex character in various respects, flawed/scarred/having a certain inner strength to hold on to. And, the writing is good as well, holding your interest and driving you to read on. Some suggest her biography is a bit pretentious, but either way (I have not read it), this is a worthy first novel. I have trouble finding fiction I enjoy, always did, but this one worked for me.
I also had the thought at various times that it provides a window into the complexity of relationships ... maybe stretching things a bit, but it did strike me that the human animal is so much more complex and open to various permutations than many -- especially with this leadership (ah politics again) -- want to accept. We need not limit ourselves to this type of story. For instance, religious faith is not really addressed fully enough in cinema these days. I actually kinda liked Mandy Moore's A Walk To Remember, about a daughter of a minister whose different path led to a fellow student quite different from her to fall in love. Fiction provides but one way to look at things through various perspectives, many flawed in some fashion, to understand the true wondrous (if scary too) complexity of human society.
[They decided to have an adult drama concerning a minister a few months back, a bit harder than Seventh Heaven. Nonetheless, apparently, the only way to work was to have everyone basically a sinner -- abusing painkillers, adultery, working with the mafia, etc. It was ridiculously overcooked. No wonder it was cancelled after a few episodes -- tone it down a bit, maybe they would have had something.]
The alternative is a snide remark I got from one of those "the other side are morons (you too)" people on message boards whose basic stance appears to be that liberals tend to be believe in their bullshit, while conservatives are just more cynical about it. His image of himself is a principled libertarian ... who appears to believe in the bullshit he spouts as well. [That is, simplistic examinations of how things work.]
As I said to him, tired of this attitude (I don't like snotty people I generally agree with, I really don't like it when I think they are wrong), I actually have respect for people with whom I disagree. So, yeah, conservatives quite often believe in their creeds. Some liberals cannot believe this, so they think they are generally cynical bastards. I find things a bit more complex ... I think they do drink the kool aid.
Makes things both somewhat more palatable and scary at the same time. The real difference is not that one side actually does not believe in their "b.s.," but that one side is more centrist in sentiment. There are divisions among conservatives, but they are more apt to stay together these days. Also, religious conservatives are more likely to be sure of themselves, which also causes problems given imperfections and such lack of dissent.
I might say, to cover the ground addressed in the original discussion where the remark was made, this helps their "anti-science" tendencies. Science requires not totally being sure of oneself, skepticism, and the lack of deus ex machina means to shut debate.
But, all the same, conservatives are complex (and fair) enough to merit respect. This too provides a reason, if only there was a proper balance these days, to welcome them into the conversation.