[spondylosaurus]

I don't think we have to take a nearly century-old work of fiction's viewpoints seriously unless we want to. The book can argue that IVF or artificial gestation is horrific and we can in turn argue "well, I don't think that's true."

[coldtea]

>I don't think we have to take a nearly century-old work of fiction's viewpoints seriously unless we want to.

I want to. And the book's age has nothing to do with whether it's points are valid or not.

Literature doesn't have an expiration date. And some ideas about what it means to be human aren't meant to be transient - though their adoption might be.

[spondylosaurus]

I mean, I think its age is a valid consideration in the sense that IVF was literally not possible 100 years ago. Whereas it is now, and... it turns out IVF babies are normal humans too.

But I was also trying to convey that "this piece of literature argues X, therefore X is true" can't possibly hold up for every given work of literature. You can find an author for any viewpoint! They can't all be true at once!