The Sword and Laser discussion

355 views
Political Views of Authors

Comments (showing 1-50 of 95) (95 new)    post a comment »

message 1: by Mike (last edited Mar 11, 2012 09:14AM) (new)

Mike | 36 comments I have noticed that many folks here use particular groups of political/social/moral views of an author as either positive or negative in reference to their work. Many times, in particular, I have read people argue against reading a book because of "conservative" views, or recommend a good book but excuse the "conservative" views of the author. I am wondering why people do that. Isn't art supposed to be infused with an expression of the author, whether or not we like it?

I will admit to holding particular views on particular issues that people would classify as "conservative", and maybe that is why this has really come to my attention. However, I enjoy reading authors that wildly disagree with my views (particularity political/philosophical issues) as I find it sets the tone in the novel and gets me thinking about something in a way I probably never thought about it before.

Interestingly, I wonder what the reaction would be from folks here if I argued against the liberal views of some author? Would it be valid to recommend a book to someone here but "excuse" the "liberal" views of the author?

Just thought I would throw this out for discussion, remember that we are all common book lovers here:)


message 2: by Nick (last edited Mar 11, 2012 10:33AM) (new)

Nick (Whyzen) | 1260 comments My point of view is if the way a author tells a story is interrupted by a message (political or otherwise) at the expense of the story telling then the this type of warning would be a valid one. Even Tolkien warned C.S. Lewis that his allegory might be too much for the Narnia story to handle and Tolkien was one of Lewis's friends that pushed him toward Christianity. So in my opinion a good author will be able to get any message across he wants and tell a good story. Bad authors tend to preach a bit much at the expense of the story.


message 3: by Nick (last edited Mar 11, 2012 10:03AM) (new)

Nick (Whyzen) | 1260 comments I just thought of a example of this. Michael Crichton who I normally loved as a writer totally flubbed in The Lost World. There is a part in it where Ian Malcolm is hopped up on morphine because of a injury . In a fever fit Malcolm spends a good 2 or 3 pages ranting about the evils of a connected culture and how bad the internet was going to be for everyone. Totally took me out of the story.

EDIT: I read this back in 1996 so might be getting this wrong. I'm trying to find a reference to the rant but so far haven't had much luck.


Rob Osterman (RobOsterman) I'll agree with Nick, mostly. The real issue, generally, is not what views an author may have, but if the presentation of those views interfere with good story telling. Does, for example, JK Rowlings' stated atheism affect the quality of story she weaves? Or, does her lack of Christianity make the novels any less appealing? Would the Potter-verse be more engaging if it had God(s)?

The other possible issue could be related tangently, which is when an author uses a book to push a personal agenda. Perhaps the story is a good one, but even a moderately enlightened reader can spot the propaganda where it occurs. The question then becomes "Should we give money to this individual who expresses these ideas?"

For example, suppose I wrote a series of novels set on an alternate Earth with very very strict gender roles. Then it came out that not only do I write that, but I firmly believe that women are best seen, never heard, and absolutely never listened to.

Would you slight someone for not just saying they don't like my politics but also saying "And that sexist jerk won't get a penny out of us!"?

My personal belief is that any author takes his (or her) career in their own hands when they put out too much personal politics or religion. Why give anyone a reason ~not~ to buy something? Humans tend to respond to negative stimuli far more than positive. We avoid the bad more than we seek out the good. As such we're much more likely to turn down a book based on the personal politics of a writer then we are to seek it out.


Doug S. (dougoftheabaci) | 248 comments Sometimes I can get by it, but it takes a very good story. Extremely good, in fact. Even when I agree with the message it can get very annoying. The whole book-within-a-book part of 1984 is something I skipped the second time around. It's a thinly-veiled lecture. Likewise, I couldn't get through The Handmaiden's Tale because it had so little story and so much lecture. But Oryx and Crake had that story, and it was a good one, so I loved every second of it.

But if I find out the politics/beliefs of an author—or any other creative professional—and they are completely incompatible with my own then I tend to avoid them simply because I do not wish to support them.

Then, it really depends on their beliefs. If someone is deeply religious it doesn't bother me because, most of the time, that's rather harmless. However, if someone is a raving homophobe then there's no way I'm ever going to give them a single penny. Such a repugnant individual does not deserve it.


message 6: by Mike (last edited Mar 11, 2012 01:04PM) (new)

Mike Thicke (MikeThicke) | 68 comments There are two mostly separate issues here. One is the political/moral/social views of the author, and the other is the political/moral/social viewpoint expressed in the book. I don't vet an author's views before reading any book, though when I hear that an author has views that I strongly disagree with it does affect my decision of whether to read any of their work.

However, when an author's viewpoint is expressed in their work, whether implicitly or explicitly, it will affect my enjoyment of the book. This isn't just whether I find the book pedantic or not, but whether I'm comfortable with the viewpoint being expressed. I can't think of any examples right now, but if I found any book to be overly conservative, pro-war, homophobic, racist, or sexist, I certainly wouldn't enjoy it no matter how good the story.

Conversely, when an author's views correspond with my own, I'm more likely to enjoy the book. For instance a strong, realistic homosexual relationship or an intelligent non-stereotyped female character.


Doug S. (dougoftheabaci) | 248 comments It depends on context and how prevalent it is in the story. If there are characters who believe things I find objectionable but it's not being rammed down my throat every five minutes then I'm fine with it as long as it's used well.


Alterjess | 318 comments Once I became aware of Orson Scott Card's extreme homophobic views, I stopped being able to enjoy his books. I can reread the old ones if I squint, but haven't bought anything new of his in almost a decade. (Don't get me started on the character assassination of Petra as soon as she went through puberty. One of the handful of times I have literally thrown a book across a room, and that was the end of the Shadow books for me.)

Charlie Stross made an ass of himself all over the internet during the "Racefail" debacle a few years back, and while it hasn't stopped me reading his books, I do prefer to get them from the library these days.

And the more I find out about Piers Anthony, the more I'm relieved that I purged him from my collection when I moved out of my parents' house.

So I can't say that I've ever stopped reading an author purely because of their political views, I've definitely had experiences where knowing more about an author has changed the way I look at their works.


Alterjess | 318 comments On the flip side of what I just posted, the more I learn about John Scalzi, the more I think his politics and worldviews are awesome, but it hasn't gotten me to buy any more of his books. It just means I read more of his blog.

(I don't dislike his books, but the writing style doesn't grab me to the point where I seek them out when there's so much ELSE to read out there.)


Jason Bergman (loonyboi) | 161 comments I like to pretend that every writer shares my political views. I don't really care if a writer has a wildly different viewpoint (even one as insane as Orson Scott Card) as long as it doesn't affect the work itself.

Having said that, I find myself repelled enough by Card that I just don't want to give him my money anymore. That's a different issue.


message 11: by Dharmakirti (last edited Mar 13, 2012 08:00AM) (new)

Dharmakirti | 676 comments Personally, I don't really care about an author's personal politics or views...I just care wether or not the story I am reading is any good.
Art (literature) sould be about opening up to the other, about challenging and provoking ones sense of certainty. My sense of certainty cannot be challenged if I only read things by authors whose beliefs align with my own.
There is also a larger cultural issue at play. If we only read things written by those who already share a bulk of our ideals and values, then we start to think of art (literature) in terms of resemblences and not effects. We start saying that, for example, Jonathan Franzen writes literature, not because of the effect it has on it's audience but because it resembles other books those with specialized training consider to be "literature."
I highly recommend checking out R. Scott Bakker's blog, Three Pound Brain(http://rsbakker.wordpress.com/) especially the following posts:
The Future of Literature in the Age of Information
The Myth of the Vulgar Cage
Doughnuts for the Heart, Broccoli for the Soul


Mike | 36 comments Regarding Card, does he merely holds views some here disagree with or is he actively seeking to engage in what could be viewed as prejudicial behaviour? Does he appear to write hatefully in his books towards certain groups he disagrees with, or just state an opinIon with reasoning?

I ask because I do very deeply disagree with Hitler's views on race, and yet I still want to read his work to try and understand his thinking. Maybe this is a bad example, but it seems to me some here will not read books unless they know they will agree with the author ideologically. That does not seem like critical thinking to me. I would agree with the previous posters on story though.


Jason Bergman (loonyboi) | 161 comments Mike wrote: "Regarding Card, does he merely holds views some here disagree with or is he actively seeking to engage in what could be viewed as prejudicial behaviour?"

As far as I know, he's always kept his books relatively separate from his political views. But if you search around the internet you can easily find some truly hateful political commentary.


message 14: by Kate (last edited Mar 12, 2012 08:01AM) (new)

Kate O'Hanlon (kateohanlon) | 769 comments Mike wrote: "Regarding Card, does he merely holds views some here disagree with or is he actively seeking to engage in what could be viewed as prejudicial behaviour? Does he appear to write hatefully in his boo..."

Card's rewrite of Hamlet, Hamlet's Father, linked homosexuality and paedophilia together in a fairly gross way (I haven't read it fully, but you can get most of the gist of it from Amazon's look-inside feature if you look for the Tor anthology the novella originally appeared in, the writing is pretty atrocious). Here's the original review that sparked off the most recent attacks on Card.

He's also on the National Organization for Marriage's board and has said numerous offensive things about homosexuality in print. Just google 'Orson Scott Card homophobia' or check out his wikipedia for other examples.
The combination of the fact that he writes books I find offensive and that he uses his money and fame to support causes that I think are hateful means that he will not be getting any of my money now or ever.

On the other hand I'll keep buying Brandon Sanderson's Wheel of Time books. Because even though we disagree about homosexuality he's not a total asshole about it.

The Hitler example is different for me, first of all it's a historical document, and also the royalties aren't going to Hitler or any sort of neo-Nazi organisation (unless you're buying it from neo-Nazi's, I presume you're not).


Rob Osterman (RobOsterman) Hmm.... I think you'll find much more value in reading a historical figure's non-fiction than you will reading their fiction. And there is additional value, I find, in trying to understand the worst of the world to help avoid their atrocities recurring.

On the other hand, I understand that Ayn Rand beats people pretty over the head with her dogma making her novels almost read like non-fiction. In the name of full disclosure, I've not read them so I can't say for sure either way.


Sean O'Hara (SeanOHara) | 1724 comments Mike wrote: "Regarding Card, does he merely holds views some here disagree with or is he actively seeking to engage in what could be viewed as prejudicial behaviour? Does he appear to write hatefully in his boo..."

Card has stated that gay marriage constitutes sufficient grounds for the violent overthrow of the government. He's also written a retelling of Hamlet in which Hamlet's father is a gay pedophile (the two terms being synonymous in Card's worldview, apparently) who turned Horatio, Laertes, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern gay by molesting them. Yeah, sorry, I'm not giving the guy my money.

And it has nothing to do with Card being a conservative -- I won't buy Will Shetterly or Elizabeth Moon novels because of their ass-hattery on RaceFail and Islam, respectively, yet they're both liberals.

I ask because I do very deeply disagree with Hitler's views on race, and yet I still want to read his work to try and understand his thinking. Maybe this is a bad example, but it seems to me some here will not read books unless they know they will agree with the author ideologically. That does not seem like critical thinking to me. I would agree with the previous posters on story though.

Here's the thing: the US seized the copyright for Mein Kampf during WWII and later sold it to Houghton Mifflin. If the copyright were instead retained by the American National Socialist Party, I would have severe moral qualms with anyone buying the book.


Mike | 36 comments Interesting thoughts all, thanks for keeping this civil and on point! Now I want to track down Card's Hamlet re-do and see what the guy actually said!!


message 18: by Dharmakirti (last edited Mar 12, 2012 08:28AM) (new)

Dharmakirti | 676 comments I think it is important that depiction not be confused with endorsement.
When reading something like Card's Hamlet's Father I think it is important to ask oneself:
1.) Is the author depicting something with the intent to provoke or challenge the reader OR
2.) Is the author depicting soemthing with the intent to endorse a specific worldview?
In order to answer either of these questions, one does need to read the text. I haven't read Hamlet's Father, yet. I am a gay man and I am not particularly drawn to Hamlet's Father, but before I can claim that the text is homophobic, I would need to engage the text and determine whether or not Hamlet's Father is depicting or endorsing the idea that homosexuality is linked or is caused by pedophilia.


Rob Osterman (RobOsterman) Dharmakirti wrote: "I think it is important that depiction not be confused with endorsement.
When reading something like Card's Hamlet's Father I think it is important to ask oneself:
1.) Is the author depicting s..."


Perhaps this is where knowing the real views of an author can sway people to or from a given book. We may see a perponderounce of two-dimensional cliche female characters. But we might not feel that the book is overall sexist until we also know that those characters appear that way ~because~ of the author's personal opinions.

I read a rather scathing review of Game of Thrones last summer (I'll try to find it again) that went after Martin for this, specifically the lack of a decent, non-cliched woman. Is this a statement of Martin? The world he built? Does it hurt the value of the story?


message 20: by Kate (last edited Mar 12, 2012 08:14AM) (new)

Kate O'Hanlon (kateohanlon) | 769 comments Dharmakirti wrote: "I think it is important that depiction not be confused with endorsement.
When reading something like Card's Hamlet's Father I think it is important to ask oneself:
1.) Is the author depicting s..."


Right, you need to read Hamlet's Father to know that it's a homophobic novella (with a little creativity you can use the search inside feature to read it all http://www.amazon.com/The-Ghost-Quart...)
But you don't need to read it to know that Card himself is a homophobe.
Here's something he wrote in 2004
The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that dares not speak its name -- is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.
source

I'm happy enough not to spend money on an author like that no matter what his books are about.


Kate O'Hanlon (kateohanlon) | 769 comments Rob wrote: "read a rather scathing review of Game of Thrones last summer (I'll try to find it again) that went after Martin for this, specifically the lack of a decent, non-cliched woman. Is this a statement of Martin? The world he built? Does it hurt the value of the story? "

Was it Sady Doyle's review on Tiger Beatdown?

(I thought it was an amusing but shallow review)


Rob Osterman (RobOsterman) Yes and no. I read a few of those and that was one. There was another that was a response to the review that half agreed but from the view point of someone who did not come into the conversation hating fantasy authors.


Jason Bergman (loonyboi) | 161 comments Oof. I missed Card's Hamlet thing (probably because I tend to avoid Card entirely). That's pretty nasty.


message 24: by Kate (last edited Mar 12, 2012 08:45AM) (new)

Kate O'Hanlon (kateohanlon) | 769 comments There were a few awesome things to come out of the Hamlet's Ghost debacle.
One was the "Buy a Big Gay Novel for Orson Scott Card Day" meme, which prompted me to finally buy and read Ink and Steel by Elizabeth Bear, which was great. (Though, thread topic in mind, Elizabeth Bear did not exactly cover herself in glory during RaceFail).

Another was Scott Lynch's hilarious retelling of Henry V in the style of Orson Scott Card.


Rob wrote: "Yes and no. I read a few of those and that was one. There was another that was a response to the review that half agreed but from the view point of someone who did not come into the conversation ..."
I'd like to read that if you can remember who wrote it.


message 25: by Dharmakirti (last edited Mar 12, 2012 09:03AM) (new)

Dharmakirti | 676 comments Kate wrote: "Dharmakirti wrote: "I think it is important that depiction not be confused with endorsement.
When reading something like Card's Hamlet's Father I think it is important to ask oneself:
1.) Is the ..."


Anecdotes and statements made by the author all lead me down the path that Mr. Card is a homophobe and as a gay man, it does make me less inclined to read Hamlet's Father. However, I'm still willing to read other works by the author (Ender's Game is sitting on my To-Read pile).

I have many friends that have moral failings, I'm not going to discount Card completely because he has some moral failings, too.


Rob Osterman (RobOsterman) I found some stuff:

http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2011/...

I got to it from the League of Ordinary Gentlemen (where I've been honored to post as a guest writer).

http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/20...


Mike | 36 comments I might also suggest that to label someone or an idea as "homophobic" (or any other label) requires the use of judgement. Sometimes judgements are easy to make within a society (like abusing children is wrong), others are more difficult. In this case, I certainly agree that Card is promoting thinking about homosexuality that challenges current status quote (Card is promoting nurture over against nature). But do you think he is coming from a perspective that is fearful of homosexuality, which is the meaning of a phobia? It seems from the Card quote above that he is suggesting all homosexuality is derived through environmental conditions, a suggestion that I do not agree with. However, I am not sure I agree that he is coming from a position of fear regarding homosexuality. Maybe this is just how the word "homophobic" has changed in our culture and now means something more along the lines of anti-homosexual as being natural or "right".

Not trying to be difficult here, just interested to note how people are interpreting Card's words.


Mike Thicke (MikeThicke) | 68 comments Whether Card strictly meets the definition of homophobe is really beside the point.


message 29: by Dharmakirti (last edited Mar 12, 2012 10:00AM) (new)

Dharmakirti | 676 comments Rob wrote: "I found some stuff:

http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2011/...

I got to it from the ..."


Rob (an others), you may also be interested in the following. I personally think that this is a particularly vile and nasty piece of rage pretending to be criticism, but it touched off quite a bit of discussion on the issue of misogyny and depiction vs endorsement.

Critique:
R Scott Bakker Prince of Misogyny

Author's Repsonse: (best to read them in the order listed)
1. Misanthropology 101
2. Requires only Haidt
3. Gonads versus Nomads


Mike | 36 comments Mike wrote: "Whether Card strictly meets the definition of homophobe is really beside the point."

Might be, I just found it interesting.


Doug S. (dougoftheabaci) | 248 comments I'm not so interested in status quo debates. It's a bit reducto ad absurdum to say, but once upon a time slavery was the status quo for much of the civilized world. We don't think that way anymore.

In the end, when it comes to writing, it's all about context. Are you writing the character as gay and implying it's bad because he's a bad person or because homosexuality is a bad thing? If it's the former I have no issue with it because gay people can be evil, just as straight people can. But if you're implying the character is evil because he's gay, that's where I have a problem.


Alterjess | 318 comments Mike wrote: "Maybe this is just how the word "homophobic" has changed in our culture and now means something more along the lines of anti-homosexual as being natural or "right". "

I'm not sure the word "homophobia" has ever meant "fear of homosexuals" in common usage. At least in my experience, it's always been an equivalent term to "racist" (which, in common usage, does not mean "one who is in favor of race" so at least American English is consistently etymologically incorrect).


Doug S. (dougoftheabaci) | 248 comments Homophobia is a fear of gays; it's a -phobia. Bigotry is the more common term used to describe an irrational dislike of another person based on some group affiliation.

Racism is just bigotry relative to race.


Sean O'Hara (SeanOHara) | 1724 comments Doug wrote: "Homophobia is a fear of gays; it's a -phobia."

English doesn't work that way. The meaning of a word is derived from usage, not etymology, and "homophobe" is used to mean bigotry, not fear of homosexuals, just as hydrophobia is used for rabies, not fear of water.


Doug S. (dougoftheabaci) | 248 comments Sean wrote: "Doug wrote: "Homophobia is a fear of gays; it's a -phobia."

English doesn't work that way. The meaning of a word is derived from usage, not etymology, and "homophobe" is used to mean bigotry, not ..."


English might not but latin does and "homophobia" is latin. But we're splitting hairs, here. I concede that in the common vernacular "homophobia" is used as a place-holder for a strong disliking of homosexuals based on their sexual preference.

I think we're getting too hung up on homophobia, though. I don't stop my dislike for authors based on their feelings towards another's sexual preferences. To me, it's any misuse of any form of bigotry where the author implies the person is bad because of that inert trait and not because they are a bad person because of their actions.

Similar to the issue I have with Disney over the inability he had to portray the Irish as anything other than drunken brawlers, blacks as lazy and ignorant, or women as feckless damsels in distress.

As you might imagine, I find Dumbo and a few other early Disney films very hard to watch. Thankfully, Robin Hood was always a safe one.


Alterjess | 318 comments If we're going to split hairs to that extent, "homophobia" means "fear of sameness" and doesn't inherently relate to gay people at all.

But if it really matters, I'm happy to start calling OSC a bigot instead. :)

Early Disney films are pretty terrible in that regard - I wound up with a collection of old Disney shorts on DVD and was letting my kid watch them because, hey, Disney! Kid-friendly, right? Sure, if you don't mind phrases like "the wind whipped up into a frenzy like an angry Cherokee"...GAH.


Doug S. (dougoftheabaci) | 248 comments Jess wrote: "If we're going to split hairs to that extent, "homophobia" means "fear of sameness" and doesn't inherently relate to gay people at all."

Yeah, I have no end of enjoyment over that fact.

Disney was pretty horrible back in the day. There are very few that are actually safe. The Lion King being one of the few. Ish. There are moments...

But Pixar is completely safe, luckily.


Rob Osterman (RobOsterman) When did "the Lion King" become "back in the day"?

God I'm getting old.... now. Get off my lawn!


Doug S. (dougoftheabaci) | 248 comments Hey, I still remember seeing it in the theatres as a little kid.


Jason Bergman (loonyboi) | 161 comments Doug wrote: "Disney was pretty horrible back in the day. There are very few that are actually safe. The Lion King being one of the few. Ish. There are moments..."

My daughter watches early disney movies all the time. They're just fine. The shorts can be hairy, but the movies are just fine, for the most part.

Peter Pan is probably the only movie that raises more issues than I'd like (the "what made the red man red" song requires some historical context), but that's completely wrapped up in the source material as well (which we've also read together).

The exception to that is "Song of the South" which I saw as a kid, and remember fairly clearly but has never been released in any home format. Which on the one hand is a shame (it is an academy award winning movie) but on the other hand...is really offensive on many levels.

In any event, I think we're off the subject here. :)


Dharmakirti | 676 comments One way in which I see homophobia being a proper term used to discuss anti-gay views is in regards to rationality. To have a phobia is to have an irrational fear/reation to something. When it comes to anti-gay rhetoric, so much of it is so irrational that the only term I can think of to describe those views is homophobic.


Boots (Rubberboots) | 499 comments I still think Orson Scott Card is a closeted homosexual and is suffering from a serious case of cognitive dissonance. Because homosexuality conflicts with his religious beliefs (which are both bigoted and homophobic) he has doubled down on his religion and uses that "faith" to justify his attacks on homosexuality.

When I read Ender's Game I thoroughly enjoyed it. I read it before I knew anything about OSC but even then I thought there were a few moments in the novel that were what I would consider to be homoerotic situations.

So when I read his essays railing against homosexuality and specifically what Kate posted

The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that dares not speak its name -- is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.


I read "I've had sex with men and enjoyed it, but thank god I didn't get stuck in that gay community. If it wasn't for the Mormons and Joseph Smith I'd still be sucking lots of penis because I love it so much."- which is an almost perfect translation.


Doug S. (dougoftheabaci) | 248 comments The one issue is "irrational" is very much based on perspective. To someone who is deeply religious our position would be irrational. I mean, it says quite clearly in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin and the Catholic Church (as well as most other Abrahamic faiths) outright condemns the practice, if not the individual (which most usually do).

The thing is, there would be an argument to be made for including it in a story. If, for example, you wanted to draw attention to the issue in an attempt to create dialogue, even if you didn't come down on one side or the other.


Alterjess | 318 comments Doug wrote: "Hey, I still remember seeing it in the theatres as a little kid."

Whippersnapper.


Doug S. (dougoftheabaci) | 248 comments Dharmakirti wrote: "I think author's do their best when they straddle the fence so to speak. When they engage in a topic without endorsing or condeming. "

I completely agree. I know some people dislike authors who do this, but I think it speaks very well for an author because they don't take a side and they let the story make that decision, if a decision is ever made at all.

One good example is the racism against gypsies in The Wise Man's Fear. Kvoth gets a fair amount of negative press because of how people view his heritage, especially in the second book. But it's never really said these people are inherently bad because of their opinions. Since Kvoth is the narrator it makes sense that there is some negative connotation, but it's not hammered in that racism against a people is wrong. Just against his people because it's personal.

It's so much more real that way.


Dharmakirti | 676 comments FYI...I deleted the post that Doug is quoting from because I didn't want to get too off topic in regards to homophobia.


message 47: by Kevin (last edited Mar 12, 2012 12:35PM) (new)

Kevin Xu (kxu65) | 915 comments I find that everytime when someone comes up with the topic of an author's political view, Orson Scott Card is the first name that always comes up, espeically his speech back in 1990 on homosexuality.


Mike Thicke (MikeThicke) | 68 comments For what it's worth, I think (the other) Mike began this thread with a reasonable question, and we've now descended into Card-bashing. Card is the lowest of low hanging fruit in this regard. Might I suggest moving on?


Doug S. (dougoftheabaci) | 248 comments Unfortunately, I don't know enough about other author's beliefs to comment. The only other is Douglas Adams, who was a atheist and a liberal so I'm pretty cool with him.


message 50: by Dharmakirti (last edited Mar 12, 2012 12:47PM) (new)

Dharmakirti | 676 comments Rob wrote: "I got to it from the League of Ordinary Gentlemen (where I've been honored to post as a guest writer)."

Rob, I am not a League of Ordinary Genlemen regular reader, but I go there occassionaly and found that I enjoy Erik Kain's pieces. I also like that he is trying to run a book club
for The Darkness That Comes Before


« previous 1
back to top