Do you think the book was one-sided or fair?

[dphelps1113]

It was definitely one sided and showed an vast amount of favoritism.

[melissy370]

Absolutely! I have to give Fleisher credit though. He did make his bias known upfront. If he had hidden it and I found out from the text I would be more negatively inclined.

[kandscreeley]

The book was one sided on some issues. But not all of the right versus left arguments were discussed. It seems from the characters and narrator's statements that the author espouses a left view. However as I said there were a number of topics not discussed.

[R-Myra]

I definitely felt this way.
I'm a reader who loves gun and honestly it was a downer for me on that part.

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.

[ccrews0408]

The book was definitely one sided, which I think the author meant for it to be to drive his point home. It would have been nice to see at least one main character with a different point of view.

[starshipsaga]

I consider myself middle-of-the-road when it comes to the issue. I personally probably lean slightly in the direction of the author's views, but it still irks me in situations where I will read a book and only see one side blatantly expressed. But that's just my experience personally, on the surface I take no issue with the author wanting to do whatever he wants with his story, especially since he was upfront about it.

[LivreAmour217]

The book is definitely one-sided, and I thought that it was a bit unfair. The author has a right to express his views, but the portrayal of the characters was exaggerated. All the characters with left-leaning views were saints, while those on the right were portrayed as mustache-twirling villains. People are more complicated than that.

[McKenzieRyan]

The book is one-sided for sure. I'm only a few chapters in at this point but the views of the author were made very clear from the beginning. I agree with LivreAmour217 the portrayal of characters was maybe not quite so fair. While I respect the opinions of the author and am generally interested in reading this book even though I am a bit more conservative when it comes to most issues, some of the statements made in the first few chapters were off-putting. For example when Trudy described a potential threat as "some tattooed skinhead asshole" or when Vince said good ol' boys don't sound like the brightest sparks but they know how to handle a gun. There is nothing wrong with having the views the author clearly has, the way the book is written has the potential to make more conservative readers upset with the way people they find themselves relating to are described.

[ericahs]

The great thing about fiction is that it can reflect reality but can be taken as separate from that as well. I don't think it's a question of "too this" or "too that" more like how does it reflect or not reflect they someone feels our how our world is now.

[BookInspector300]

I had no issues with the direction the author took because I supported his views wholeheartedly. Others might find it left leaning and biased but I have no problem with it.

[VictoriaMcMillen]

When I began reading the book I did feel that it was one-sided and against the NRA. Now that I am in the middle of the book, I see more of the bigger picture being told. Seniors don't often get their voices or concerns heard in a meaningful manner, their point-of-view is nonexistent in daily decisions of companies and governments. The NRA has billions of dollars to publicize their story, daily, in many mediums. I believe this book was intended as a medium to make others more aware of that perspective and not to just to target the NRA, because even the main characters in the novel are getting educated to take advantage of that. The lack of care taken in the scientific study is also taken into question- that is a matter of ethics committees. The lack of meaningful care of the elderly in America is appalling and needs to be addressed from and with the perspectives of the elderly. They do not need to be parented, they need to be consulted and understood. This may be more "liberal" but I think it is human and conservative of American values of taking care of each other better.

[Steph K]

It is definitely left-leaning. I liked that about the book, because I share those views. But a balance might have been better. Anyone more conservative probably would not have finished the book. Our politics are so polarized right now, that we view people from opposing parties as the enemy instead of our fellow human beings. No one is willing to listen to anyone else's point of view.

[britt13]

I think, as many others have stated, that it is clearly left-leaning. I do think that the Vince storyline helps to try and at least see why someone would want to get a gun. Also, I do not think the author is trying to hide his feelings, I am assuming this is something he wanted to show his stance on. Many people are starting to speak up about this issue, and just because you are on one side does not mean you are not fair.

[ostercl]

I think the book definitely favors one side, but also shows good reason for it. It is not as preachy as it could have been, so in my eyes it is more influential to the common reader. It's purpose is to open your eyes, and I think it does that and more.

[berk_sumpter]

I have only read the sample of this book so far. However, even only in the first few chapters it seems that the book is a bit one-sided. The author seems to be left leaning. From the reviews, it seems like the whole book is a bit one-sided.