Being a Better Writer: Theme VS Message · 8:04pm Jun 8th, 2015
Right! Let's get this week started! The sun is shining, the sky is blue, and I'm inside looking at it through a window with my hands on a keyboard. All for you guys.
So then, let's get right to it. Theme versus Message. I wouldn't be surprised if a number of you clicked this link today just to ask "What is he talking about?" Well, it's actually pretty simple, though the roots of this article at a few points intertwine with a controversial debate that's currently echoing up and down the corridors of fiction writing. At it's core however, it comes down to a very basic principal: Which is your story valuing? The story? Or the message?
Right now there's a real back-and-forth going on, a discussion over which is more important, and which should be given priority. And in this case, I'm going to warn you beforehand that I am not impartial in this discussion. I take a clear side. Which it is should be pretty clear beforehand.
So, before we get into Theme versus Message, let's talk about them for a minute. What's the difference? What's a "Message" compared to a "Theme?"
At its core, the difference is actually fairly straightforward. Another way to refer to "Theme versus Message" is 'Story-fiction versus Message-fiction," and that simpler title sets it up pretty well. Simply put, a message-fiction is one that is written with a clear agenda in mind—a message. If you remember some time ago when I wrote about author soapboxing. Well, a message-fiction is even more outright then that. A message-fiction is written to specifically promote an idea or concept. Everything in the story is there for the sake of discussing the message, promoting it (usually as the only way), and explaining to the reader—quite often directly to them—that they need to support the idea. Everything else—story, characters, plot, the works—is secondary to the importance of "the message."
On the other hand, you have the story-fiction. The story-fiction is concerned with telling a good story first and foremost. Any "message" that exists in the story must serve the context of the story, weaving into it and being a part of it. From there, you get a theme, and underlying concept or idea that's woven into the work but is given equal priority to the story itself.
Now, when looking at it that way, it seems like story-fiction—theme—would be the clear choice for most. But the truth is that there's a lot of appeal to some people for message fiction. Granted, it's generally a limited audience, that audience being "those who agree with your message," but there's an audience all the same. And some authors have made a living writing message fiction—in fact, part of this current debate lies with an undercurrent of aforementioned successful authors who now believe that most all successful fiction works should only be message fiction (provided, of course, that the message said fiction espouses is one that they agree with ... see the potential problem here?).
Ultimately? As an author, you can choose to write either (obviously, no one is stopping you). But ultimately, there's a reason I find myself on one particular side of the fence: message-fiction is weaker.
And I don't mean that the message itself is flimsy, though as I'll explain that often becomes the case. I mean that when an author undertakes a message-fiction, what happens is that in order to promote the message, they must cut other elements away. So by the end, what is left is generally a work of fiction, but is not a story.
"Now wait," some of you might ask. "Isn't it all just story?" Well, no, and that's where so many young writers make an early mistake: In assuming that anything fictional that they put down describing events is a story when it is not. Rather, it's events. A story, on the other hand, is more than just a collection of anecdotes. A story has character, rising action, tension, try/fail cycles. A story has progression of some kind, a series of steps that lead to an inevitable finale that wraps up everything contained therein in a conclusion. Have you ever listened to a professional storyteller? The stories that they share follow their own consistent logic, interweave characters and viewpoints and setting and scene all together into a compelling ride that entertains and delights. There's a reason that an old colloquialism for storytelling was "spinning a yarn." Those who tell a story weave together dozens of different threads, events, characters, and moments into one seamless whole. Everything comes together in the end, and there's a sense of progression, of happening.
Message-fiction, however, generally has to shave away many of these elements, and that's where it becomes weaker. A story only has so many words, after all, and when an author is concerned about getting a message across they need to make sure that words are trimmed elsewhere. But there's an even bigger amputation that comes with writing message-fiction: the removal of theme and conflict.
See, when writing a message-fic, the goal is to get the message across. Have you ever read a story with a protagonist who just can't be stopped? They're just so golden in every way, and nothing seems to phase them? It's likely you have, especially if you've ever ventured into the realms of fanfiction where junior authors want whichever character is their favorite to shine.
Well, in message-fiction, the message is the golden egg, the root of the entire story. And the author doesn't want that message stopped—after all, the point of the story is to show you that the message is the proper and correct path to follow—and so it becomes its own character. Worse, one that for all intents and purposes, earns the title "Mary Sue."
Basically, because the point of the message-fiction is to espouse a personal belief or opinion, and the story won't do that if there are counterpoints to the message, all counterpoint must be stripped from the narrative. And is conflict. Often in message-fiction the message just runs unopposed, with literally no counterpoint given. All the sympathetic characters agree on it, because it is "correct." In the event that the author does introduce a counter point of view to the message, it has to be a weak one (usually a simple logical fallacy, ad-hominem, or strawman), sort of like a hero facing down a challenge so slight there's no way they couldn't win. Because the point of the message-fiction is the message, anything that puts that at risk defeats the entire point of the work.
And so conflict vanishes or becomes hollow. There cannot be anything to truly challenge the message, because that would mean that people might walk away with the wrong ideas, and so no true challenge is put forth. Can you see why this leads to a weaker story overall?
It has other effects, too. All of the characters either must agree with the message or be part of the opposition (which again, is straw-thin ... as well as often enough being a scarecrow). So all of the characters agree on the message, and anyone who doesn't is generally demonized by the story. Can you see how that would make a story even less appealing to read? There's a black-and-white mentality behind it, a "with us or against us" element. Not only that, but all the primary characters must be on the same page, and therefore will all act alike in the lines of the message ... so character development takes a backseat to the message as well.
Right then, I can hear the question already. What makes this different from a story that has theme? The answer, actually, is pretty simple.
In a story that has theme, the message is not the end-all that the author is trying to push down the throat of the reader. Which means all of those concessions to the message that the writer of a message-fiction must make don't need to happen. The author can have characters that disagree over the thematic elements, that debate it and come to their own conclusions. The sense of challenge can exist, because the theme of the story is just that: A theme. The subject, an underlying idea or concept. Characters are free to disagree with it. Characters are free to explore different facets of it, create their own conclusions based on it, as well as—and here's the really important part, so I'll repeat—as well as the reader.
Another way to put it is that theme is designed to get readers to think. A story with a theme will have the characters learn and grow, some touching on the theme and some not, facing a "foe" who may have only tangential connections with the theme, oppose it, or even agree with the primary characters in many areas to show a counterpoint—any number of things. But along the way the theme will be presented and looked at from a variety of angles and the reader will be allowed to think, debate, and draw their own conclusions based on the story. They even have the option of not drawing any conclusion and just reading the work for fun.
Message-fiction, on the other hand, doesn't want readers to think anything else other than "I'm right, all others are wrong." There's no thought involved—in fact, some message stories go out of their way to remind the reader that alternative thinking or challenging the message of the work is "bad behavior." It's a work wherein there is supposed to be no challenge to its assertions, no room for the reader to sit back and propose an alternative. Such voices are not given rise in the work, and they're not intended to be given rise after it is over.
There's one other big difference here, though, and it's one that is, in a way, one of the most important ones. Notice that in a story with theme, the reader can reach the end without making a judgement, thought, or decision on the theme at all? This is because in a story that utilizes theme, message is not the most vital part of the work. The story is.
This is where things grow the most polarizing. A message-fiction is generally written so that if one removes all the elements of the message from it, we find that quite often there is very little left to engage the reader. The core of the work, after all, was driving home the message. Especially in short fiction, there may be so little of the "story" left as to render it unrecognizable. There isn't a real story. The work was just a vehicle for the author to build a giant soapbox.
Now, take a story written with a theme rather than a message and take the theme out of it, and what do you have? You might be missing some parts, certainly, and there will definitely be spots where character interaction and other elements aren't as understandable. But do you know what you'll still have?
A story. Because the theme is not the only thing that makes up a story. The author is relying on a multitude of elements to keep the reader engaged, while a work of message-fiction cannot include many of the elements as they will detract, distract from, or weaken the message. Cut theme from a story and message from a message-fic, and you'll be left with one that is a still a story, and another that is a pile of words meandering without meaning.
Does this mean you can't write message-fiction? Well ... no. Like I said, there are a few authors who have made successful careers out of it (though be aware that building your success on such a one-note base has a tendency to be quite ... tippy). There's always going to be a crowd of people who will snap up a story that's written to their specific tastes and opinion.
But it's a fleeting success. Yes, you'll attract those who will immediately and already agree with you. But you won't attract those who ask more of a work than the author's opinion. Like soapboxing, you can only get away with so much before a reader goes elsewhere, and in the case of message-fiction, that line comes very early on. Those who stay are almost guaranteed to support you—provided you continue to espouse the same views—but those who are looking for a story? They'll go elsewhere.
The thing is, at the end of the day, when it comes down to a showdown between theme and message, theme wins hands-down. Stories with theme are what stick with people, what resonate. These are the stories that appeal to a wide variety of readers, from those who enjoy sitting back and contemplating the nuances of the story they've just read to those who just want a fun story (neither of whom will tend to enjoy a message fic, which offers neither appealing factor). Theme is considered a core component of a story with good reason, and swapping that theme for a message tends to polarize pretty well.
So, Theme versus Message ... What can we take away?
First, that you can write both. Message-fiction is an existing thing because—especially in the world of the internet—writing something that coincides and reinforces others already accepted views can be very lucrative. However, if you do this, understand what you're giving up in turn.
You will not have theme. You will not have story. In the pursuit of message, you will lose character interaction, conflict, and tension. You will be sacrificing a long-term audience for one that is "one note," one that will only stick around provided that you're writing exactly what they want. You're also—though I didn't mention this above—putting a hard date cut-off on your work: if the message ever becomes passe or falls out of style, so will you.
On the other hand, writing a story with theme is certainly more work, and requires more from you, but you generate something that appeals to a wider range of people and doesn't fall out of favor even if some of the ideas contained in it do. After all, there's a story at the root of it. Something for readers to sink their teeth into.
So, which will you write? Which will you read?
It's up to you.
Thanks for this article.
Message fiction is basically preaching.
It could also be advertising?
I can only shudder in horror at the thought of what story you must have read that brought this rant on.
Thank you.
Do I sense some influence from the Hugo brouhaha in this choice of topic?
Thanks for this one, it really helped pull together a fog of ideas I had on something in my head and turn it into a nice downpour of ideas.
Reading this also kept making me think of one of Tolkien's more famous quotes about his view of allegory. Different words same message and ideas behind them.
3133025
Preaching? Yeah, pretty much. A little less advertising. Advertising tries to make something appealing, often with unrelated events. Message-fiction just tends to say "Look at this! This is how it is, and if you disagree, you are not cool!"
So similar, I guess.
3133054
There's more than one out there, actually. And not all are terrible ... they just don't make for good reading.
3133271
The Hugos did have a little bit to do with me picking this topic, though they don't share the full responsibility. But yes, part of that whole battle is between those who have made their living solely off of message fics and those who write stories.
And this is the reason why Ayn Rand was ironically amusing.
Her message was meritocratic, but the stories said message found a home in were flat, two-dimensional, and just plain not good.
I am genuinely interested in whether the proponents of message fiction have similar definitions of message and theme. As presented here, I cannot help but draw the conclusion that theme is only superior to message by definition:
I do not disagree that overly preachy fiction is reprehensible. In fact, I believe such fiction is even a disservice to its own message by vice of refusing to demonstrate it is strong enough to stand on its own without author favoritism. However, with these definitions, "story-fiction good, message fiction bad" is a tautology: the second an author includes any elements that are commonly accepted to be good storytelling, the argument could be made that the author has actually written a theme, just very heavy-handedly. I mean, just look at this:
Incorporating a try/fail cycle moves a story from message fiction to story fiction? Are all messages about perseverance automatically themes? Even the best message-author cannot add tension to their message-fiction? Not even for one scene? Do message-authors seriously argue in public with a straight face that the only legitimate use of an agency-endowed fictional entity is as a wooden author mouthpiece?
I do enjoy your thoughts on writing, but even if we agree on the ultimate idea, I fear this particular thought as presented is a war on straw.
3133547
See, therein lies the problem with message-fiction. The point of message-fiction is to drive home an idea, a concept, a belief and show that it is inherently superior to all other ideas. Now, in a normal story, a story with theme, one of the primary challenges is creating tension, conflict. And with thematic elements, the way to do this is put those thematic elements at risk. Characters must question beliefs, question the theme, sometimes losing faith in it entirely. And sometimes the climax, where the character makes a critical choice, doesn't fully come to terms with the theme. Sometimes the reader can be left supporting an alternative point of view at the end.
This is an anathema to the goal of message-fiction. Message-fiction cannot debate opposing viewpoints, nor can it have a character who is purportedly a protagonist express a countering viewpoint, because that would be an an admission that the viewpoint might not be correct. Message-fiction falls under a mentality similar to "safe spaces" in which opposing ideas are not to be given credence or taken seriously. At the most, they use strawmen, ad hominems, or logical fallacies to present "countering" arguments so that the fiction can have a chance to say "look how wrong this is!"
There's no tension in that. It's like going to a fight and being told before the match starts who is going to win and by how much. The game is rigged from the start.
Actually, yes, they do. I have seen successful, well-off authors argue that the story does not matter, that all that matters is that the reader walks away with the "correct" point-of-view. Story is not important. Only the message matters. It's currently a part (as was mentioned in some of these other comments) of the Hugo debate, as several proponents of some of the prior winners have been very vocal about promoting and nominating entries not based on the story itself, but whether or not the message is "progressive enough." No joke.
Then again, this is the same crowd that gets a lot of hype on Tumblr, so that should tell a little about them.
Point is, it really is something that is being said right now. Story does not matter, message does. And yes, some are very adamant that all successful fiction should only be such so that it can teach the "correct" messages.
Well ...
Yeah, I won't go into the rest of that quote here, but it was both racist and sexist. This author argued (and has argued) that we should judge books by the skin color, gender, and/or sexual orientation of the author, and that you should pick a focus, a message (such as something concerning those that are poor, transsexual, or "not-guess-which-religion") and only read those. Their response to doing this?
You'd think that someone calling for basing ones reading only on the gender, sexual orientation, or the author and the viewpoint the work drove would be slammed, right? No, this author was praised on multiple sites and part of a media campaign that promoted reading only one kind of fiction, that which espoused 'good' ideas.
So yeah, it's actually a thing.
3133865 What do you call a story that argues for the superiority of some idea or belief (or worldview), but does so in a way explicitly designed to make the reader genuinely think and imagine as much as possible, where there's some serious challenges and it doesn't all wrap up neatly at the end?
Because I'm pretty sure George MacDonald wrote a good few of those, and they were pretty amazing. For that matter, it's awfully hard to read The Chronicles of Narnia without noticing that once in a while. (*cough*TheLastBattle*cough*)
I think, then, that the division I'd make is not so much between theme and message, as between honest and dishonest argumentation on the one hand, and on the other, whether the story is sacrificed to ensure the message gets through, or they go hand in hand, or the message is subsumed beneath the story. (An example of the latter would presumably be LotR, where it's mostly just a good story.) So it's actually more of a 2x3 matrix, where only two of the options really come out well.
Message fiction tends to drive a statement that polarizes readers into debating for or against said message. This doesn't always quite pan out so well in discussion because the 'story' is usually framed to completely back up said message. Also complicating debate is the fact that because the message is more or less direct, certain folks identify with the message and take offense should that idea that they've decided is part of their identity is challenged. Thematic fiction tends to bring several possible messages that readers conclude after reading. These inferred messages can be debated and all still use the same story as evidence. I prefer these types in discussion with others.
3133865
*sighs* Some folks still think these crazy types only exist in fiction, i.e. "My message is the only right message, Other messages are bad for society." Then there are folks that manage to invoke Poe's law through satire. I think a huge problem is that these writers and fans are the type to believe that if a character in a story has a belief, this means that unless that character is thoroughly shut down, this means the author of the story shares that belief. As with video games, I don't deny their (the message-stories) right to exist, but I do detest the push by certain groups to push them as the "good" stories based on feels and shallow "diversity" rather than the merit of the actual story.
3133969
Yeah, I think most of those still fall under exploration of a theme, though they can be a bit heavy about it. They still present them with explored opposition and spend a lot of time coming at them from different angles. You can read The Last Battle, for instance, and still walk away without thinking "Well, obviously Lewis's explanation of Christianity is the only true one or you're evil" because it's not framed that way. The characters interact in a story revolving around Lewis's idea of Christianity, and there's a great deal of discussion of it in the book, but to my memory (and admittedly, it has been years since I read it) it doesn't address the reader directly to throw opinions on them.
Granted, that's kind of hard territory, since the Narnia series is infamous for being allegorical explorations of Christianity. And if you're one of those who takes the stance of (Like T. Bradford) "this book talks about something I don't want to think about, therefore it's bad," then yes, you're probably going to see it as "message-fiction" not because it actually is, but because it discusses something that a person in that mentality does not want to think about at all.
On the other hand, it's got a story, and the concepts and ideas that the series discusses it discusses in detail, with characters offering differing opinions, thoughts, and even taking different actions at various points, most of which are left up to the reader to consider, weigh, and come to a conclusion upon. So I don't think I'd call them message-fiction ... just stories where the theme is very important to the core of the book.
3133865
I suppose this is at the core of my problem with your position. If it is possible to put thematic elements at risk, I question your assumption that it is impossible to put the message at risk or that doing so makes it not message-fiction. More broadly, I question placing this message-fiction subgenre as representative of all fiction which contains a message as is implied by the title. My first instinct is that I should only support messages I have myself already tested in every way possible, I should expect the same of my audience, and I should write accordingly in their service with sufficient engaging elements to hold their interest which include the standard plot, characters, and so on. It may be the case that a certain subset of authors are proponents of not putting the message at risk, but as a general treatment of message vs theme this is not a requirement.
The Christian narrative tradition of Eden->fall->salvation comes to mind, which in most circumstances will carry with it a message such as "God saves" or "God is all powerful and should be worshiped" with various degrees of anviliciousness but which requires the characters to initially reject the message for some other desire - the whole prodigal son shtick. The author may very well turn around and make it abundantly clear that said desire turns out to be ashes and a chase after the wind or make the character a cosmic chew-toy for breaking The Rules, but the very act of a sin is still a legitimate challenge. God could be presented as powerful as the author pleases and people could reiterate the point and naysayers can get struck by lightning on the spot, but a reader could still decide maybe God is not all powerful because He did not deny the character what they got, or perhaps we question a secondary but necessary point: God might be powerful, but I don't care to follow Him for being a jerk.
A strong message can still allow a legitimate character arc in the right hands: God is powerful, how do you react? There is also no reason such a message must ipso facto remove tension: if the sinner admits God is powerful and repents, hallelujah, the message is delivered! If not, they get made an example of and the audience gets the idea anyway. But which it is this time is unknown beforehand and either is plausible regardless of the content of the character. A more clever author could even have a Schrodinger's message which will shift based on the resolution: God may be powerful all story, but is the story saying "God is powerful and will save you" or "God is powerful and hell is hot"? We do not know for sure until the Detente, but if the sinner is likable, we should at least be guessing and entertained up to the climax.
When dealing with a theme it is next to impossible for an author to avoid choosing sides. Even if one takes pains to present each side as fairly as possible and set up situations that ask the tough questions to everyone, ultimately conflict is driven by values in contradiction, protagonist or antagonist must prevail, and whichever particular view they espouse gets validated per audience identification. As you yourself said, a hero must stand for something greater than themself, even if the majority of the story is swashbucking lightsaber duels. It could then be said that the message of the story is that this value is valuable even if the story does not much touch on it.
A story without some kind of theme is far more likely to have a paper-thin conflict or characters without sufficient motivation to drive whatever is going on to the point that I do not believe a theme-fiction with no theme would fare any better than message-fiction stripped of its message. To truly remove a theme is as hard as removing all the tropes: if you have a proper theme to begin with, it has already dripped to the core of everything else: pick the conflict to highlight the theme, build the world to support the conflict, select characters with personalities and backgrounds to have interesting questions, and so on.
When it gets right down to it, I can only conclude message is theme spoken and theme is message given flesh. Two sides, both necessary and both requiring care to execute properly, especially because an audience will be looking for a message or takeaway whether you intend it or not.
I believe the ultimate source of the trouble is that your blog series is generally a fair and balanced discussion of the effective use of literary devices in light of your copious experience ala your excellent treatment of show vs tell, but instead this topic in this format has become an occasion for soap-boxing about an entirely different issue: the age-old question as to the utility of literature to society. Is it more ethical to write an honest and engaging story or a story explicitly intended to have a positive impact on society (for some assumed positive impact, and assuming that these are somehow mutually exclusive, which is a difficult case to make, all things considered)?
This is a deep, topical topic with broad implications for authors and readers alike that is worth addressing in a dedicated blog that deals directly and openly with the real issue, but the choice of literary devices to represent each side means you have fallen victim to the very problems you are railing against: the blog cannot admit that a message is a trope and tropes are not bad, but instead must associate the message trope with the worst examples of anvilicious PSA Hell while holding the theme trope as the fair-and-balanced standard of good literature to get your ultimate message across: the message-fiction genre is frail, dishonest, literature and heaven help the careers and legacies of those who want to write it.
Framing the topic as balanced theme-fiction vs overwrought message-fiction is doing a disservice to authors interested in how best to use theme or message as literary devices. It is dishonest in implying that a story with a message can only exist in absence of the elements of fun, honest, thoughtful, reading or that messages must only exist in the extreme form of the limp, unquestioning, message-fiction niche genre. As Faust showed with FiM, neither is the case.
3136195
Well-said, and having read it over, I think I see the root of our differences. The difference is that we're both looking at things with different definitions and from different angles. It seems to me that what I would, in many instances, call a theme in a story, you would call a message. And that seems to be why we're differing so much. In reading your comment, you seem to be ascribing the term "message-fiction" to stories with theme that are not what would be called, in the world of writing, message-fiction, and instead taking the idea that since a theme is a "message" of sorts, I must be speaking out against those stories completely.
So, instead, rather than running over the same explanation again, I'm going to do something different. Full-out example.
This is Harrison Beregon, an incredibly well-written and very famous message-fiction.
Try taking the message elements out. What's left? Very little. Is there an opposing view? Not really, though it must be said that Harrison Bergeron is unique in that its using the negatives of one message to push the reader to think in the alternative manner.
Do note that Bergeron does suffer from many of the drawbacks of outright message-fiction. As the message is the majority of the work, when the message does not fit the current climate, is not interesting, or is not appealing, Bergeron has a difficult time in getting people to read it. Heck, quite literally yesterday I had someone who refused to read it on the grounds that they'd read the first few lines and disagreed with the message, therefore they would not read the rest of it. Real-life case of what I spoke of happening.
And just for fun, I'll bring up another case of message, though this is not a message-fiction, merely an illustration of how message can and does fall out of favor. Have you ever heard of the essay A Modest Proposal? Probably not. Most never have, except in digging into history. A Modest Proposal was published in 1729 and was about a current event and how to deal with it—in this case, an economic food crisis and rising population, which the author suggested could be alleviated via the eating of children. No joke. Apparently he made quite the case for it too, though the fact that it was satire went over a lot of people's heads.
Here's the thing, though. No one talks about it anymore. Just like no-one talks about The Jungle except in historical sense (though that one is a bit of a subversion, as the author screwed up his message so badly that attention was given to the wrong thing). The Jungle gave us the FDA. But, problem averted, no one has any need or desire to read it anymore with the rare exception of wanting to look at something historical.
Anyway, now look at something like Brave New World. Is there a theme, and what you would, by your reply, considered a "message?" Yes. But does the literary world count it as message-fiction?
No.
Because if you took out those elements that are message, there's still quite a bit of story and other themes woven into Brave New World. It was written as an exploration of themes, and while the author may have reached a final conclusion on one side or the other, the book is not message-fiction. Bergeron is message-fiction, Brave New World is not.
Again, I think the issue here is that you're not familiar with what the writing world calls message-fiction, and so you seem to be reading something else into it, your own definition of message-fiction based on your own reading (and, based on your comments of writing as a tool for society, also your own viewpoints and expectations). Message-fiction is, at the end of the day, no matter how you swing it, an author soapbox of some kind. Message-fiction is the Michael Moore film documentary turned into a fictional event. It is a very specific type of writing, not a general one, championed by its absolute devotion to the presentation and acceptance of an idea (be that "Science progress is bad" or "Forced equalization is bad" or even "Forced equalization is good").
3137370
Apologies for the late reply. Life happened.
With a week's distance, I do have to agree we were talking past each other. It is clear to me now that you wanted specifically to address the literary genres while I saw the more general title "Theme vs Message" and was more speaking to my understanding of those terms. I might have been reading too much into things as well.
In any case, in going back over our conversation, I will have to disagree that my last point was "well said." I am not sure what possessed me to walk into an advice column and accuse the author of being dishonest, especially when I otherwise hold said author in good faith. It was most certainly out of line on my part. I must apologize and then some.
3151430
Well, it was "well said" because you did adequately express your position enough that I could see where you were coming from. I could see the perspective (at least, I think) that you had, but I could also see some of the reasoning behind it. You disagreed with me yes ... but I didn't mind, as you were willing to put forth an explanation and explain your case, as well as react to what I wrote. What resulted was quite a bit of writing on the subject that was probably helpful to others ... anyway, yeah, I thought you did well defending your view, and I didn't have problems with that. Maybe in your own mind it was a little too aggressive or whatever, in which case ... well, oh well. There's always next time.
TBH, I dropped the upvote because regardless of how you might have felt about what you posted, you cleared the bar of most of the other forums/sites I've seen, where the general mood is "I'm right, I will present no evidence or reasoning, you must prove me wrong, but you're a terribad person because you said something that can be construed as this, which means you also are this [insert-buzzword-of-choice-here], and therefore if you post sources, rebuttal or discourse I don't have to pay attention because you are a terribad person, and if you don't reply I'm automatically right." Instead you went forward explaining your viewpoint which did enable us to both get to the root of the issue—me in seeing where the original message may have been unclear, prompting further explanation, and you in ... well, what you got out of it, I guess.
Apology accepted, in either case. No hard feelings at all.
I mean, after all, after seeing some of the comments on File 770 or elsewhere on the net, a back-and-forth on this level is pretty refreshing.
Then again, maybe I just hang out on terrible sites.