The Sword and Laser discussion
Does your personal opinion of an author affect your enjoyment of their books?
date
newest »
newest »
It's good of him to keep releasing books FROM THE GREAT BEYOND... :)I'm thinking there must be more than one Steven Gould.
Firstname wrote: "J. wrote: "We're rarely going to agree 100% with anyone. I can look past an author's personality or politics, after all I manage to enjoy Matt Damon movies. Any author's personality and politics ar..."http://eatourbrains.com/steve/
I mean, given the URL, maybe he *is* dead... but he's doing a better job of hiding it than the similarly-named evolutionary biologist.
J. wrote: "It's good of him to keep releasing books FROM THE GREAT BEYOND... :)I'm thinking there must be more than one Steven Gould."
*wink wink* Amazing what we can do nowadays *nudge*
Great now I have to find this new guy and find out why he upsets your liver.
Another aspect of this is the fact that some people just don't come across well in person, for all sorts of reasons. The author that we may think is a dick may just be really, really socially awkward and inept at small talk and interacting with others.Some people just have poor charisma in person, but tell wonderful stories on paper.
I think we need to judge the story, not the person who wrote it.
William wrote: "Another aspect of this is the fact that some people just don't come across well in person, for all sorts of reasons. The author that we may think is a dick may just be really, really socially awkwa..."You go right ahead. The rest of us will do what we're going to do...and probably talk about it.
I have never even considered basing my reading choices on what beliefs or type of personality an author has. I base my choices on the quality of their writing and the type of stories they tell, the same as I do with music or film.For one thing, everybody has their own opinion about any topic you care to name and I think we are all entitled to our own. I don't agree with pretty much anything that Card says, but I'll read anything he writes because I enjoy what he puts on paper. By the same token, there are authors that I enjoy listening to in podcasts and such but have no interest whatsoever in the books that they write.
If I allowed an author's or actor's or musician's political or religious views to keep me from experiencing their work, I'd be missing out on an awful lot of great stuff.
I'd also say that these are not the only people that we support on a daily basis, when you go out to eat, do you ask of the viewpoints of the chef before you decide to order, or do you just enjoy what's on your plate?
Chad, If the chef is in the Klan? I won't even walk into that restaurant.
Firstname wrote: "William wrote: "Another aspect of this is the fact that some people just don't come across well in person, for all sorts of reasons. The author that we may think is a dick may just be really, reall..."You're missing my point, Firstname,
I could care less who some stranger on the Internet gossips about. If you think talking about someone else's behaviour is fun or interesting--or even a useful way to spend your free time-you go right ahead. None of my business.
But my point, is that sometimes people who come across as dickish are just awkward, and avoiding an author's work because you don't like him or her for some perceived slight is not the best way to go about things. I'm taking the high road. Lot's of authors whose work I love have probably said things I don't agree with. I'm okay with that.
J. wrote: "My beliefs are in line with Orson Scott Card's so he, in particular, has never been a problem for me."Please do us both a favour and avoid my work.
Firstname wrote: "J. wrote: "It's good of him to keep releasing books FROM THE GREAT BEYOND... :)I'm thinking there must be more than one Steven Gould."
*wink wink* Amazing what we can do nowadays *nudge*
Great ..."
He's the guy who wrote, among many other things, Jumper (on which the horrible movie was *loosely* based, book's pretty great though) He's the current president of SFWA and his politics are much in the vein of former president John Scalzi. Meaning he stands for women's and gay rights and other such equality nonsense. It pisses a certain segment of the population off. ;)
Chad wrote: "I have never even considered basing my reading choices on what beliefs or type of personality an author has. I base my choices on the quality of their writing and the type of stories they tell, the..."That depends, if the chef was a known raging homophobe who actively incited division and hate, then yes, I wouldn't go eat in his restaurant. I'm funny that way.
Xox wrote: "What you said make you the kind of authors' work that I would look into, or at least give it a try.Writer's behavior do influence reader..."
Thanks - I hope you enjoy my work if you do give it a try. For my part, I'll be running to read some of Steven Gould's stuff at the first opportunity!
until I read this thread I had no idea readers spent so much time learning about authors they like and hate. I know next nothing about any of authors if read let alone the ones I have no desire to read. About the only thing I know about my favourite authors is that roger zelazney is dead and terry prachett has alzheimers and advocates the right to die which from the reactions of some posters will have them burning his novels and refusing to buy the next discworld book when it comes out in a few weeks. An author's views effect and shape their work as what they are creating is a projection of their own psyche. In the same way that a reader's views color their interpretation of the book. Its to each their own how much conflict between the two they are willing to stomach and if they are willing to expose themself to other points of view. I personally gave up the babylon rising series because the evangelical Christian message was overly heavy handed. To the point that a character is destined to live miserable and alone unless she accepts god into her life. But then again I also find any story where the character's first partner is their one true love sickingly trite while others love that sappy stuff.
Andrew wrote: "Please do us both a favour and avoid my work."All three of them?
Brainfromarous wrote: "If the chef is in the Klan? I won't even walk into that restaurant."
But if everyone thought like this we would all just huddle in our own little groups with no opinion exchanging. I wonder how many klan members have let go of their racism after meeting black people that caused them to rethink their position.
Baelor wrote: "I have no problem reading books that at least implicitly espouse a viewpoint, regardless of whether I believe that viewpoint or find it objectionable. For me, the issue is more with purchasing books when I know the proceeds will go to support causes with which I disagree strongly."
That's a good way to look at things. However, with fiction at least, unless the author is tweeting his/her views publicly, it's tough to know whether you're reading an author totally immersed in his character's mind, or an author spouting dogma and propaganda.
Sometimes it's pretty tough to finish a book when the author goes off the edge in one way or another. For example, I really had a hard time finishing "Flashback" by Dan Simmons because the rabid politicalness of the book was so agressive that it made me unable to actually enjoy the book.
Typically though, even when the author leans in the opposite direction politically, it doesn't bug me if the characters are righty or lefty. I still buy every Mark Helprin book as soon as it's available.
J. wrote: "Andrew wrote: "Please do us both a favour and avoid my work."All three of them?
Brainfromarous wrote: "If the chef is in the Klan? I won't even walk into that restaurant."
But if everyone thoug..."
For every one that has, there are dozens that don't change. If you've never experienced racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. then it is hard to understand how subtle these things can be and make the experience of attending a restaurant or reading a book a dreadful experience.
With regards to authors, most readers don't know the personal opinions of authors because most authors don't go out of their way to make them known. However, the authors whose opinions are known, are known because the authors make sure that they are out there (it was their choice to bring those opinions into the discourse). Which is why I don't feel bad letting my personal biases affect my choice or reading or interpreting the reading as framed by the author's opinion.
As far as dickish behavior, yes an author could be having a bad day. But they could be like that all the time as well. There is nothing wrong to try and explain it away but there is also nothing wrong with letting it inform your reading of that author. Experiences like this tend to involve emotions, and emotional responses inform most people's views whether they like it or not.
J. wrote: "But if everyone thought like this we would all just huddle in our own little groups with no opinion exchanging. I wonder how many klan members have let go of their racism after meeting black people that caused them to rethink their position."This is such nonsense. Claptrap born out of privilege. Extreme cases like violent racists or Card level homophobia are not about exchanging ideas. You don't exchange ideas with someone who thinks of people you love as lesser beings, who wants to deny them their basic rights.
I'd much prefer it if they huddled in their own little groups and left the rest of the world out of their vileness. But they don't, they try to ram it down your throat, try to pass their bigotry into laws.
I don't stand for that. Not reading their books or eating in their restaurants is the very least I can do.
But if everyone thought like this we would all just huddle in our own little groups with no opinion exchanging. I wonder how many klan members have let go of their racism after meeting black people that caused them to rethink their position.You know what else works? Paying a real price in terms of personal and social shaming, familial exclusion and lost income from those who will have nothing to do with you so long as you're an unrepentant bigot.
I'm all for 'exchanging opinions.' I'll talk about anything with anyone, just about. (Except the Red Sox; I'm a New Yorker.)
What I will not do is directly put money in the pocket of someone whose politics are grotesquely unjust and harmful.
The key term is "politics" as opposed to "views" or "opinions." While I was campaigning for marriage equality I had - and still have - some friends who disagreed with me, who thought gay people getting married was absurd or gross or what have you.
So be it. Those were their opinions and they were, as the saying goes, entitled to them. I had no problem agreeing to disagree so long as they were not actively working to obstruct legal equality for gay people.
The problem with OSC is that he goes well beyond merely stating his views to active political work. By his own volition, he left the stands, climbed over the ropes and stepped in the ring.
Politically speaking, OSC moved from "civilian" to "combatant." He chose this. Well, I'm a combatant for the other army and I'll be damned if I'm going to buy Homophobia War Bonds in the form of his books.
(How's that for a tortured metaphor, eh? ;) )
Card is the obvious example here. It certainly pushed me to stop buying/buy second hand. Card is a vile, vile person and I'm happy to refuse him my money.
Card's case is exceptional in that he actively contributes to organizations that I find discriminatory and harmful. Depriving him of my money also helps deprive those organizations.
But there is a point when you have to let it go. Voltaire was terrifically anti-semitic and you can see it in his work but we can all still discuss how interesting Candide is.
Ultimately what I care about is if the person is alive and contributing to causes or groups I have especially huge problems with.
KevinB wrote: "This is such nonsense. Claptrap born out of privilege. Extreme cases like violent racists..."Ah, privilege, thank you. I bet a fellow Goodreads member $20 we'd see it by the end of the day. It's the new "racist". Tres chic.
Also, congrats on upping the hostility level. You must be excellent at diffusing those violent extremists.
William wrote: "Firstname wrote: "William wrote: "Another aspect of this is the fact that some people just don't come across well in person, for all sorts of reasons. The author that we may think is a dick may jus..."If your job is communicating in words and you can't figure out how to do that in person when that's how you make your living, then you probably aren't much good at communicating in words.
In short, yes, who an author is and how they communicate in person does mean a lot to me, and the number of people trying to make excuses for authors who are dicks doesn't carry a lot of weight with me. Your mileage may vary.
Brainfromarous wrote: "How's that for a tortured metaphor, eh? ;)"I'm now imagining a metaphor on the rack. Awesome, thanks.
J. wrote: "KevinB wrote: "Also, congrats on upping the hostility level. You must be excellent at diffusing those violent extremists."The word you're looking for is "defusing" and you're not doing much to reduce the hostility level in your reply either. Feel free to be the change you want to see in the world instead of, well, not.
J. wrote: "It's good of him to keep releasing books FROM THE GREAT BEYOND... :)I'm thinking there must be more than one Steven Gould."
Having finally read his GR blurb...he sounds like someone who's politics I may agree with...but if his style is as ham-handed as Avatar's script, I'll pass, thanks.
Firstname wrote: "J. wrote: "KevinB wrote: "Also, congrats on upping the hostility level. You must be excellent at diffusing those violent extremists."The word you're looking for is "defusing" and you're not doing..."
In the words of my 5 year old, "he started it".
No, I meant diffuse, you don't want too many violent extremists in one area...ha ha.
I'm all for exchanging ideas but there is a line. You cannot exchange ideas with hate. If the issue is racism or homophobia or sexism then there isn't room for an exchange and it's better to step away. If its whether capital punishment is acceptable that I can debate. If its "____ are superior to ____" then no I cannot.Also sometimes knowing a persons politics/personal beliefs are good for deciding what books not to read because they absolutely influence what happens in their books, like Ayn Rand. I know her politics and no they are the main message of her books, because I read for pleasure I choose not to try to wade through a heavy tome that at best is going to irritate me. If I was going to debate with someone about capitalism versus socialism however I would read it as it would be relevant.
I read to relax after all.
As for long dead artists like Lovecraft, Voltaire, or Poe...well I don't like the racism depicted but I take it as a product of its time or I stop reading their work if I find it beyond what I can stomach.
Firstname wrote: "William wrote: "Firstname wrote: "William wrote: "Another aspect of this is the fact that some people just don't come across well in person, for all sorts of reasons. The author that we may think i..."Firstname,
you said:
"If your job is communicating in words and you can't figure out how to do that in person when that's how you make your living, then you probably aren't much good at communicating in words."
Really? If someone isn't good at projecting themselves in public, then they're probably not good authors?
Seriously?
Agatha Christie
C.S. Lewis
Cormac McCarthy
Emily Bronte
Emily Dickinson
Garrison Keillor
George Bernard Shaw
Harper Lee (Harper freaking Lee)
J.B. Salinger
All famous authors, all shy individuals who probably don't/wouldn't have impressed in person at all.
Let's just say we disagree on this--a lot.
http://socialanxietydisorder.about.co...
Beth wrote: "I'm all for exchanging ideas but there is a line. You cannot exchange ideas with hate. If the issue is racism or homophobia or sexism then there isn't room for an exchange and it's better to step a..."Beth,
I do see your point, and I understand where you're coming from, but establishing a line on what you can and can't debate is dangerous. Who gets to decide what can and can't be debated?
On the other hand, I just can't get behind hateful speech intended only to incite anger. So, as I said, I do see your point.
So, to sum up: 1. we should be able to debate everything--especially the things/ideas we find distasteful; otherwise we self-censor and end up close minded. 2. I don't support hateful speech intended just to anger people.
If this seems contradictory, well it is what it is. The world is imperfect, too.
William: I'm probably not saying anything you wouldn't agree with, but I think the basic issue here is (1) people develop understandings about other people based on imperfect information and (2) people can't really control what ruins the reading experience for them. What I know of OSC's politics is repugnant, but I can't force myself to hate ENDER'S GAME for it any more than anyone else could force themselves to love ENDER'S GAME by ignoring it. If someone tries to shame me for reading ENDER'S GAME, they can [redacted] off. If someone tries to shame someone else for following their conscience by not reading ENDER'S GAME, same medicine. Art is personal; people are entitled to their reactions, whether they're politically inflected or not. (Which isn't to suggest that people shouldn't talk about, or scrutinize, their reactions. That is often interesting and useful.)
I guess a more on-point response would be the following: If an author insults me, and that ruins his books for me, I'm entitled to that reaction --even if it was a misunderstanding and the author bore me no malice. Sure, it might be better if I got to the bottom of it. But you don't know until you get there, and sometimes the likely gain just doesn't seem worth the effort. It's my call -- but I can only make it for myself.
Matt wrote: "William: I'm probably not saying anything you wouldn't agree with, but I think the basic issue here is (1) people develop understandings about other people based on imperfect information and (2) pe..."Yeah, you're right, Matt, I pretty much agree with everything you said.
The real shame is missed opportunities if you allow your perceptions/reaction to blind you to a work that you would otherwise love. On the other hand, happens all the time.
J. wrote: "Firstname wrote: "J. wrote: "KevinB wrote: "Also, congrats on upping the hostility level. You must be excellent at diffusing those violent extremists."The word you're looking for is "defusing" an..."
You silly person, you.
William wrote: "Firstname wrote: "William wrote: "Firstname wrote: "William wrote: "Another aspect of this is the fact that some people just don't come across well in person, for all sorts of reasons. The author t..."Cool, let's argue about it on cold winter nights. I'm open to being wrong eventually.
Knowing what the author is like definitely colors my enjoyment of books. I know Brandon Sanderson is, on a personal level, pretty cool. But his endings always strike me as being way too influenced by Mormonism.One of the highest compliments I've received is when my mother-in-law read my book, and she said while she was reading, she forgot it was me who wrote it.
J. wrote: Ah, privilege, thank you. I bet a fellow Goodreads member $20 we'd see it by the end of the day. It's the new "racist". Tres chic.Also, congrats on upping the hostility level. You must be excellent at diffusing those violent extremists."
Yes, privilege. I used it intentionally. I've noticed it works like a litmus test for certain types of people. You being dismissive about that just told me everything I needed to know. Thanks.
I could care less about defusing. People like Card need to shut op and go away. I'm done playing nice with apologists and enablers too. I've tried enough of that, and you know what? It doesn't work. People that lost in their delusions don't respond to reason.
Tolerating intolerance in the name of civilized debate or some sort of philosophical conviction that all opinions are worth being considered is bullshit and something only privileged people who never had to deal with the actions of someone trying to deny you your right to exist as you are.
I'm actually a pretty good diplomat and mediator when I need to be (and I often do need to be). On some things you just have to make a stand, I choose to make mine on bigotry.
Just as a departure I'm answering the original question- No. There are authors that I have met in person that I did not like at all, but it did not affect my enjoyment of the work. Likewise liking the author has not made their books any more palatable to me.
Everbody loves the word "tolerance" until they are asked to tolerate someone they disagree with. Accept all view points. Unless the disagree with other viewpoints. In which case, don't tolerate those because they don't tolerate others. By the time we finish that line of reasoning, we are all intolerant.
Travis wrote: "Everbody loves the word "tolerance" until they are asked to tolerate someone they disagree with. Accept all view points. Unless the disagree with other viewpoints. In which case, don't tolerate tho..."I don't 'tolerate' people I disagree with. Most of the time a disagreement is just that. It makes no difference to how I feel about the person. However, there are always some things that make me step back and say "no".
William: the line has to be drawn by the individual. If someone says to me "gay marriage is wrong because of the bible" as a queer atheist I see no point in engaging in debate with them because they won't change and I know I won't change. Debate is fruitless and not worth my very limited energy. However, take that same debate to one of my best friends who shares my opinions and she will reasonable debate you into the ground because she is the type of person who enjoys heated debate. As with most things your mileage may vary.
To Travis (I think, I'm on an app so it's not as user friendly) the "if you claim for tolerance you have to be tolerant of "opposing viewpoints" " is a ridiculous argument and yes, is an argument born out of privilege. I've got a lot of privilege on my side too, but at least I'm aware of it.
Travis wrote: "Everbody loves the word "tolerance" until they are asked to tolerate someone they disagree with. Accept all view points. Unless the disagree with other viewpoints. In which case, don't tolerate tho..."So if you're LGBT, then you should tolerate getting fired or evicted because you have to tolerate their viewpoint? If you're black, should you tolerate sitting at the back of the bus because of the view point of a bus company or the other riders on the bus? If you're a woman, should you tolerate being denied a promotion because the male bosses view the position as better filled by a man regardless of achievement?
I refuse to tolerate any kind of intolerance.
Tolerance doesn't mean you have to accept whatever some believes as just and true and put up with discrimination and the curtailment of your freedoms. But it does mean you have to respect other peoples rights to feel what they they want and express those thoughts even if their opinions are antithetical to your own. In my view hate is hate whether its for a good cause or a bad one. If your boss fires you for being gay then you should stand up and oppose that discrimination and hostile attitude. Likewise if your boss fires you for opposing gay marriage then you should stand up and oppose that discriminatory and hostile attitude.
Maybe its just me or the internet but lately I've seen an increasing number of people trying to wrap their hate, intolerance, and prejudice in socially acceptable values. They marginalize those who disagree with them, spew violent hate filled rants, and advocate the removal from society of those who express opposing opinions. They are often as bad or worse then the people the purport to stand against. I for one of am tired of dealing with those kind of people and nothing to do with them regardless of what cause they stand for.
Michael wrote: "Just as a departure I'm answering the original question- No. There are authors that I have met in person that I did not like at all, but it did not affect my enjoyment of the work. Likewise likin..."I'm going to avoid the flame war starting up and respond to the original spirit of the thread. :) You know, now that I think about it, I've hated writing by people I've loved. But when people are needlessly rude, I stop reading their books and go fangirl over cooler people's stuff.
I agree Alex, hate can be used on both sides and arguments born out of anger are just not effective arguments full stop. Taking Ayn Rand as an example, I find h politics and philosophy personally abhorrent and disgusting...but I would not ask for book burnings of Atlas Shrugged. I prefer just not reading it and if challenged as to why I'm not reading it, giving a full and sensible answer.If I cannot argue my point without becoming upset and launching personal attacks then I do not engage or I stop engaging when I know I'm reaching the end of my (admittedly) rather short temper.
In fact I've pissed off a few friends by refusing to go continue a debate/disagreement because I'm reaching my limit.
J. wrote: "But if everyone thought like this..."BZZZZT argument fallacy: reductio ad absurdum. Try again.
When I look for a new book to read, all that matters is its content and what trusted friends, reviewers etc. say about it. Books aren't about the author (well, for the most part). If Hitler wrote 'House of suns', it would still be one of my favorites and I'd recommend it as much as I do now.However, If the author puts his or her awful philosophy into the content of their books (like Ayn Rand), It would absolutely stop me from reading their stuff.
I recently bought the Ender's game audio book because I wanted to re-read it. I was recommended to pirate the book to avoid putting money into the pocket of such a terrible person, but.. I really like having my audio books available anywhere to download legally through a well designed app.
I don't let my personal opinion of an author affect how much I enjoy their work, although I certainly understand people who do. To me, though...well, call me a pessimist, but I sort of assume every artist is a dick until they do something that proves to me that they're not.Maybe I should explain. I'm in a band. We've played lots of gigs and met lots of other dudes doing the same kind of thing we're doing. And a lot of these guys...well, a lot of them are assholes. In fact, some of them have been assholes to me, personally. The thing is, though, I can still enjoy their work. A lot of them produce really good music, and even though I know some of them are douchebags, I can't deny when their tunes rock.
I carry this attitude over to other forms of art. In a way, an artist kind of has to be a bit of a dick. He/she has to spend many, many hours alone, shunning social situations while refining his/her craft. An artist must persevere through much criticism, and eventually must decide which criticism to heed and which to ignore. An artist must have confidence in his/her abilities no matter how many naysayers they encounter. Any of these attributes could quite easily come off as dickish.
Anyway, despite what I've said here, I see a delineation between enjoying art produced by a dick and PAYING a dick for their art when you know they're going to do something shitty to someone else with their money. How this may be achieved can vary from person to person.
Firstname wrote: "J. wrote: "But if everyone thought like this..."BZZZZT argument fallacy: reductio ad absurdum. Try again."
Oh come now, Firstname. Are you rescanning all the comments for something to be uppity about? Here I was thinking Alex had kicked down the door and thrown a cold bucket of logic and reason on the discussion and you're dredging up the past. I feel like we're making backwards progress.
J. wrote: "Firstname wrote: "J. wrote: "But if everyone thought like this..."BZZZZT argument fallacy: reductio ad absurdum. Try again."
Oh come now, Firstname. Are you rescanning all the comments for somet..."
Uppity? What a curious choice of word. I was merely pointing out your fallacy in what I considered a humorous fashion, a gong not working so well on the Internet. *shrug*
The Sword and Laser
Authors mentioned in this topic
Steven Gould (other topics)Julie Powell (other topics)
"drove" you nuts. He's been dead for eleven years, now.