Confieso que una de las cosas que más me llamó la atención del libro es su total ausencia de moralina: las drogas no llevan a la protagonista a un final terrible y su adicción al sexo no culmina con una epifanía estúpida. Es imposible encontrar en tu libro una sola línea donde adviertas sobre el consumo de drogas, recomiendes el uso de anticonceptivos o en la que digas que hay que ser más selectivo con tus amantes. ¿Por qué elegiste algo tan inusual como no tomar partido y no incluir moralejas en tu libro?
Maybe the only idea I feel any certainty about is uncertainty. I am rarely certain about anything, because I understand how hard it is to ever know the whole truth about anything. New information arises, old information proves false, or at some point a different perspective makes sense. I'm not saying one can categorically never be certain about anything; for example I am certain that abortion ought to be a human right. Regarding drug addiction, I think that often people arrive at a greater, truer, fuller understanding of life after making what are thought of as 'bad' decisions, and then living through the consequences of those decisions. So it's not for me to say what someone else should or shouldn't do, because I can't know any other person's entire history or potential. I think this is the fundamental difference that defines the political divide in America, and almost anywhere else there is a cultural divide that falls out as conservatism vs. liberalism: conservatives typically believe they can know what is best for everyone, what is best for an individual they don't know anything about; liberals typically believe that everyone ought to have the freedom to make their own decisions as long as they aren't harming or impeding anyone else. That is, in my opinion, perhaps the only logically sound moral stance one can take, given the reality of individuated consciousness.