The Sword and Laser discussion
Does your personal opinion of an author affect your enjoyment of their books?
It shouldn't, but it does. I spent 5 years in college wrestling with criticism as a process beyond like/dislike and personal opinions, but as a human being it is still in my nature to associate an artist intimately with his/her work. Granted, meeting someone once in an impersonal environment may or may not be a fair place to assess them; everyone has bad days, but sometimes an impression can't be shaken once it's made. I think if you are able to get past that impression, the work itself is probably more valuable to your life than the personality of the person that created it, but then again, who wants to give their hard earned money to a dick?
I read for enjoyment for the most part so if I have a bad experience with someone producing material that I previously enjoyed it is of course going to affect that.If someone deliberately comes out and basically says all you people who like this but dislike this are a bunch of dolts and go frak off then the possibility I will continue to give that individual my support drops far lower.
I think in the case of meeting an author who comes off dickish would be different than forming an opinion after reading about them behaving dickishly to someone else. When you personally had that interaction, it has become personal, and therefore emotional, and it is harder to let rationality prevail and separate the author's dickishness from their writing. I haven't had such an experience with an author, but I've met actors at cons before and there are some that behaved brilliantly who I saw in a different light that led me to rewatch and enjoy their work more, and I've met actors who behaved dickishly who I just couldn't watch on screen anymore in anything they did. It may be a different medium but I think the theory is the same, that once we associate emotions with someone, it is harder to rationally judge just their work on its merit.(And I just realized that I've used the word dick more times in this post than I think I've done in the last year, lol.)
Hmm, I haven't met any authors except Pat Rothfuss (and he seemed just like I thought he'd be - very nice) but I have seen and read interviews of people that did affect the way I viewed their work. But with cons being such a strange scene, I would probably do some research after a bad experience there to see if that person is a dick in general, or was just having a bad day at the con.
I've never understood the theory that I *shouldn't* let it affect my view of their work, but then, I'm fascinated by the intersection of art and life in general, which isn't true of a lot of people. I do agree with Michele that it's worth considering whether they're having an off-day, but it will still influence my view. How people act when having an off-day says something in itself.
I basically analyze things to death, so it's all grist for the mill.
I find that I'm not likely to pick up books by R. Scott Bakker or John C. Wright after they both decided to say wacky things about me on their blogs. Erk.
It does. The debate has raged over OSC's politics, but we rarely think about when authors say and do positive things that make us want to support them.I met a local author at my city's farmer's market, talked to him for a while, told him I couldn't afford his book right then, but came back and bought it the next week. He was a great guy, and gave me another book of his, free. I recommend his books to everybody I meet.
Another time I saw Alexander McCall Smith of the #1 Ladies' Detective Series give a reading, and he was hilarious. I tried to get into his work, however, and it just wasn't my thing, but I wanted and still want to support that guy for being genuinely great.
simple answer: yes!
It goes from political and social views, to rude behaviour that I either experience myself or that others experience and talk about. I don't think I will ever be able to separate art from artist. And yes, good behaviour make me want to support an author even more.
It goes from political and social views, to rude behaviour that I either experience myself or that others experience and talk about. I don't think I will ever be able to separate art from artist. And yes, good behaviour make me want to support an author even more.
L.S. wrote: "we rarely think about when authors say and do positive things that make us want to support them"Funny you say this, because my first thought when reading this thread was about an author whose work I really wanted to like because of the author, but the book just wasn't any good (in my opinion). Shame. I wanted to like it.
Serendi wrote: "I've never understood the theory that I *shouldn't* let it affect my view of their work, but then, I'm fascinated by the intersection of art and life in general, which isn't true of a lot of people..."I've never understood the whole separate the artist from the art thing either. Especially not how many people consider it some sort of enlightenment you should aspire too.
The artist *is* part of the art, they're inseparable IMO. If the artist is an asshole or does things I cannot morally put myself past, I feel more than justified to not spend my money or time on the art.
L.S. wrote: "I tried to get into his work, however, and it just wasn't my thing, but I wanted and still want to support that guy for being genuinely great..."This is pretty much how I feel about Robert Rankin. Every so often I see him at an event and he's lovely, witty and a true gent. We have a chat, I buy a book, he signs it with something suitably sarcastic, and it's all great. I must have read three or four of his books now following this model, and I still can't quite get into them. Sorry Rob, you're a great guy and I will keep buying your books. I just don't really know why.
I usually only feel affected positively by authors, making me more fond of them.The few incidents I've read or heard about some authors have never really affected me to not want to read their books any more. Even so, if I came across an author and he/she acted rather dickish, then yes, I think it might just affect me. As Alicja said, it becomes personal.
I do see authors as a big part of their works, but somehow I still separate them out from my reading experience (their lives and events etc.). I want to enjoy the book as a story first, then have the possibility to judge the story by its author.
Not usually, no. I'd rather know nothing about the author at all, and avoid the issue. Some of my favorite books were written by people I know nothing about beyond their name, but there are books I do like by people I would never have wanted to meet. William S. Burroughs, for example. H.P. Lovecraft for another.
Andrew wrote: "L.S. wrote: "I tried to get into his work, however, and it just wasn't my thing, but I wanted and still want to support that guy for being genuinely great..."This is pretty much how I feel about ..."
Heh, while I'm sure he would like his work to be loved, I'm pretty sure he appreciates the purchase regardless. I've had friends buy pieces of mine and I never ask them if they've read it, because I assume they won't, but it's nice to have the support nevertheless.
I haven't interacted with authors but I agree with Serendi. I can't imagine why it wouldn't (shouldn't?) have an impact.
I try to avoid making decisions based on how an artist "comes across" in interviews or public appearances. I like to think that it's about the work and not the personality of the individual who produced it. Since I am human, I do have my biases and I may not even be aware of them. So, it is possible that some unconcsious process weeds out potential reading material because I saw an interview where an author said something mean (for example).
R.A. Salvatore was so damned charming in his earlier interview with Tom and Veronica that I've been trying to figure out which of his books to start reading even though books set in licensed universes usually don't appeal to me at all. *If anyone has a recommendation of where to start, I'm all ears [hint, hint]*If an author was a jerk to me or a friend, it would absolutely make me less eager to buy their stuff unless, like Harlan Ellison, they are so legendarily abrasive that I've already discounted it.
Outside of the genre, the author often mixes in their own life with the narrative so it is impossible for me to divorce the two. For example, Julie Powell's personal life makes me not comfortable reading her stuff, even the books that aren't about her affair.
No, I mostly ignore the authors. I didn't know Arthur C. Clarke was gay until a few years ago though I have read his stuff for decades.
No.It should never be about the author, director or w/e.If the material is good, that's all that matters; however, if it's over an issue you really can't get passed, well, then that's something different.
When I get sucked into a book, who the author is really doesn't matter much. An author's personality or views might effect my purchasing decision if I'm on the fence, but if I know I'll love the story I still want to dive right in.
I am not a professional reviewer or critic; so I feel no need to divorce myself from my personal oppinion of the author. I have met a few over the years and had no poor experience of those. Those who put forth a public image of intentional antagonism (Ellison, and occasionally Brust) do not annoy me nor disincline me to their works.
I've met an author who, as others have pointed out, makes a bit of a career at being antagonistic, but he's a pretty equal opportunity angry-maker so that doesn't bother me. It would be different if he were currently a member of a white supremacist militia, but he's not. He's just a prick on purpose. So are most of his characters, so I think it works for him.
Karl wrote: "No, I mostly ignore the authors. I didn't know Arthur C. Clarke was gay until a few years ago though I have read his stuff for decades."Wait, what?
I don't usually dig in to artists' lives and just consume books, movies, music, etc. that I find enjoyable...if I did meet someone in person and they were a jerk to my face that would definitely affect my enjoyment and give me some difficulty enjoying their works again and I don't think that is wrong at all.
My answer to the original question is yes and no.
No because 1) I understand on an intellectual level that the work is not necessarily the same as the artist. 2) the world is full of great works written by people who believed all sorts of messed up things. I love the work of Lovecraft even though he was a terrible racist. 3) I believe in understanding different view points even if they're vile. Ignoring something doesn't make it go away.
Yes because I can't help but be vindictive. Orson Scott Card may be a great writer but because of his views and because of his activism I will never ever ever buy one of his books. Why would I support that? I may pick it up at the library or read it after he dies. And I know that some of you will say that supporting his fiction is not the same as supporting his politics but it's all money in his pocket and if he was broke he'd just be another nut on the street instead of an influential part of a machine of hate. Not saying that's what people ought to do but it's what i got to do. Of course, if the person is just a run-of-the-mill dick I can usually look past that.
No because 1) I understand on an intellectual level that the work is not necessarily the same as the artist. 2) the world is full of great works written by people who believed all sorts of messed up things. I love the work of Lovecraft even though he was a terrible racist. 3) I believe in understanding different view points even if they're vile. Ignoring something doesn't make it go away.
Yes because I can't help but be vindictive. Orson Scott Card may be a great writer but because of his views and because of his activism I will never ever ever buy one of his books. Why would I support that? I may pick it up at the library or read it after he dies. And I know that some of you will say that supporting his fiction is not the same as supporting his politics but it's all money in his pocket and if he was broke he'd just be another nut on the street instead of an influential part of a machine of hate. Not saying that's what people ought to do but it's what i got to do. Of course, if the person is just a run-of-the-mill dick I can usually look past that.
On second thought, I've never really had an author be nasty to me personally so I'm not sure I can really say how I'd respond. I can imagine it could really colour how you read their work. It may not be rational but it's human.
I, thankfully, haven't met any authors who were anything other than nice and respectful. Really, my only bad experience was a twitter exchange with Bill Willingham right after Osama Bin Laden was killed. He was ranting about how the Obama administration was trying to cover-up that intelligence gained through torture was the real reason we had found Bin Laden. And, well, I just never read FABLES again after that.
It's hard not to let it get to me. I find myself hoping a couple authors don't say anything to horrible til they finish their current series.
Erik wrote: "I, thankfully, haven't met any authors who were anything other than nice and respectful. Really, my only bad experience was a twitter exchange with Bill Willingham right after Osama Bin Laden was k..."Oh man, that would definitely matter to me too. Conversely, I would actually feel a little bad if I met say, Stephen R. Donaldson and really liked him as a person, because dear bob do I HATE some of his writing.
I'm still on the fence about this topic, but one thing that Goodreads has shown me is that there are a ton of great writers out there right now, including emerging authors, who would love someone to pick up their book. I'm pretty sure I'd move along and find something just as cool from an author who wasn't a jerk.While the Ender's Game issue is slightly different, I do find myself struggling with the O.S.C. topic. Someone in a different thread / blog mentioned the idea of making an "ethical offset"; donating the same amount you spent on the movie/book via a donation to a not-for-profit more in line with your beliefs than with those of the author. I'll probably do that after watching the movie, knowing that only a portion of my ticket revenue would go to O.S.C., while my full donation would go to the not-for-profit.
My grandpa Zebediah (not his real name, but a more interesting one) once said, "People have a right to be wrong, sometimes."Orson Scott Card is a right-wingnut who says grotesque stuff about gay folks and, on that count, deserves condemnation.
But that's not why I'm no longer buying his books.
I'm no longer buying his books because OSC goes beyond merely "being wrong" to ACTING on it; he's publicly and politically working towards denying gay folks social and legal equality.
Ender's Game is a great book. But the cold fact is that, as things stand, every copy we purchase goes towards enriching OSC and providing him with the resources to further his politics.
I went through a similar thing on the political Left with the late Iain Banks, upon learning he'd become a vocal supporter of the loathsome, mendacious hate campaign against Israel known as "BDS" (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions).
As part of this, Banks refused to do business with any Israeli publishing companies... because they were Israeli. Wouldn't matter if the owners agreed with him about the West Bank, two-state solution and all of that. If they were Israeli, Banks would not even take the phone call.
I had no reason to think Banks was personally anti-Semitic; it's more likely that, as a fashion-following Leftist, he was caught up in the Evil Zionists vs Poor Oppressed "Palestinians" nonsense au courant among the UK chattering classes.
But even giving Banks the benefit of every doubt as to motive, I was still left with the objective fact that each copy of Consider Phlebas or Wasp Factory sold contributed to financing something an order of magnitude worse than the Mormon bigots OSC breaks bread with.
Accordingly, the works of OSC and Banks both inhabit a sort of literary/commercial quarantine zone for me until such time as purchasing them will not be financing the stupid and dangerous politics of their respective authors.
In OSC's case, this will require a volte-face on the man's entire worldview which is, shall we say, unlikely.
Now that Banks has left us, of course, the matter turns to the disposition of his copyrights and estate...
Take it up a notch.What if you were blitheringly ignorant about the world and thought Mein Kamph was a really terrific, insightful read?
Then you looked up the author on wiki ...
I think most people would likely condemn the author for his life and views outside of literature ...
So it seems that what we're talking about here is mostly the magnitude of the disagreement.
(And yes, I know, Godwin's law.)
Brainfromarous wrote: "I had no reason to think Banks was personally anti-Semitic; it's more likely that, as a fashion-following Leftist, he was caught up in the Evil Zionists vs Poor Oppressed "Palestinians" nonsense au courant among the UK chattering classes. "Completely off topic here, but I was curious why Palestinians was in scare-quotes.
Brainfromarous wrote: "But even giving Banks the benefit of every doubt as to motive, I was still left with the objective fact that each copy of Consider Phlebas or Wasp Factory sold contributed to financing something an order of magnitude worse than the Mormon bigots OSC breaks bread with."It's not the "Mormon bigots OSC breaks bread with." that is the reason why some people have a more severe reaction to Card than they have to your average homophobe. (I don't have a problem with some other well known Mormon writers for instance.) It's the fact that he actively works towards laws that take away/deny people basic rights. He was on the board of directors of the National Organization for Marriage, which HAS managed to push through laws that deny gay people basic rights. It's because he says things like this, with regards to a government allowing same sex marriage: "I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.”
And it's because he really is a batshit crazy fearmonger:
“Obama will claim we need a national police force in order to fight terrorism and crime. The Boston bombing is a useful start, especially when combined with random shootings by crazy people.
Where will he get his "national police"? The NaPo will be recruited from "young out-of-work urban men" and it will be hailed as a cure for the economic malaise of the inner cities.
In other words, Obama will put a thin veneer of training and military structure on urban gangs, and send them out to channel their violence against Obama's enemies.
Instead of doing drive-by shootings in their own neighborhoods, these young thugs will do beatings and murders of people "trying to escape" -- people who all seem to be leaders and members of groups that oppose Obama.
Already the thugs who serve the far left agenda of Obama's team do systematic character assassination as a means of intimidating their opponents into silence. But physical beatings and "legal" disappearances will be even more effective -- as Hitler and Putin and many other dictators have demonstrated over and over.”
I know Obama isn't the most popular president currently for various reasons that are variously justified, but really? Conspiracy theory, racism and classism capped off with Godwin's Law.
The man's an idiot. A dangerous, influential idiot.
I'd hardly call Banks taking a stand on a situation that's infinitely more complex than you seem to want to portray with your post "an order of magnitude worse" than all that.
I've had the experience where I met an author and liked them more, but I haven't ever met one I disliked, though I have read some blog post that made me think I wouldn't like the person if I met them. Not because of political stuff, just the way they write made them see 'dickish'.I read something by a fantasy author I admire once long ago where she said something about being careful how you present yourself as an author, because she'd had the experience of meeting an author whose works she'd enjoyed, but after interaction with the person, she didn't feel the same. I found that fascinating because it was another author who no longer could read the works.
When I encounter an author who has world views I don't agree with, I look at it as an oppurtunity to better understand my fellow man and reduce my own sense of moral certainty (moral certainty is the enemy...how do I know that my views are the right views?)
What an author does in their personal life doesn't bother me at all. If they take their personal life public in an active way, it might not change how I feel about their books, but it does change how I feel about giving them my money.OSC's personal views are his, and he's got every right to have those beliefs. He's got his; I got mine. But when he went and actively started working to deprive others of their the rights, I made a decision not to give him any more of my money. Hitting people in the pocketbook hurts. I'll probably not go see Ender's Game when the movie comes out either (that, and because the trailer looks really dumb).
I think this is an exception. I've never boycotted any other author before, and I hope that I won't have to do it again.
Honestly, with so many authors having Twitter accounts (many of them extremely active--yeah, I'm looking at you, Stross!), an author's political and social motives are is increasingly available. For the most part, I choose to live and let live.
I felt sick when I found out about OSC and no, I can't read his work anymore but it doesn't change that I did like it. Neil Gaiman on the flip side I adored his work and when I met him at a signing he was so kind I cried when I left as it meant so much to me. Now I love his work even more (which I didn't think possible) meeting Terry Pratchett was similarly awesome.Generally I take personal criticisms of creators i like with a grain if salt until I have seen what they have actually said/done as fact rather then hearsay. I'm also more forgiving of authors who are now dead. Like the anti-semitism in Lovecraft or casual racism in some of the other older works, I don't like it but I chalk it up to product of their times. Though I am always relieved when I find out a historical person I admire was a pretty good person. Like when I read the scathing letters Tolkien wrote when a German publisher asked if he was Jewish and he replied with something like "I wish I could claim membership to such a great people." or the letters his son and him exchanged during WWII while his son was stationed in South Africa bemoaning how the native populations were treated and worse how the white people stationed the quickly ignored it. Another example was when I was reading the Voyage of the Beagle and Darwin stops midway through to go on a rant about how immoral slavery is, that makes me happy.
Dharmakirti wrote: "When I encounter an author who has world views I don't agree with, I look at it as an oppurtunity to better understand my fellow man and reduce my own sense of moral certainty (moral certainty is t..."The more I read about opposing views on certain topics (mostly, but not exclusively, the whole equality thing concerning race, gender, sexual orientation, ... ) the more sure I get I'm right.
Getting philosophical is all nice and dandy, until it starts treading on people's basic rights.
Scalzi has a near-definitive take, as he so often does: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/07/17..."In a larger sense, look: Art originates from people. People have opinions and thoughts and actions, many of which are largely unrelated to their art. In learning about those largely unrelated opinions, thoughts and actions, you may find some of them, some the people they are coming out of, offensive, obnoxious, insulting or even dangerous. They may eventually keep you from being able to enjoy the art these people produce.
"When and if that happens, that’s fine. If it doesn’t happen — if you can totally divorce the art from the human who created it — that’s fine, too. Everyone has their own dividing line for this, contingent on factors that are unique to them, and unique to the creator in question. Mind you, I personally think it’s good to give some serious reflection as to why some particular creator has crossed that line for you, on the grounds that it’s always good to know why you think or do anything. But at the end of the day, when you get to the point where you think, I’m done with this jerk, then that’s it, you’re done."
A relativism too far? I don't think so, but I suppose I could be wrong.
I think that unfortunately it is human nature to let things like an author's point of view influence the books that people read... wow my spell check is flipping out, I apologize in advance for any spelling errors, any way I try, and most of the time fail, to give most works the benefit of the doubt. However like most people I do find that an author does make a difference. Also to those who associate all Mormons with intolerance just because a few really may be bigots is rather like saying that all white people are racist. Neither are really the case but both points have been said. Most of us aren't intolerant at all. I for example do believe that people have a right to choose happiness. A lot of us really are content to live and let live, but because of a few loose cannons we all get tarred with the same brush. I really feel that an author shouldn't foist their beliefs and politics on the reader but authors do sometimes make that mistake. I also belive that readers should understand this, but since we don't live in a perfect world I think the real truth is that we do make decisions on books based on the author, but like most other things there is balance. I can recall several times where it was because of the author that I decided to read a book. It's only fair that the other side of the coin happens too.
Andrew, "Also to those who associate all Mormons with intolerance just because a few really may be bigots is rather like saying that all white people are racist."
Except that religions are volitional associations and identities. A child raised in the Church of Xonk by a Xonkist family will nevertheless, at some point, be old and aware enough to understand what the teachings of Xonkism are and whether she agrees with them or not.
At that point, and moving forward, calling herself a "Xonkist" means more than just a demographic label or type of cultural background.
Insofar as OSC's hostility to legal and social equality for gay people draws from the stated beliefs and doctrines of the Mormon church, both he and Mormonism itself can be criticized on that basis.
It is heartening to hear that many Mormons don't agree with those teachings, but that doesn't get the Church itself off the hook.
I honestly have no problem with separating the artist's personality/religion/politics from their work. The only way any of that impacts my opinion of the work is if it bleeds into the work enough to make it more or less enjoyable. My husband says most people aren't like me, though, and can't compartmentalize the way I do. I really see it as no different from viewing the book & the film adaptation as different entities, and therefore not comparing the two.If a person is a talented writer, and I enjoy reading their work, it would have to be something very extreme - basically something so unconscionable & immoral that I believed they deserved death - to get me to refuse to read their work anymore.
On the flip side, it doesn't matter how great a person is, if they are a terrible writer, I will not read their work.
If I truly have an issue with someone, like say Rush Limbaugh, I would never bother to buy their book, because I won't give money to someone I hate. That being said, I know next to nothing about 99% of the authors I read. The only one I know a lot about is Douglas Adams, and what I know of him made no impact on my loving his books, positive or negative.
Someone in one of these threads linked to Brandon Sanderson's take on same-sex marriage, and I really appreciated his perspective. He is a devout Mormon who makes it a point to think, and to continue to review his thinking, about an issue. OSC's view has become too much the "this is what Mormons think" idea, and Sanderson demonstrates that no, mileage varies there as everywhere else.
Much of what has been talked about in this thread is what I would call big politics but for me small politics, personality or taste can play a huge part in how much I enjoy an authors work or not or whether I will choose to read them.Authors are gods of their own creation and what happens to their characters, what the narrator (even 3rd person narrator) says and how events in the story are related depends hugely on the authors taste.
If this taste is incompatable with your own it can make for a difficult read but it also inevitably forms the work that they tell.
For instance if someone has clearly sexist views then it is more likely than not that women will have small roles, will be defined by their sexuality, "humorous" attacks on them may feature, they are more likely to be weak etc. In action heavy stories an authors taste can make a huge difference in terms of who lives, who dies and how sympathetically stuff is portrayed.
I have found I struggle to enjoy or tolerate it when torture is used by protagonists or threatened in ways that we are supposed to agree with and sometimes even find humorous.
As to the more large politics issues - I like reading books with people who are different from me and have different world views, I respect authors taking moral stances on what they will and will not support or put their name to even if they are different from my own but their are some views that I would find sufficiently reprehensible that I would be less inclined to want to read an author who held them, particularly if earnings they make might go towards causes that I strongly disprove of.
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.
Ben wrote: "I have found I struggle to enjoy or tolerate it when torture is used by protagonists or threatened in ways that we are supposed to agree with and sometimes even find humorous. "One of the many things that turned me off Goodkind and Jordan.
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 are going to bleed into his/her work, I draw the line when they try to choke me to death with politics or viewpoints I don't agree with.Concerning the original post, we don't know what that author had faced that day. Sure, common sense would say "you're at this event specifically to meet/make fans, be your best", but for all we know his hotel screwed up his room and he had to sleep in his car. We never know. So I wouldn't judge someone as a whole based off one meeting, even that all important first impression.
Those old Snickers commercials - "you turn into such a diva when you're hungry" completely apply to me. I enjoy helping people and actively look for people to assist, that's just what makes me happy. But anyone that encounters me three hours past a missed meal would start looking for an old priest and a young priest. The author mentioned in the first post may have a similar problem.
*As far as I know my beliefs are in line with Orson Scott Card's so he, in particular, has never been a problem for me. Steven Gould, on the other hand, drives me nuts.
Update: Edited to add "As far as I know". I have not researched every word ever spoken by Card.
The Sword and Laser
Authors mentioned in this topic
Steven Gould (other topics)Julie Powell (other topics)
I don't mean objecting to an author's writing style or politics -- many of us have recently wrestled with the whole Orson Scott Card thing. I mean personally. Let me explain.
During DragonCon I try to meet many of the authors that I read; during panels, at signing, wherever. I met one this year who came across as a real dick. As a result, I don't think I want to read his stuff anymore.
I don't think this is entirely rational of me, as this guy's personality shouldn't affect my enjoyment of his fiction. (I'm not going to name him). Should your personal impression of an author affect your enjoyment of their books?