This is a fair question if one has not read the book, and a deep discussion of the euthanasia debate was beyond the scope of the novel. Residues tries providing a balanced perspective, but the issues are emotionally charged – religion is a crucial factor when tampering with or manipulating life – and making such an attempt would be near impossible. I left it to the reader to decide their stance on the subject.
The characters in the novel are confronted with events that leave them little choice. One such event is reactionary, while another required introspection – albeit within the comfort of impunity. Some of the characters are agnostic, while others devout believers, but their faith – or lack thereof – cannot shield them from severe moral or ethical tribulation. During the writing of the novel I discussed this with a few people who understandably had wide ranging opinions, but one woman’s thoughts stayed with me. She said she’s vehemently opposed to vivisection, but if a rabbit’s life could result in the return of her daughter’s sight, all she could do was have sympathy for the rabbits. I realized moral clarity may be a function of distance; proximity blurs ethical judgment.
Because of the sensitive issues raised in Residues, the characters’ roles were crucial as we were going to experience the events through their eyes; their circumstances, virtues, and flaws would dictate how they dealt with their fate. It may be irreconcilable with our own value system, but would provide insight to their motivation. It required characters that could walk off the page, and to succeed, I had to join their emotional landscape – feel it.




7 Responses
Hello
Hjugtt hhiijhhyu uuiiuhh ggthh hhthhhuuu hhu uiiii huiiij thhh uh rgghuii kttg hhh
Hi Howie,
Just checking the reply link
No problem Brian.
You again!
This is an indent test
Hello everyone,
This is such a needed service for my family and I can tell you how much better than the past year has been going.
Hi again Howie