There always seems to be a good vs. evil theme to a lot of fics. Is a story better or regarded higher if there is a whole good character fighting the so called evil/antagonist. The whole field is subjective to one's perspective in it. One writer's morals can/will conflict with your own to a certain point. So where exactly do you draw the line on morality, how a character acts or how they're predisposed to a situation?

Is a character with little to no morals regarded as evil just because they are written that way? They develop a sense of right and wrong as the story progresses or what if they shift in how they see the world. Switching from side A to side B. I've been writing a rather self centered character for a while and gotten mixed ideas on him because I show him rather one-sided. The thing of it is that his 'story' will be shown as I progress my work. Should a character be judged though, by how they act in a story or how they react to what's happening in your story?

How much of your own morals do you put in your own characters or how you want the situation to pan out. Thoughts?

4159960 I like to include my own morals a lot in my story. It make it easier for me tor write it convincingly. For example, I have a character that goes against the main group at one point. I tried to make their reasoning for doing so what mine would have been, so it would feel more believable.

For other characters I try to make them less centered on my own beliefs and more of views that i find interesting. Since my story is focused on about 6 ponies, this brings me the diversity i need to have an interesting party make up.

Good: Saves innocent people, Rescues kittens from trees, Defeats criminals, Topples dictatorships, Saves the damsel in distress

Evil: Tries to take over the world, commits crimes, Tries to destroy the world, Steals candy from babies, Kidnaps the damsel so she is in distress

4159960

How much of your own morals do you put in your own characters or how you want the situation to pan out. Thoughts?

I don't put my morals on my characters. My characters put their morals on me. This isn't always a good thing...

4159960

Depends on the character.

I tend toward characters that share my morals because it's what I'm most experienced in, and I don't often write moral-centric stories. The exceptions can be rather interesting though.

One of my more recent ideas follows the aftermath of a character who razed, pillaged, slaughtered, and tortured as part of a plan to prevent even greater misery.

4159960
Who said morality is subjective? We have no evidence of that.

4159960
I have a thing with making my characters sociopathic and/or insane.

4159960 I like to keep my own morality out of my stories... mostly. Generally speaking, I make sure that whatever morality there is in any given scene comes from the characters.

For example: Character A has lived on the street her entire life, and sees stealing so that she/her family can eat as perfectly acceptable. Law of the jungle, right? If you can't keep your hands on it, you don't deserve it.
Character B doesn't agree, because he's a cop, raised in a middle-class home with a bible on his bookshelf. Stealing is wrong. Period. It's against the law, and criminals get punished. Because that's how you run a civil society.
Who's "right" depends entirely on the reader's interpretation. There's not going to be a divine figure who comes down and lays their hand on A or B and says "you're correct." How the story plays out doesn't really factor into it, at least ideally.

If I make a reader stop and think about which side they'd choose? Then I've done my job right.

That's just how I see it, though, and I can't claim not to have written stories with the intent to espouse a specific viewpoint or idea. I try to avoid it, but nobody really can.

I guess it comes down to how much of your story is "art" and how much is "entertainment..." as well as how you want to channel either of those elements.

4159960 I try to make stories with relatable characters, and right now, I'm doing a story where it isn't so much good versus evil, but survival of a stranger in a strange land and differing ideals and situations that hold no true discrepancy between those concepts. The protagonist won't even be a 'pure good guy', he's damaged as a person, so he tends to make mistakes, or hurt himself or others for varying reasons.

The best example I can think of for conflicting ideals is the movie 'Akira', where the 'pure bad guy' plays a very minor role, getting about ten minutes of screen time maximum. Everything else than unfolds is due to relatable characters on a spectrum of morality.

As for my next stories, there will be a 'good vs evil' schtick, but more like 'blind good vs chaotic neutral/evil/good vs misguided evil vs crazy evil vs innocent bystanders'.

4159960 Have you seen ever seen Game of Thrones? Or read the books it was based off of? If not, they both portray what is called 'moral ambiguity'.

4159960 Most of my stories haven't really dealt that heavily with any kind of good vs evil. But a couple of stories I am working on or plan to do will be less of a good character fighting an evil character and more of making good or bad choices. I want to show it with characters who will do right against others who are trying to do right as well just on the other side of the fight. Or question what right vs wrong. I want to place some of my characters in moral dilemmas.

4160086
I'm thinking of reading those books. Are they any good?

4160128 Yes. They are VERY mature, but unbelievably great books! I highly recommend them if you're looking for good 'morally ambiguous' characters. I, for one love the books; it's my favorite series of books of all time! But be warned, it is not for the faint of heart.

4159960 I tend not to separate my morals with any others. I give my characters different moralities depending on how I want their character to act and what their backstories are, if some or all of their morality aligns with mine, it's no different than any other morality with good and bad points.

As far as having a battle between good and evil, it depends. Oftentimes, I'd like to see things in a different spectrum, no morality, just reasons as in Death Note or the Imperial/Stormcloak war in Skyrim. But then there are ways you can make it work really well for example, if your good guy is good (though not a Mary Sue) and your bad guy is too good at being bad. Examples of this that immediately come to mind are Syndrome from The Incredibles and John Bly from The Adventures Of Brisco County Jr. Syndrome because he's bad mostly out of a personal vendetta and you see that despite how evil he is, he does have a reason. John Bly because - even though his reason for being evil literally boils down to "Because you're so good and I'm... evil." - just how much fun he has being evil is enough that it's still interesting to see the story pan out.

Additionally, if you have an evil character as the Protagonist, it does work to do a clear arc for him, as long as you don't take too long establishing his character and not enough time working on his transformation. Scrooge has only a few scenes in the beginning of A Christmas Carol establishing how much of a miser and humbug he is before he has the spirits visit him. You can see how his disposition changes with only a little bit of seeing him be 'evil'.

Good vs evil seems weak as a concept, though. In terms of writing an interesting story more people will enjoy, I like having it be two sides against each other with different but human reasons to fight. That way, readers can agree with either side without having them be 'wrong' in the context of the story.

No reasons are bad reasons, that's how I see it.

4159990 So where does that leave Discord?
4160010 Morality is subjective because it is decided on by humans (even those writing about ponies).

4159960 Just in general, I try to give my certain values, rather than say, "He/She/It is good," and leave it at that. A character who values freedom, life, and family, for example, will probably have major disagreements with a character who values honor, duty, and country. This allows for more interesting conflicts as well, because even if one character is meant to be the villain, you should at least be able to understand and sympathize with some of his/her reasons and motivations: Nightmare Moon just wanted to be recognized by her subjects, Discord was looking for laughs, Chrysalis needed to feed her subjects, etc.

As for how my moral compass influences my characters, I don't think anyone can avoid doing that to some extent. I don't personally drink, and I've yet to write a scene where my characters drop by a bar to chat about something. It's not like I was even consciously avoiding that, the idea just never occurred to me. The best advice I can give for avoiding this sort of thing is to sit down and write out any behaviors or lifestyle choices you have that might affect your characters (religion, dating habits, hobbies, sexual orientation, what you look for in a significant other, etc). Once you're aware of your own biases, you can better decide if your characters should have the same ones or not.

4160161
Like I said, there is no evidence that morality is subjective; it's just something people like to assume. And if it was, that would mean there is no such thing as good/evil or right/wrong, just popular belief. It could very likely be that they do exist, that there is an objective morality, but we simply haven't found any irrefutable proof of it.

4159960

I generally sidestep morality questions by not having good or evil happen. Events happen, and the morality is a question for later. We follow the protagonists because they have the most interesting story to tell, which usually means (in my adventure stories) that they're a small power struggling against larger Powers. The larger Powers aren't evil, they're just institutional. They do things a certain way, and the heroes can't.

In my slice of life stories the conflict is largely internal, not external. There's something wrong with the character, and they're struggling against that. Maybe they're scared shitless of everything, maybe they have memory problems.

Either way morality isn't an issue. If pressed I'll point out that everyone in my stories see themselves as the good guy, even when they clearly are not.

4160187

It could very likely be that they do exist, that there is an objective morality, but we simply haven't found any irrefutable proof of it.

Very good point.

CS Lewis made an interesting observation on morality; that it's astounding how morality is surprisingly consistent across cultures (e.g. that there's no culture which glorifies 'murder' as a virtue). That there may be greater or lesser emphasis on what does or doesn't count as a virtue/vice, or discrepancies in the underlying definitions [e.g. what constitutes justification for justifiable homicide], doesn't negate the observation. (Sorry, but I've forgotten which book he presented that argument.)

Well, I don't have any set morals for any of my characters, so their morality changes as the story advances. I think the the good vs evil thing is more of an outside conflict.

4160161

>> sophos Morality is subjective because it is decided on by humans (even those writing about ponies).

Let us assume morality does not exist. A simple assumption really most species do not possess morality.
Yet it evolved, and the most successful species are invariably the most moral, time and time again.

In an uncaring amoral universe that values only survival and propagation, believing in principles higher than such things, is better than not by it's own rules. Isn't the world strange and beautiful? That an amoral universe must inevitably become a moral one.

CS Lewis made an interesting observation on morality; that it's astounding how morality is surprisingly consistent across cultures (e.g. that there's no culture which glorifies 'murder' as a virtue). That there may be greater or lesser emphasis on what does or doesn't count as a virtue/vice, or discrepancies in the underlying definitions [e.g. what constitutes justification for justifiable homicide], doesn't negate the observation. (Sorry, but I've forgotten which book he presented that argument.)

That's because humans all share the same two basic morality cores in our brains, of course our moral codes will have similarities.

4160240
I also find it interesting that we humans discuss it so avidly, It's what we structures our laws around, and so often call it subjective. We don't hang people over thinking Star Trek is better than Star Wars, so we obviously care a great deal more about morality. I think it's simply the easy way out. One can claim it's all subjective and, like some kind of treaty, the war is over; they'll never be right, but they'll never be wrong.

Regardless, if we are to discuss morality at all and reach any kind of conclusion, we must treat is as an objective truth that can be discovered. Otherwise, we might as well be arguing over favourite colours.

If you recall the CD Lewis book, please let me know; I very interested.

4159960
There's an older anime called Yu Yu Hakusho that dabbles a little in the themes of what it really means to be good or evil... plenty of characters on the 'good' side aren't what you'd call 'good' people in many senses. One in particular who straddles the True Neutral line pretty well is Genkai, whose stance on the whole thing can pretty much be summed up in one line of dialogue she delivers:

"It's not that I hate evil... it's just that a lot of people I can't stand happen to be that way."

Cracks me up every time,

4160270

We don't hang people over thinking Star Trek is better than Star Wars

Clearly you were not hanging out on the internet in the early 90's,

4160270

Regardless, if we are to discuss morality at all and reach any kind of conclusion, we must treat is as an objective truth that can be discovered. Otherwise, we might as well be arguing over favourite colours.

Ah, but here's an interesting thing that you bring up: even the subjective "favorite color" has an objective portion -- it is a real person's real favorite, and therefore has some objective qualities.

If you recall the CS Lewis book, please let me know; I very interested.

I'm pretty sure it's one of the books in this box set. (In order of probability: Problem of Pain, Great Divorce, Miracles, A Grief Observed [I'm pretty sure it's not any of the other ones].) -- If you decide to spring for a box-set, I'd actually recommend this one as it's cheaper and contains Abolition of Man.

In addition to those, I'd certainly recommend The Four Loves and The Weight of Glory. (But I'm confident that neither of those is the objective-morality one... I've heard God in the Dock is really good, but I haven't read it yet.)

4159960
I personally like seeing morality in the light it is given in a lot of the more decent anime; there is no right or wrong, but just people with conflicting world views, all doing what is right. The best antagonist is the one who not only does what he thinks is right, but, once you consider his perspective, might actually be right, too.

For example, the government plays a big antagonist role in Howl's Moving Castle, because they desperately want to recruit Howl for the war they're fighting. Howl is opposed to the war, and is hunted down. Meanwhile, cities are reduced to rubble around them, and Howl flees. Who is right? Who is wrong? It just depends on your point of view.

Another is Baron Wulfenbach in the Girl Genius comics... he's seen as a ruthless tyrant by all of Europa, but it turns out he doesn't even want the job. He just conquered Europa and rules it with an iron fist because the alternative is a thousand mad scientists controlling their own small territories and terrorizing everyone. Then he hunts down the main character because she too is a talented 'Spark', and due to her heritage, her very existence is enough to destabilize the world.

4160187
Assassin's Creed has an... interesting stance on that. "Nothing is true, everything is allowed."

This was, surprisingly, not used as carte blanche to kill indiscriminately, but quite the opposite. It boiled down to: laws and norms are a fiction created to maintain stability and peace. However, some people, usually those in positions of power, will break those and get away with it, and disrupt peace with their actions, so to truly ensure peace, we must put ourselves above laws and norms that serve to protect such people.

Morality is subjective in that it differs quite a lot how far certain people are willing to go to ensure their idea of right and wrong.

4160286
Huh, I didn't think of that. And thank you; I'll be sure to check those out when I get the chance.

4160293

Morality is subjective in that it differs quite a lot how far certain people are willing to go to ensure their idea of right and wrong.

Well, that isn't a commentary on morality at all; it's one on people. Something is only subjective when its very form and nature are changed by the whims of a person's mind; not when people are consistently inable to act in accordance with that form.

4160240

CS Lewis made an interesting observation on morality; that it's astounding how morality is surprisingly consistent across cultures (e.g. that there's no culture which glorifies 'murder' as a virtue). That there may be greater or lesser emphasis on what does or doesn't count as a virtue/vice, or discrepancies in the underlying definitions [e.g. what constitutes justification for justifiable homicide], doesn't negate the observation. (Sorry, but I've forgotten which book he presented that argument.)

There may be no 'broad approval' of murder as a virtue, but EVERY nation and religion makes exceptions about who it is acceptable to legally kill. Like when your god/pharaoh/king/emperor/chancellor/president says it's okay. This applies to war, the law and social structure. For example, the Old Testament told of how god told the wandering tribes of Israel to go into a strange land, murder all of the people there and steal their land. Before you say, "It was a just war", I should remind you that they were told to "Kill the women and children, AND slit open the bellies of the pregnant women to make sure their unborn were dead too". Not just. I could cite many more examples of this from every major religion and every government that ruled over more than one city. In the dark ages, knights could rape and kill the peasants as they pleased as long as they paid a small fine (normally about 2 cents) to the King (if anyone cared about it at all). It's normally about who gets offended by actions that determined life or death. For example, how many women were stoned to death, burned at the stake or drowned solely for being accused of witchcraft? In the wild west, people were hung for stealing horses and cattle because those who owned them were the influential ones.

4160335
Morality is a concept that only applies to people, though. I honestly don't see the distinction you're trying to make

4159960
4160017 I got a story where the main character who starts out good but experiences many horrific things in her life that leaves her insane and bitter like almost being murdered by her own parents for her looks as newborn filly, publicly ridiculed as a sideshow freak, and tortured in a laboratory. She eventually becomes a demented mass murderer and yet it is the so called normal ponies who truly are the monsters in this story for they turned her from a very kind mare into a disturbed and vengeful lunatic

Sooo. I am not interested in a moral-philosophic discussion (truth is I would be very interested - but this discussions tend to take one or two eterneties and circle around the same points the whole time.)

But for the morale of my characters: I think I apply my own moral on my characters at least partly. There is no exact copy though - but I see myself in nearly every character I write to a point. Even the evil ones (yes, my It wants to play sometimes too)
Its interesting what you can create if you simple tweak a little around with your beliefs and add further things.
And you get a better grip of your characters this way.

Honestly I just can't beliefe that creating a figure without any of your traits is possible on the long run. Sooner or later your characters will adopt things from you. You can shift it, bend it and twirl it - but somewhere you'll find a bit.

4159960

Depends. In general, I tend to keep morality and allegiance separate. It gets boring if all "good" guys are unequivocally saints and all "bad" ones are sinners.

4160620
An interesting point, but it doesn't match even one of the examples I gave

4160655
...that's taking my words out of context. My other paragraphs were there exactly to show the kind of thing I meant

4159960
Generally, whenever I am writing a character, I tend to be all over the place when it comes to morals. I have characters that do nothing but good things as well as ones that are capable of the most screwed up acts. However, one thing I always keep in mind is to never, NEVER make a purely good or evil character. Especially the bad guys.

I always give them some virtues as well as try to give some sort of excuse of why the things they do would be considered good. They have their reasons that, in their mind, justifies their actions, whereas others, who live by a different moral standards, would find their actions reprehensible.

4159960
Whilst my characters are technically the heroes of the story, it doesn't stop them having shady morals at best, being largely narcissistic and self-centered individuals who will do their best to help those in need... if it serves to further their own goals, and stroke their own inflamed egos, that is. So... yeah. I put a lot of my own morals into those I write.
Now, please. Stroke my ego and call me a smart little lemon. I'd like that very much.

4160476

Morality is a concept that only applies to people, though. I honestly don't see the distinction you're trying to make

Incorrect, morality is a trait multiple species have evolved.
Any species social beyond the immediate family has to evolve morality.

4160293

Assassin's Creed has an... interesting stance on that. "Nothing is true, everything is allowed."

Assassin's Creed consistently portrays anyone with any ideology or stance whatsoever as the villains since anyone with anything beyond killing the people in power is the Templars and they are the bad guys.

So no it's pretty much just "Nothing is true, murder everyone who wants better than that."

4160471

CS Lewis made an interesting observation on morality; that it's astounding how morality is surprisingly consistent across cultures (e.g. that there's no culture which glorifies 'murder' as a virtue). That there may be greater or lesser emphasis on what does or doesn't count as a virtue/vice, or discrepancies in the underlying definitions [e.g. what constitutes justification for justifiable homicide], doesn't negate the observation. (Sorry, but I've forgotten which book he presented that argument.)

There may be no 'broad approval' of murder as a virtue, but EVERY nation and religion makes exceptions about who it is acceptable to legally kill.

I agree and, indeed, already accounted for that in the bolded portion.

For example, how many women were stoned to death, burned at the stake or drowned solely for being accused of witchcraft?

This statement shows you do not understand recent history on the subject, this causes your comments about antiquity to be undermined (more questionable). You see, the accusation of witchcraft was not restricted to women; the case of Giles Corey (real-life rules-lawyer) is one example of a male so accused.

In the wild west, people were hung for stealing horses and cattle because those who owned them were the influential ones.

You do realize that in the deserts of the wild west, where water was often several days journey away, that stealing a horse was often a death sentence itself, right? (IOW, those stealing horses were often condemning the owners to death.)

4160614

It gets boring if all "good" guys are unequivocally saints and all "bad" ones are sinners.

Good point.
It raises an interesting point in the philosophy of Christianity: all the saints are sinners.

4159960 A character can really only be what they are written. Funilly enough what that thing is is open to interpretation by the audience. I wrote Treeling to be a callous, evil, villain who intentionally, and recklessly ruined countless lives. She is also the protagonist of her story and audiences loved her.

4160187 4160335 Interpretation is at the whim of another's mind; which also defines subjectivity.

Morality, as we define it (both in modern and ancient context) is the intention behind an action. Its the reason why we have sayings like "It's the thought that counts" and "social manipulation" and "mens rea" the last of which is Latin for criminal intent (something our modern justice system is still required to prove). The retaliative and interpretative quality of morality stems from two things:

One, intent in action is based off evaluative choice, specifically a system of personal values that is not uniform. Because values are not uniform (no two people have the same exact values), any system of evaluative judgement (morality) therefore cannot be.

Two, the ability to convey those values in word and deed is wholly subjective based on how the words and deeds are interpreted. While every word has a dictionary definition that everyone ought to know, they also have colloquial definitions, and are shaped by context.

4160476
Says who? What evidence is there of that?

Objective means it exists on its own; subjective, that it relies on something else. It is very difficult to obtain evidence of either, but not impossible. If you have proof for your claim, please share it; you would be doing mankind a service.

As my rebuttal, please except this social experiment conducted on monkeys; the results suggest they have a concept of morality.

4160833
That's not the definition of Morality, but I will attempt to refute it anyway; to a point, as I agree with you on several of them.

It is not the case that everyone considers morality based in intent; that is a very Kant way of thnking, which I prefer. But plenty of people follow Mill's Utalitarianism: that results matter, not intent; to put it simply. And here we have the schism. Values, indeed, are not uniform; I agree completely. And had we discovered an objectively true Morality wouldn't it, like maths, be nearly impossible to deny? Hence, every as of yet determined code of Morality is probably wrong.

But what does this prove? Nothing. The relative and interpretive quality you are assigning to Morality is misplaced; those qualities belong to us humans, and they would have no bearing on any objective thing. But I do not pretend to have proof that Morality is subjective or objective; I simply believe, through personal experience, that it is objective. And if we are to discover the truth, one way or the other, we must consider that it is objective. If we were to every solve a puzzle, we must first assume that there is a solution.

4160929 Are you suggesting that you could define morality on action alone? Because you have yet to do so, only suggest that such a thing is possible. The lack of any quantification or qualification of how or why such a definition might be exist, let alone failing to provide such a definition, does not constitute a counter to an existing definition.

Understand that any definition of morality that involves values on a societal scale will be contingent upon an understanding of society as an abstraction of the individuals living therein. An abstraction that is itself relative, and subjective. Any definition contingent upon a personal value structure, may itself not translate to other persons, making it arbitrarily subjective.

Depending on which dictionary you pick up, you may find subtle variations on the definition, but all come back to that single point: a society's expectation of its individuals or an individual's conduct in society. An expectation that, even if explained, must often be interpreted-- reinforcing its subjective nature.

As for your other rebuttal, you haven't indicated how or why the behavior of a monkey correlates to morality. I'll preempt any comment of "having standard of fairness" does not, itself, indicate a "set of upstanding codified rules of conduct."

The ability to say "I want what they got" is not a moral statement. Further, wanting does not amount to doing in your own counter argument. Note that: in the video the presenter made it a point to specify that the monkeys live in their own collective group of test subjects indicating they have been given their own expected sets of behavior to uphold that differs from the behavior their species exhibits in the wild. The very act of testing requires a reeducation that redefines the creature, and we therefore have the "primitive nature" you're indicating.

It's just bad science. All we have to reference is a comparative on various levels of domestication.

4160808

Christianity is not supposed to be interesting to begin with.

It`s heroes are exemplars of the virtues it extolls. For THAT particular collection of lore, morals and heroes are tied unequivocally. To do otherwise would be unthinkable - it would presume that "word of God" is merely a guideline to be abandoned when it suits the means. The fact it`s been routinely practiced anyways should tell you how undesirable it would be as an official party line.

4161191 More religions than just those under the umbrella of Christianity have "saints" and "sinners" and the quotes around "good" and "bad" seem to indicate protagonist and antagonist.

4161191
Hm, I'm not sure I get what you're trying to say.
Could you rephrase it?

It`s heroes are exemplars of the virtues it extolls. For THAT particular collection of lore, morals and heroes are tied unequivocally.

This is obvious; true in life as in mythology. (George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, for example, both have stories about their honesty.)

To do otherwise would be unthinkable - it would presume that "word of God" is merely a guideline to be abandoned when it suits the means.

To do otherwise would be to deny that there are virtues, which in turn would deny moral-absolutes, which in turn denies that there is one who gives an absolute moral law (God).

The fact it`s been routinely practiced anyways should tell you how undesirable it would be as an official party line.

And here's the big disconnect: two of Christianity's central points are (a) that everyone [mankind] is sinful, and (b) that no-one can make it right. You could say that this is the 'dilemma' that the 'plot' of Christianity has [to borrow from writing]; the solution is that God steps into humanity as Jesus, lives a sinless life, and pays the debt of sin in his own death. -- Sure there's "heroes" like John, Gideon, Elijah... but, ultimately, there's only one "Hero" which is Jesus. -- So the "official party line" really is that all the saints [those Jesus saved] are sinners, because that's what a saint is: a sinner who was/is saved [from sin].

4161434
4161198

To put it simply, my point is that Bible is not an entertainment story, and should not be judged by the same measure. It`s more of a textbook on how to do that particular religion then anything else. Same goes for texts like Torah and Qu`ran - they`re not meant to entertain, they`re meant to guide.

4161491 Clearly you have not read the Bible. All stories, even allegorical stories, and morality stories have to have some inherent entertainment value, or else the reader will quickly lose interest and move on. Most of the stories in the Bible are tragedies, but there are some of drama and intrigue. In that regard the Bible is more a collection of short stories than a novel (especially considering it was 66 books penned by, like, 40 different authors).

As an education major myself, I have read a lot of text books, and let me tell you it is not one. The language may be archaic, as expected from any book proclaimed to be the word of god, but it has its prose, its characters, and its narrative like any other story.

4161553

...Just because something is entertaining does not mean it was INTENDED to be such. You do grasp the difference between the intent and the fact, right?

This applies to Bible in a big way - yes, there are entertaining moments. No, it was not meant as entertainment first and foremost. It`s INTENT was different and the choices made when writing it show that much.

N.B. - I suggest to think things through before blurting them out. Your comment on "obviously did not read" have had cost you about two thirds of credibility. A few gaffes like that in a row, and you`ll end up getting everyone dismiss you as a no-account gasbag putting on airs. After all, ad hominem attack is the first sign of lost argument.