[Raynor]

The difference is that one is a real person & the other a fantasy being that only exists in your imagination.

I can't even begin to grasp this

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that this moral person we are talking about can have two imaginary proccesses, one which deals with the actual neighbour, the other with an imaginary identical neighbour - and the only thing that makes the first imaginary process immoral and the second not so, is that the second imaginary process is, well, more imaginary.

It seems to me that you fail to acknowledge - in this argument - that the "real" neighbour doesn't exist in one's mind as such, but it is only an imaginary construct. All the world is re-created in our mind - we imagine it. Frankly, l find this to be common sense in the modern world.

If two imaginary processes are identical, in every aspect, then if one implies immorality, so does the second.

He could have acheived the same effect by writing a novel about WWII. He chose to write a novel based in Northern Myth & people it with monsters.

I beg to differ:

Originally Posted by Part Five, Biography, by John Carpenter

Once or twice he decided to move away from the mythical, legendary, and fantastic, and wrote a conventional short story for adults, in a modern setting. The results were unremarkable, showing that his imagination needed myth and legend in order to realise its full potential.

And I'm not aware that Art has to include an element of moral didacticism - or that even if it does the reader has to pay any attention to them.

But this work does contain, in and of itself, elements of moral and religious truths, regardless of whether reader chooses to ignore them or not.

I honestly think that if someone had dropped a piano on Lizzie Bennett's head Pride & Prejudice would have been a much better novel.

I take it this is an instance of british humour concerning the possibility of writting better novels while being brain damaged and crippled.