Vaginal Fantasy Book Club discussion
Book Discussion & Recommendation
>
Does an author’s politics or belief system ever get in the way of your reading pleasure?
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Mell
(new)
Feb 25, 2013 05:46PM
This is possibly a tad random but I am curious; does an author’s politics or belief system ever get in the way of your reading pleasure? I guess to be clearer Orson Scott Card has been in the Press quite a bit recently and is a rather well-known Homophobe and Anti-Gay marriage campaigner. Doesn’t that ever put you off buying an author’s work even if their personal beliefs don’t necessarily reflect in their body of work? Can you appreciate art for art’s sake without the creators imprint influencing you and your own biases… stuff……
reply
|
flag
Sometimes, if the author is very heavily adamant. And definitely if the author continues the opinion into their work.
Depends. If that belief is reflected in their work and I disagree with said belief, then yes, it will get in the way. However, I try not to learn too much about authors for this very reason. I like to focus on the work and not the one who created it. I respect the effort that went into it, and with very few exceptions will I look into an author's life.
Terry Goodkinds blatant 'fight against communism' storylines put me off his series, as I felt like he was just trying to push his ideals on me, even though I already agreed.
It's a great question. And I'm going to namby-pamby it by saying: it depends.Really good writing is a pleasure to read no matter the topic, POV or agenda. I'm sure everybody has read something that was beautifully written, but expressed a sentiment with which they disagree. You can appreciate the artistry of a well crafted sentence without embracing the idea it expresses.
When it comes to political ideas of an author expressed outside his/er work things get a little rough. I'm thinking in particular of an historian I've read who has written some of the most amazing biographies. Rich in detail, beautifully written, well-researched, etc. Unfortunately, he also espouses a particularly heinous political belief. That belief doesn't seem to affect his work directly. It could be said to influence his fascination, but I've read his biographies with an eye for such a bias, and I can't find one.
So, I don't have a problem reading something like that as long as one is aware of the bias. However, I wouldn't argue the point with anyone who refused to read such a writer.
If the writing itself screams an opinion at me that I disagree with, I just can't read it. But if it doesn't, only the author his/herself expresses the opinion I'm more likely to read the work. I don't usually follow news/gossip enough to know the political leanings of authors. I'd like to say I just wouldn't read the works of someone I strongly disagree with, and thus support my moral high ground... But honestly, I don't care, I just want to read a good book.
For me, yes, it matters. Will it stop me from reading someone's work? Depends on a lot of factors. Is the cause he or she espouses/opposes something I have strong opinions about? Is it affecting the work in a way I find annoying? Is it just a passing thing? Case by case, in other words. What it comes down to is, How annoying do I find the author?As I've said elsewhere, I read OSC back in the day and never did like his work, so I'm not conflicted there.
It might get in the way if the author shows her/his belief system as the only right one.
No. Why would I let an author's private opinon affect my desire to read a certain book? A great book is a great book. To consciously not read a book because I don't agree with an author's personal political or religious beliefs would be immature and foolish.The only way an author's beliefs will push me away is if his or her beliefs are preached to me in a book. If they are used in a reasonable manner to enhance the progression of the story, I am fine with it.
(Same goes for reading pleasure. I noticed you meant the reading experience. I wouldn't think less of an author or book unless the beliefs were used to preach. I have no respect for people who preach to me what is right or what I should think.)
Mell wrote: "This is possibly a tad random but I am curious; does an author’s politics or belief system ever get in the way of your reading pleasure? "Not really. But, if I find it obnoxious, I am more likely to find it in the library or borrow from a friend, finding some way not to line the author's coffers. ;)
PS I do this with movies as well.
Nope. There are plenty of authors/artists/actors whose work I enjoy, who I would NOT care to know on a personal level, and whose political/personal views I may or may not agree with. My enjoyment of the work itself is separate from my opinion of the artist. How many weddings use Wagner's Bridal Chorus for the bride's entrance, without giving any thought to the political position of the composer?
Raven wrote: "Depends. If that belief is reflected in their work and I disagree with said belief, then yes, it will get in the way. However, I try not to learn too much about authors for this very reason. I like..."Yes, Raven. I avoid learning too much about authors for the same reason; it usually spoils reading their work. The same thing is true of music. Many composers were/are real pigs but their music is beautiful. Mozart comes to mind. Why spoil beauty with reality?
For me, this doesn't apply to my Goodreads world. I love getting to know fellow authors here and sharing ideas with them because it's something I will probably never be able to do with my idols whose work has made the bestseller lists.
I follow one of my favorite authors here and on facebook and I love hearing what she has to say. She'll ask for our opinions on what she's working on or try to do research through her fans. It's a wonderful experience, really. I don't think anyone should impose their beliefs on people, wether their authors or not. An opinion is an opinion and everyone should be entitled to one :)
Sonja wrote: Not really. But, if I find it obnoxious, I am more likely to find it in the library or borrow from a friend, finding some way not to line the author's coffers. ;)..."
Really interesting points from everyone, I wonder if there is a tipping point though. Although you may not follow closely with all the authors in general or their lives if hypothetically a prominent literary figure were to I don’t know start funding a Radical militarised organisation with a high death toll and a need to oppress everyone would that change your opinion? Would you consider where your money actually goes when it leaves your hand?
In saying that is it not also up to publishers to potentially take responsibility for said hypothetical personage and say “err we don’t like funding people who potentially hurt other people” instead of the usual disclaimer of not holding to the Authors beliefs. Hmmm too much ramble? Off point? Who knows, I just ponder these things.
Mell wrote: "In saying that is it not also up to publishers to potentially take responsibility for said hypothetical personage and say “err we don’t like funding people who potentially hurtw other people” instead of the usual disclaimer of not holding to the Authors beliefs. Hmmm too much ramble? Off point? Who knows, I just ponder these things. "At what point, though, does this become censorship?
And where do you draw the line for your tipping point? Is it physical harm is done BY the author? If they were indirectly involved? funded it? funded something where an associated part were involved in something you objected to? Wrote an article in support of? What about emotional harm? psychological harm? If they hurt somebody's feelings?
Just because I disagree or disapprove of what someone is saying or supporting, in no way means that they do not have the right (in my opinion, and by the laws of my country) to say or express it.
There may well be an act so heinous that if an author were to commit it I wouldn't want to read their works because my horror would color anything associated with them. Then again, if they espouse a position in opposition to my position, I may well want to read their work to understand what they are saying. It is wise to know what one's opponents are up to, after all.
These discussions do cause one to think, don't they?
ladymurmur wrote: "At what point, though, does this become censorship? And where do you draw the line for your tipping point? Is it physical harm is done BY the author? If they were indirectly involved?..."
They do and I find it fascinating. I am curious about how people perceive art and where it came from. Do you ever buy a book and consider where your money is actually going. In the case of Orson Scott Card he has a movie coming out and I remember reading an article where people were talking about boycotting the movie. It made me consider, do we lay the authors bigotry at feet of the production company? Should we punish the actors and the director and attack the story itself? Where do we stop? Or should we appreciate art for art’s sake? Where is the line drawn for each person?
Yes! Orson Scott Card is a perfect example of this. I refuse to support him financially, which means avoiding his books.
I tend to put a number value on things sometimes, which is really only as legit as one treats it, but here's how I think this might go:I think there is a tipping point for this kind of situation, but I don't think it resides in any one criteria. That is, there are three or four characteristics of a book that this issue probably rests on:
1. Quality of the writing.
2. The importance of the book (culturally, as a piece of literature, or maybe just as a school assignment....)
3. Politics expressed in the novel.
4. Politics of the author outside his/er work.
The tipping point might be where someone subjectively adds up those qualities and they come out to have more negatives than positives. For example, I like A Handmaid's Tale but if I were a religiously motivated, pro-lifer I'd probably subtract more points from #3 and #4 than the points I'd award for #1 and #2. But if it was REALLY important (for school, for example) then one might have to reassess. The tipping point would be if it adds up to 0 in such a rating system, subjective though that may be.
If I were a Treant-American, however, I might have to get high scores to all four categories for JRRT's books, turning that into a "must read" harumm-haroom....
Mell wrote: "ladymurmur wrote: "At what point, though, does this become censorship? And where do you draw the line for your tipping point? Is it physical harm is done BY the author? If they were indirectly in..."
I am an artist and thus appreciate art for the sake of art. What the person behind the art does besides producing art is irrelevant to my appreciation of the art itself and I refuse to allow opinions of the individual cloud the opinion of the art. For me refusing to acknowledge or appreciate the art of someone in a way is comparable to refusing to work alongside an employee at the same office because your political or religious beliefs differ. Wouldn't that to some extent be discriminating, as I am an artist and often collaborate with other artists? If you understand.
If I didn't view art this way I would refuse to read, watch or listen to approximately 80% of the books, movies or musicians I appreciate today. It wouldn't work. And isn't it also unfair to deliberately choose not to read books by someone, or watch movies with certain actors, because of their preferences if you don't apply that attitude in general? If you let some "slip" and others not?
No. I think it is important to differentiate the private person from the public figure.
I would definitely boycott a book or a movie - but never for the opinion of the person behind it - only for the lack of quality in the work.
I really enjoy the Sword of Truth series, but I do have to skim over all of Terry Goodkind's self-righteous political babble. If it was used in a subtle way, it would not bother me at all, but the way he crams it down your throat is off-putting. It's the same with Philip Pullman's atheist views. If the series had just been subtle and caused you to question the existence of God I wouldn't have minded it whatsoever, but he seems to scream "GOD is a MYTH!" louder and louder as the story progresses. I doubt if I would buy anything else he wrote because of it. Not because I disagree, but because I find that kind of heavy-handed reader manipulation annoying.
I'm going to express a different view than the group. I will and have chosen not to purchase/read/watch/experience some form of art for the sole reason of the political/moral/ethical/whatever stance of the creator of the art. I refuse to spend my money and support a person or organization that goes against my values.I'm not saying that they shouldn't be published or be in business or whatever, just that I won't support it.
And let me clarify that if a person simply has a differing view from me that's not an issue. For example, if an author said "I am against gay marriage." then wrote books that had nothing to do with gay marriage and the author didn't make a big hoopla about it, I would totally read their books even though our politics disagree (if their writing was good, of course). I've also supported author who have said some terrible things but then later realized what they said and apologized. Everyone puts their foot in their mouth, I get it.
What I cannot abide is when a person becomes attacking and violent. When a person spreads hate and lies.
A good example is the artist Jessica Galbreth. I collected her fantasy art for years and really loved it. But then she became a Christian and went on the 700 club saying that her previous art was "satanic" and that it was full of evil intent. I took this personally and sold my collection because her art was tainted for me. Call me immature and foolish, but I couldn't look at the art without seeing the hate and intolerance she was spreading. It would have been different if she has simply stated "I have become a Christian and because of my change in religious views I will no longer be making fantasy art". I would have been sad but supportive of her decision.
I guess it comes down to not so much the fact that their beliefs don't align with my own, but it's in how they present their beliefs. If they are polite and rational, it doesn't color my interpretation of their work. It's only when someone becomes belligerent that I get offended and choose to spend my money and time elsewhere.
There is a difference between a person, or in this case an author, having a private opinion on an issue which differs from mine and a person who is publicly campaigning for something which I find detestable. Everyone is allowed an opinion and should vote their conscience accordingly both at the polls and with their money. However, people who use the money which I have helped provide them to fund things which make my stomach turn are certainly not going to be using my money for such actions in the future. I can still appreciate the quality of their work, but I'm not giving them another dime.A good example is Stephenie Meyer and her Twilight series. I'm not a fan of the Mormon church or their beliefs, nor did I particularly like the parts of the books which advocated staying pure until marriage or continuing a pregnancy which was dangerous to the mother's health. However, I bought the books and don't feel too guilty about it because they were fun and diverting much like funnel cake at the state fair. I haven't seen any headlines that Stephenie Meyer is funding any gay teen conversion camps or that she's scheduled a 50 state pro-life speaking tour. I'm sure some of her royalties go to the Mormon church and/or other causes which would make me cringe, but she's not become a public crusader so I can live with this level of support.
The flip side of that coin is L. Ron Hubbard. I don't care if his books are so profound and have such an effect they could get me into a size smaller jeans. No way no how am I even indirectly giving that man, his estate, or his church so much as a penny.
Dame Margo wrote: "There is a difference between a person, or in this case an author, having a private opinion on an issue which differs from mine and a person who is publicly campaigning for something which I find d..."As far as Mormons go...I hated Twilight.
But I am one of nine siblings, and all those who are still living are Mormons. Certain things baffle me. Like apparently, if you have progressed to sex, you either have to break up, or get married. Only choices.
I was raised Mormon until I was 9, and Catholic until I was 18. I'm vaguely Christian, and belong to no organized religion.
The only time an author's politics has been called to my attention, was when my conservative stepmother read her first Karin Slaughter book. She's gone on to read them all, though.
That depends very much on whether the work itself is more invested in pushing the opinions of the author than telling a good story. Realistically we cannot avoid seeing some of the author's opinions reflected in their work. It's part of their thought process just as much as it is our own, and colours our own contributions to the world. It's also nice to be exposed to differing opinions in a (relatively) non-confrontational medium, allowing people a place to consider other viewpoints and perhaps expand their minds a little, whether or not their opinions change.As for reading pleasure, I had no problem reading Ender's Game, though I disliked the remainder of that series. Not due to Card's political opinion (which I do strongly disagree with), but because I did not think they were well written. His politics seem to be mostly toned down in his earlier works, though they are still very much present. Not sure about the more recent endeavours.
I also hated the Twilight series; the portrayal of seriously unhealthy relationships as a worthy goal for young women is awful. It has nothing to do with Meyer's religion other than perhaps that being the influence for the characterization of her protagonists. I would be willing to read other authors who share a similar background but wrote better characters or plots.
Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series is an example of an author that I started out okay with, not the best characters (lack depth) but a decent enough plot at first. Several books in, however, it became a heavy-handed thesis on the evils of communism and the heroic rightness of capitalism/objectivism. All extremes, black hats and white hats and nothing in between. It turned into a caricature of itself. Ayn Rand would have been proud. Rand is another example of an author whose personal philosophy so strongly influenced her work to the extent that I can't bring myself to read more of it. (Though some day I hope to have more control over my emotions and be able to do a study of the differences between Rand's work and that of George Orwell, who wrote on a similar theme but with differing philosophies in real life.)
On the flip side of this theme are the authors who seem to agree to my own opinions, though this may also limit reading pleasure in some cases. Stories that are too heavy-handed, strike too close to home, or whose characters are far too stereotypical bring me out of the world of the book. S.M. Stirling's Emberverse series always manages to do just that, though I like the plot enough to keep trying to finish the series. The neo-mystical hippie-esque protagonists are a bit complex, though they often lack a real personality. The capitalistic/feudalistic antagonists are simply evil for evil's sake, with little to no motivation behind their behaviour. Contrast this with J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of The Rings series, where there are also extremes between the good guys (white robes and pretty people) and bad guys (dark, dirty and ugly), yet the characters display a lot of gray. Our heroes all have flaws, they fall prey to their desires, fears and weaknesses while our villains (with the exception of Sauron himself, who is more of an anthropomorphic general evil and not really a character)display moments where we can sympathize, empathize or pity them. And none of them came out of it unscathed.
It's a delicate balance, writing a story that sweeps a reader away into another world but also appeals to them as people in the real world. This is not necessarily a bad thing, it can force an author to tighten up their game or create more complex characters. A writer who is able to create a world that reflects his or her opinion in an interesting and well written manner is always welcome. After all, delving into the unknown is part of the fun.
While I can feel opposed to an author's work because of what they might do with the money, case in point Orson Scott Card and the homophobic activist groups he openly funds, I'm more generally unlikely to read a book if I don't like the author's attitude/personality. I just feel like their negative attributes would be reflected in their work and I probably wouldn't enjoy it.
This thread reminded me of a quote:Writers should be read but not seen. Rarely are they a winsome sight.
-Edna Ferber
Not exactly right for our purposes, but I do think we can extend the logic a bit into this topic. A writer's voice, outside his/er work, is often something of a disappointment. I find Anne Rice's books entertaining, but I'm not convinced seeing her interviewed has done much for my expectations of her work. Stephen King, on the other hand, doesn't often disappoint. He's an interesting speaker in addition to being a prolific writer.
Expectations about what an author's social or political views might be are probably going to be disappointed given the relative frailties of humans. More often than not I'm attracted to a book by hearing an writer talk about it, but on occasion I've been repelled by the same process. Maybe that's not entirely a sensible thing to do....
Candice wrote: "Terry Goodkinds blatant 'fight against communism' storylines put me off his series, as I felt like he was just trying to push his ideals on me, even though I already agreed."This is the author that came to mind for me with this question. I read the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind. I liked the first two or three but, as the series progressed, his obvious references to politics and the character's long monologues about communism really got on my nerves. I had to stop reading the series since they seemed almost to be propaganda books at a certain point.
I don't go out of my way to research authors before I read their books so, if I don't already know about their personal beliefs, I wouldn't have a problem reading a book of theirs if I disagreed. Unless their book also contains those beliefs in which case I definitely wouldn't enjoy the book. It really is only a problem for me if their personal beliefs show up in the book itself.
Candice wrote: "Terry Goodkinds blatant 'fight against communism' storylines put me off his series, as I felt like he was just trying to push his ideals on me, even though I already agreed."I came out of lurking just so I could agree with Cayt and Candice on this one. I absolutely loved the first few books of the Wizard's First Rule series. When an evil dictator with mind control powers started excusing his actions under the veil of communism, I tried to go with it. Later, when the hero spent 50(!) pages of monologue explaining to a random group of people why communism is bad, I got bored and quit reading the series. At that point, there was barely the pretense of a story anymore. It was just the author lecturing the reader.
I tend to be a bit dense when it comes to political or religious agendas disguised in the prose of a novel. I take things at face value and don't translate them beyond the setting of the novel. However, as much as I loved the first of Terry Goodkind's books, I couldn't finish the series, and I couldn't figure out what had changed for me. I think I was subconsciously reacting to the overt politics.
I had no idea Orson Scott Card was so active in such a distasteful political agenda. I read Ender's Game years ago, but I might consider skipping the movie because of this.
I certainly skip movies from certain actors who hold religious beliefs too extreme for my taste.
I agree with a lot of the comments here. In general, as long as the author isn't using his/her art to be incredibly preachy and hamfisted about his/her belief system, then I don't care what his/her belief or political system is. If the book or artwork is one long tirade, then I just find it tiresome and Lem-worthy, even if I agree with the artist's general position.Terry Goodkind's works are an excellent example of this, particularly after the first book or two. I also found Avatar to be like that for me or Oliver Stone's work. I can't suspend my disbelief sufficiently to enjoy the movie since all I can hear is that the director is making a POINT (all-caps intended).
The one exception to my general rule above is if the author or artist's behavior is sufficiently heinous or criminal and their ongoing art allows that behavior to continue. So, I refuse to support Roman Polanski's work or L.Ron Hubbard's work. I do believe this rule has a time limit though as the general effects that an artist has become more diffuse after his/her death if the art is sufficiently good. Wagner and Nietszche would be examples of this.
Margo (DamesUnrestrained.blogspot.com) wrote: "There is a difference between a person, or in this case an author, having a private opinion on an issue which differs from mine and a person who is publicly campaigning for something which I find d..."That's pretty much how I feel on the issue.
This business with Orson Scott Card is one of the only times I've felt compelled to not support someone specifically because of their political beliefs. It's not just that I don't agree with what he believes, it's that he is using his position and money to actively campaign for his anti-gay views. I find it unconscionable to give him my money at this point.
That being said, Ender's Game is still one of my favorite books for many reasons and his views don't take away from my enjoyment of it, but they do open some interesting dialogues when discussing it in public.
I don't think he should be stopped from writing and I'm not necessarily judging anyone who chooses to continue to read his new work. I just won't do it. I'm not holding anything against DC for giving him Superman to write, but I wouldn't buy those issues.
I believe very strongly in freedom of speech, people can say what they want. Just because someone says, or writes, something doesn't mean we're obligated to listen.
For the most part though, an author's private politics won't deter me from enjoying their work if it's something I like aside from that.
I think voting with one's wallet is allegedly how capitalism is supposed to work. No one is guaranteed a revenue stream for their personal effort just because books in general are entertaining. I do tend to notice overt references to social norms in books, or the lack of entire groups of people who are otherwise represented on the human spectrum. I think there's a difference between using norms as part of world-building and/or addressing them in the story, There's also a difference between exploring political systems as part of the story and abusing the implied story contract (you give me your head for a few hours and I'll fill it with neat stuff) to bludgeon readers with the author's views, however sincere.
Absolutely. I love "The Alienist". LOVE. Periodically, I would check on rumblings regarding a third installment, probably twice a month. Then I stumbled across an article quoting Carr about his disdain for his female readers. If I recall correctly, it was for a lesbian newspaper in NYC. It was not the response to the review done by a woman for "The Killing Time". I looked that up and re-read it before I commented. I didn't want to perpetuate anything untrue. I walked away from that article basically feeling like he doesn't care about questions women might have about his books - he doesn't believe we are bright enough (as a group) to comprehend his work. WTF..... I was so disgusted that I gave my two signed copies to our local library for their sale. I really wish I could find a link to that piece, because it was so blatantly unfair of a response to a seemingly innocent question. I don't believe I will ever read another one of his books. There are plenty of other authors writing about the same subject matter. And while the loss of those characters was like losing friends, I won't be back.
Jo wrote: "Ganymede wrote: "While I can feel opposed to an author's work because of what they might do with the money, case in point Orson Scott Card and the homophobic activist groups he openly funds, I'm mo..."Well, for starters he's a board member of the National Organization for marriage, so I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suppose he donates to them.
http://www.nationformarriage.org/site...
Jo wrote: "Ganymede wrote: "While I can feel opposed to an author's work because of what they might do with the money, case in point Orson Scott Card and the homophobic activist groups he openly funds, I'm mo..."As far as I know DC hasn't actually dropped Card's story, the artist who was supposed to draw it made the decision to leave the project. It's on hold and could still potentially be made at a later time.
Has there been any news more than that?
I will say that I didn't like the petition either. I did like people instead using the book as a fundraiser for various LGBT organizations. No censorship and raising money for good causes. One of the best ways to handle a delicate issue.
I'm finding that it also depends on how consistent the agenda is applied to the writing. As a personal project, I'm reading through all the James Bond books by Fleming right now in the order they were published. I just finished #7 Goldfinger, and I'm consistently surprised by the amount of racism in those books. It's a constant, and several books into the series, it's starting to really get on my nerves.Not that it's particularly more fair, but I had expected the sexism in the books. It's more extensive than I suspected it would be, but I was very confident there would be a lot of it. The weird, sometimes random racism, however, came as a surprise to me, especially since it is often unnecessary to the plot or the characters.
In my aforementioned "system" for making these kinds of decisions, Fleming is starting to get a higher value in the "politics" rating. It's not enough to put me off the project, but it's enough that I do not consider myself a fan, and at this point I think he's a racist jackass. Any of his accomplishments as an author should be coupled with an assessment of his lack of character as a person.
Gary wrote: "I'm finding that it also depends on how consistent the agenda is applied to the writing. As a personal project, I'm reading through all the James Bond books by Fleming right now in the order they ..."I have those moments with Rudyard Kipling. I love his writing, but dear Chthulhu by today's standards was he ever a racist. Sadly, by the standards of his day, he was a bleeding-heart libbylib. While I'm willing to give Fleming (b. 1908) a bit of a pass for the same reason, Card I'm less willing because he was born in 1951, so he was 18 when Stonewall happened. He's not -that- old.
Firstname wrote: "I have those moments with Rudyard Kipling. I love his writing, but dear Chthulhu by today's standards was he ever a racist. Sadly, by the standards of his day, he was a bleeding-heart libbylib. While I'm willing to give Fleming (b. 1908) a bit of a pass for the same reason, Card I'm less willing because he was born in 1951, so he was 18 when Stonewall happened. He's not -that- old."Yeah, there's not a real great excuse for that kind of thing. It's pathetic on several levels.
I think we should be less inclined to cut authors a break simply by virtue of their role in society. Yes, there is the "he's a man of his time" argument, and that's a fair point, but it's a very minor one. Certainly not enough to dismiss problems like racism, sexism, etc. and the brutalities that go with them.
Writing a book is an extraordinarily difficult thing to do. To do it well requires a person to not only step outside of his culture, but step outside of himself. One must have an extraordinary capacity to communicate, the sensibilities of the most detailed observer, and an understanding of humanity that transcends the self. Then one has to be willing to reveal the deepest aspects of your own character in public in the hopes that people will read your interpretation of life through literature. Writers present themselves as extraordinary. They may not want to face that truth, but it is what they do. Assuming that a writer should then be forgiven as having the same intellectual processes as a plumber doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If he's just another man of his time then why should anyone bother reading his work?
Of course, there's a lot of mediocre writers out there, and I'm talking about people who aspire to literature. Fleming was writing spy/adventure novels. Still: he knew the size of his audience, and wasn't at all troubled by presenting work that illustrates a severe character deficit.
Gary wrote: "Firstname wrote: "I have those moments with Rudyard Kipling. I love his writing, but dear Chthulhu by today's standards was he ever a racist. Sadly, by the standards of his day, he was a bleeding-h..."I suppose I don't consider Card a great writer for that reason. He's...serviceable. Worse was Tepper's throwing homosexuality out with the bathwater in the Gate to Women's Country. I still like the book, and think she's a fine author, but it does indicate that she (and her editors/publishers) thinks it's perfectly okay to present homosexuality as a disease to be cured by technology, which is disappointing.
Speaking of character deficits, pick an antihero. I still want to punch Thomas Covenant in the groin several times.
Cheralees wrote: "Absolutely. I love "The Alienist". LOVE. Periodically, I would check on rumblings regarding a third installment, probably twice a month. Then I stumbled across an article quoting Carr about his..."http://mobylives.com/Caleb_Carr.html
they talk about the reviews here I think
It really wouldn't bother me unless they really push their views out there or it taints their work and becomes propaganda. I wouldn't even know the views of most of the aurthors I read. As long as they aren't pushing anything on me, I don't really care what they believe. In the case of Orson Scott Card, he has put his belief out there, loudly, and as such I wouldn't now be able to see his name and not think "oh thats THAT guy, the guy that writes those anti-gay columns" etc and would not make that purchase.
Once you stand up for a belief and voice it loudly it does rub off on everything you do/have done and sometimes that voice is louder than the work you put out there.
I'm with most of you -- if an author chooses to lay open his or her political believes, then I am free to disagree with it. It's really the same with just being a generally unpleasant person -- like I won't read anything else by Brett Easton Ellis or Orson Scott Card either. Generally, if writers display a large amount of sexism or racism etc. I disagree with supporting them.A great book is a great book, but we are lucky to live in a world with soooo many great books, I could read a life-time and still avoid the people I want to boycott :).
I wish I could say that it didn't ruin my reading pleasure but I think it kind of does. I once read about what kind of father Roald Dahl was and I hate to say it but it's kind of spoiled his writing for me. The other day in my facebook feed I saw a happy "inspirational" Roald Dalh quote about life or whatever, and it made me sneer because all I could see in my minds eye was an alcoholic hiding in his shed from the trauma of family life.
Meowzabuth wrote: "I wish I could say that it didn't ruin my reading pleasure but I think it kind of does. I once read about what kind of father Roald Dahl was and I hate to say it but it's kind of spoiled his writi..."I would suggest staying away from any knowledge of Walt Disney's home life.
Firstname wrote: I would suggest staying away from any knowledge of Walt Disney's home life. Too late, I am a classically trained animator - all that Disney stuff was ruined for me many years ago.
Meowzabuth wrote: "Firstname wrote: I would suggest staying away from any knowledge of Walt Disney's home life. Too late, I am a classically trained animator - all that Disney stuff was ruined for me many years ago."
Oh thank bob. I used to work there, can't stand the stuff.
