I rewrote this whole thing so many times. It’s really easy to slip into letting the cast argue like characters in a show as opposed to the way people actually argue. This kind of messy argument where neither party is sticking to what the issue is, or not understanding what the other person is arguing, is hard to maintain. That’s how informal disagreements are, but as an author there’s an urge to make both parties argue the way you want people to argue. Sticking to a topic, defining your terms, and that sort of thing rarely happens in a casual setting. Even in an actual debate they’re pretty rare. Ultimately though the goal is to keep both of them functioning as the imperfect beings they should be. The fact that Thomas is so loquacious doesn’t help. His verbal tsunamis dominate page space. But that’s how he is so that’s how it has to be.
It’s funny how far ahead of me people are still managing to get though. I can see which people think like Thomas VS the ones who think like Wes & it’s fascinating. Both sides have compelling arguments, which is ultimately the point of the whole thing. In the end you have to come to some kind of compromise that lets your mind cope with reality.