What's the Name of That Book??? discussion
Just to chat
>
Are there books you refuse to read because you disapprove of the author?
sorry, I missed the comment about how this is geared towards authors political or moral views. Sometimes it's obvious that a character is written to reflect the author's POV. If it's overtly racist, condescending, etc I will usually stop reading. OSC and Stephen King are the only ones I can think of right now
Melissa wrote: "sorry, I missed the comment about how this is geared towards authors political or moral views. Sometimes it's obvious that a character is written to reflect the author's POV. If it's overtly racist..."I'm not.
I vote with my wallet all the time.
One thing for me is that I dislike being preached to - even if I agree with the points being made. I won't read authors who do that.
I also feel that one of the biggest sins you can commit as an author is to be BORING. There was some series I started that looked like it would be right down my alley. It had EVERYTHING to get me so excited I was wiggling like a puppy.
But I was bored to pieces and never read more than book 1. It was so boring that I put the name out of my head.
Trump gave some speech where he put a book of his as second only to the Bible in importance. I'm pretty sure I would burn anything he had written before it came into my house. I don't want to start a debate but definitely no books from him.
Melissa wrote: "sorry, I missed the comment about how this is geared towards authors political or moral views. Sometimes it's obvious that a character is written to reflect the author's POV. If it's overtly racist..."What was your issue with King?
I haven't read him since high school, but last year I decided that I wanted to read/reread his works.
I don't think he writes women well at all. Franny in The Stand was constantly changing her mind and overly emotional. She was more caricature than character.
Melissa wrote: "I don't think he writes women well at all. Franny in The Stand was constantly changing her mind and overly emotional. She was more caricature than character."Ah.
The only think I remember about the Stand was how incredibly disappointed I was at the end of it. I felt like I had trudged through a million pages for very little pay off.
My absolute favorite of his was The Dark Half, followed by Needful Things. It's been so long since I read them, however, I'd need to reread to remember why I enjoyed them so much.
Nyssa wrote: The only think I remember about the Stand was how incredibly disappointed I was at the end of it. I felt like I had trudged through a million pages for very little pay off. "
Soooo glad to hear I'm not the only one!
I don't want to start reading MZB knowing what I know now, and I'm not a big high fantasy fan anyway. Otherwise I can't think of any fiction author I avoid for actions or beliefs.
I tend to be ignorant in this kind of stuff since I rarely seek out the authors, just their books. But I do avoid MZB. Someone suggested her books to me and I found out about her while searching for her books and thus abandoned the search.
Books I refused to read are Emily Giffin's. I read some time ago how she and her husband attacked a reviewer because he/she gave a one star review. They even spurred her fans into attacking that person. They offered a half appology after the entire thing got some attentinon from some bloggers but the hole thing just put me off of her books so much. I also refuse to watch any movie that Woody Allen was involved in. I mean seriously how is this guy still making movies?
I read and re-read Mists, and gave copies of it to friends and family. It was actually the only MZB book I cared for. (The other Avalon books just weren't as good and I did not get to the Darkover series). After reading about what she did, (and did not do), I got rid of all of her books. I admit, Mists is still a incredible book. (BTW MZB abused both daughter and son)I acknowledge that books from "another era" are going to be racist, sexist, antisemitism, (or anti whatever religion), and politically provocative. I can get over that - because that is just the way people thought.
As far as other books I do not read? Like most of the above comments, it is usually the quality and content of a book.
For example, I tried a Laurel Hamilton book and found it was over the top violent and the sex scenes were difficult. (I am not a prude either). I loved Ender's Game, but none of the others because they were boring to me. I tried Card's others and did not like them. Game of Thrones and Hunger Games are not my cup of tea.
Oh yeah I forgot about Kristen Ashley. I tried 2 of her books. The first one had a terrible heroine that was like a doormat, the hero was awful but what made it a Dnf were the many, many spelling and grammatical mistakes. I thought I'll give her another chance but my god... I don't think she ever proof reads her books.... while the story was ok the writing was awful. I went and read some of her reviews and apparently it's an ongoing issue, a lot of readers were complaining about the spelling and grammar in her books.
Jeremy wrote: "Forget about financial impact for a second, since it would be immaterial for books loaned by friends or a library.
If you were hanging out with a friend and he said, "Hey, let's watch my old VHS of Bill Cosby: Himself.", would you refuse to watch it?
Yes, I would refuse to watch it. I remember seeing him live in the 60's, and I still remember how wonderful he was, and watching "I Spy." But he is still innocent of anything until he either pleads guilty or is found guilty by a court. Apparently CNN got their hands on Responses to Interrogatories from one of the victim's original civil suits, but those responses do not serve to convict him of a crime. I understand that utterly. But it still makes me sad. Some of which is based on the fact that I work in criminal defense and I don't want to be thinking about it when I'm not there. For instance, I gave up TV a dozen years ago or so. Actual crime just tires me out at this point.
Yes, I would refuse to buy a book by someone whose political views I found dangerous. That's different that someone I differ with. I can't think of an example.
Tytti mentioned above people (Americans) involved in the American Communist Party. I have no problem with those people whatsoever. They did not know for the most part what Stalin was doing, and when they found out in the 50's, they dropped like flies. If I had a problem with people who were misled during that time period, I'd have no one to read.
I am trying to think of a writer whose political views I know personally, and except for one I can't mention because I actually do know him, and I wouldn't buy his books or the movies made from them. So I guess that makes the answer yes, again. I have refused to read or watch movies based on books by someone I knew to be opposed to views I held who demanded he be deferred to within the community where he lives. It wasn't what he believed, it was that he demanded everyone else believe it, too.
Jeremy, I don't know the political views, I guess, of most of the writers I enjoy. Living writers. I don't read much science fiction (well, that's probably not true. Joanne Russ, Lessing, Atwood, Dick, loved Station Eleven, and I devoured it when I was a kid, Asimov, Heinlein, Bradbury) or any romance, no modern series, so I'm not familiar with some of the writers mentioned above, but I agree with the positions group members have mentioned. I did read a Longreads essay on maneuverings in the Hugo community, and I understand that was pretty ugly.
I am thinking that I would sense political views from people's writing? Is that naive? (Yes, because I don't think anyone would know about that writer mentioned above who I will not read, they wouldn't know that he was pretty much a dictator of opinion.) And it would probably just not interest me. There are some writers I think were pretty miserable people, like Mailer, whose writing I enjoy.
See, we're still a democracy, and we still have a Constitution, and I think people are entitled to believe as they believe, but they're not entitled to insist I agree with them. I believe so intensely that politics and religion are private matters. Crime is different, it has victims. Politics and religion have victims, too, I understand that,
God what an interesting question. I'm all tied up in knots trying to answer it.
I can't answer it, I guess.
EDIT: (like the fourth edit) I was bothered by that Lithub writers' letter, which spoke up against one presidential candidate. It wasn't the content. It was that I felt I was being dictated to. And if a writer decides to advertise his or her political stance, how will someone who blacklists you because of that letter ever read your work and maybe learn something they didn't know, or understand something they didn't understand? Now supporters of a certain candidate will never, ever read books by any of the authors who signed that letter. I think that's a shame, but I understand, to a degree, that some people feel they have to take a public stance on an issue, whatever it is.
If you were hanging out with a friend and he said, "Hey, let's watch my old VHS of Bill Cosby: Himself.", would you refuse to watch it?
Yes, I would refuse to watch it. I remember seeing him live in the 60's, and I still remember how wonderful he was, and watching "I Spy." But he is still innocent of anything until he either pleads guilty or is found guilty by a court. Apparently CNN got their hands on Responses to Interrogatories from one of the victim's original civil suits, but those responses do not serve to convict him of a crime. I understand that utterly. But it still makes me sad. Some of which is based on the fact that I work in criminal defense and I don't want to be thinking about it when I'm not there. For instance, I gave up TV a dozen years ago or so. Actual crime just tires me out at this point.
Yes, I would refuse to buy a book by someone whose political views I found dangerous. That's different that someone I differ with. I can't think of an example.
Tytti mentioned above people (Americans) involved in the American Communist Party. I have no problem with those people whatsoever. They did not know for the most part what Stalin was doing, and when they found out in the 50's, they dropped like flies. If I had a problem with people who were misled during that time period, I'd have no one to read.
I am trying to think of a writer whose political views I know personally, and except for one I can't mention because I actually do know him, and I wouldn't buy his books or the movies made from them. So I guess that makes the answer yes, again. I have refused to read or watch movies based on books by someone I knew to be opposed to views I held who demanded he be deferred to within the community where he lives. It wasn't what he believed, it was that he demanded everyone else believe it, too.
Jeremy, I don't know the political views, I guess, of most of the writers I enjoy. Living writers. I don't read much science fiction (well, that's probably not true. Joanne Russ, Lessing, Atwood, Dick, loved Station Eleven, and I devoured it when I was a kid, Asimov, Heinlein, Bradbury) or any romance, no modern series, so I'm not familiar with some of the writers mentioned above, but I agree with the positions group members have mentioned. I did read a Longreads essay on maneuverings in the Hugo community, and I understand that was pretty ugly.
I am thinking that I would sense political views from people's writing? Is that naive? (Yes, because I don't think anyone would know about that writer mentioned above who I will not read, they wouldn't know that he was pretty much a dictator of opinion.) And it would probably just not interest me. There are some writers I think were pretty miserable people, like Mailer, whose writing I enjoy.
See, we're still a democracy, and we still have a Constitution, and I think people are entitled to believe as they believe, but they're not entitled to insist I agree with them. I believe so intensely that politics and religion are private matters. Crime is different, it has victims. Politics and religion have victims, too, I understand that,
God what an interesting question. I'm all tied up in knots trying to answer it.
I can't answer it, I guess.
EDIT: (like the fourth edit) I was bothered by that Lithub writers' letter, which spoke up against one presidential candidate. It wasn't the content. It was that I felt I was being dictated to. And if a writer decides to advertise his or her political stance, how will someone who blacklists you because of that letter ever read your work and maybe learn something they didn't know, or understand something they didn't understand? Now supporters of a certain candidate will never, ever read books by any of the authors who signed that letter. I think that's a shame, but I understand, to a degree, that some people feel they have to take a public stance on an issue, whatever it is.
MrsJoseph wrote: "Melissa wrote: "sorry, I missed the comment about how this is geared towards authors political or moral views. Sometimes it's obvious that a character is written to reflect the author's POV. If it'..."
Now that's what I wish I'd said. Good answer.
Now that's what I wish I'd said. Good answer.
Electric wrote: "Orson Scott Card disapproves of homosexuality, but he hasn't dealt with it in any of the books I've read so far. I read the entire Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow series. It's very good! He's a sma..."From what I recall, he's actually addressed homosexuality in something he wrote I want to say a short/novella based on a Shakespeare play? Something that (from what I remember of the conversations I read about it ages back) implied that all gay people were molested as children -that that is the root cause of homosexuality- and will molest others or some other loathsome bullshit. But I'm not going to dig that up for reference because I don't feel like aggravating myself today.
I read Ender's Game when I was eight and loved it, and I'd read quite a few of his other books both in that series and others, before I found out what an awful person he is.
I don't feel any need to read more of his work. Both because I don't want to give him any money -that he may very well turn around and use for a cause I find repugnant, and because I don't want to align myself with what I'm sure are plenty of people who read his works because their beliefs match his. That's not a group I want to be a part of, for any reason. Not even just to make a point about how I'm impartial in my reading choices.
Besides that, I know he's an asshat now, that's going to affect MY experience of reading his books -many things enjoyed as a kid turn out to be problematic or just less than we remember- but knowing that anything ambiguous, that I wouldn't have caught on to before, probably does have that shading to it is going to ruin it for me anyway.
As for saying that none of that is directly expressed in his fiction so it doesn't matter, to me that seems like a very surface-only way of looking at it. It might not be overt but an author's worldview is going to be a part of what they write even if it's not explicitly addressed. The mind that creates those stories is the same one that thinks gay people should be jailed for their sexual orientation. That's a mind that isn't going to consider anything good in regards to gay people/characters and isn't going to allow them a positive representation or presence in his books. That is going to influence the stories he writes. The same way a racist isn't likely to include positive and un-stereotyped depictions of POC in their writing even if they refrain from specifically writing negatively about them them. The absence of something can be a characteristic all on it's own.
Just because he doesn't have characters saying "all gay people should be killed" doesn't mean his own homophobia and bigotry aren't built into the foundation of everything he writes just like all his other values. Same as anyone else. The way you look at the world is going to be reflected in the stories you create, even if it's just in the things you choose not to show or the light you show them in.
ETA aaaand crap I just realized this is a rather old thread and I'm replying to something from months ago. :/
No sweat Aerulean, that was a well thought out well written answer. I enjoyed reading it.
Kris wrote: "No sweat Aerulean, that was a well thought out well written answer. I enjoyed reading it."Thank you Kris!
Michelle °O° wrote: "I probably won't read anything by Sylvia Day anymore. After all the lies and made up bs she did about release dates for the Cross Fire series plus the way she rushed her last two books,I think I ..."
So your saying your put off by the author entirely? What about her old work? I stopped reading crossfire series after third book. I just thought she was finishing a problem instead she left the problem unsolved and created another problem. The Gideon personality trait just become annoying. I would suggest one book that gave the author the idea of crossfire first book. She wrote a historical read and the theme gave her the idea of writing . A book where both hero and heroine have been abused in the past. Seven Years to Sin
Ruzza wrote: "Oh yeah I forgot about Kristen Ashley. I tried 2 of her books. The first one had a terrible heroine that was like a doormat, the hero was awful but what made it a Dnf were the many, many spelling a..."I use to be fan liked her hooks. But what I don't like about her is that she writes a book. Makes it into a series then takes 2/3year to bring out the last book in the series. Because she's focusing on a new project.
She won't even mention the book until reader complain. Then she rushes and publishes a crape book.
She has done that twice. Also I hate how she writes her characters dialogues. They are always in third person and over the top detailed. The only way I can describe it is audio description dialogue track type films. That are for people who are blinds or partially sighted. That's how it feels to me anyway.
I will never read EL James . That author offends me full stop. I was not a lot knowledgeable on bdsm. Then books just left me flabbergasted and confused. I was glad I researched and found other authors who portray the concept better.That's one of my pet peeve. I hate it when a author chooses a concept for their book. But does 0% research on the concept and its so obvious in the book. For example I have read books where the concept is based on a mental illness. But the author hasn't done there research or not enough.
I read a book where the hero was bipolar . So what does the author do? She writes a heroine whose pussy (sorry for being crass) is the cure and calming balm . When the hero is having a manic episode. I mean seriously?
Do you know the worse thing I do not understand ? The book is popular and has 5* ratings on GD.
Sönïa wrote: "Michelle °O° wrote: "I probably won't read anything by Sylvia Day anymore. After all the lies and made up bs she did about release dates for the Cross Fire series plus the way she rushed her last..."
I have already read many of her books including the 7 Years. She is a great author, but I am done with her. She is the reason I no longer will read a series until I know it is complete.
Michelle °O° wrote: "Sönïa wrote: "Michelle °O° wrote: "I probably won't read anything by Sylvia Day anymore. After all the lies and made up bs she did about release dates for the Cross Fire series plus the way she r..."
Oh well for me its her and Kristen Ashley. Kristen Ashley just evil and cruel for a soft hearted reader. She bloody takes 2/3yrs to bring out the final book in a series. Its like shes drug dealer gets you hooked. Brings out 1st book 2nd after months then 3rd after a few months. But soon as she know its the final book in the series. Thats it she forgets about it for years.
In terms of fiction, like AnnLoretta, I don't usually know that much about the personal life or views of the authors I read. I recently found out that H. Rider Haggard was a bit of a racist, but I still really like his books. But one can write that off as him being a product of his times, which would be harder to do with a contemporary author. I must admit that I've avoided reading Samuel R. Delaney since finding out that he spoke approvingly of NAMBLA. Then again, that isn't much of a sacrifice since I'd tried one of his books and thought it was just, well, weird lolMovies are a different thing, because celebrities' personal lives are often splashed all over the news so I can't avoid knowing about it, and because their public personas are kind of an aspect of their professional lives (which is not so much the case with authors). So, for example, I absolutely refuse to see or rent any movie with Tom Cruise or Mel Gibson. I don't like to reward bad behavior or stupidity.
Melissa wrote: "Franny in The Stand was constantly changing her mind and overly emotional."Well, she was pregnant, which can make a woman a little unpredictable :)
Michele wrote: "In terms of fiction, like AnnLoretta, I don't usually know that much about the personal life or views of the authors I read. I recently found out that H. Rider Haggard was a bit of a racist, but I ..."The Lethal Weapon movies were one of my absolute FAVES. I cannot watch them anymore without thinking of the antisemitism.
Many people who refuse to "support" an author they find to have distasteful views seem to be going by the logic of not wanting to give that person their money - but, if that's really all it is, I'm curious to hear if you would check the book out from a library, borrow it from a friend, or download an e-edition of a public domain work? Surely, a refusal to read a Gutenberg text by a long-dead author, or a book sitting on the shelf of the relative you're visiting, has nothing to do with money?
Downloading is still supporting as many places use that as part of the recommendation algorithms.Library loans may be used the same way.
So the only non-supportive action left would be to borrow from friends or family, and then not review said book online.
What's the saying? "Any press is good press".
I don't read anything written by Kristen Ashley. I've only read one book by her. The characters and dialogues were unrealistic and the main character was insensitive. I've got no personal issues with Ms. Kristen, but her writing just pisses me off to be honest. The way she portrays the female characters bothers me because they're spineless . It's one of my biggest pet peeves when the female characters are shown to be meek and shy virgins and the male character is a dominant alpha.
Herve wrote: "Many people who refuse to "support" an author they find to have distasteful views seem to be going by the logic of not wanting to give that person their money - but, if that's really all it is ..."Ok I can't speak for anybody else, but I think conflating living authors with historical/dead ones in this issue muddies the waters unnecessarily. Most of our past as humans (and plenty of our present too) is filled with some pretty shitty attitudes towards -pretty much everyone who wasn't at the top of the heap to be honest. If you mark off any author who was, or held opinions that were sexist, racist, classist, abelist, anti-Semitic, etc you're pretty much down to.......... Nothing. Heck, Roald Dalh and Dr Seuss had some fairly awful beliefs, even the kids books aren't safe from scrutiny!
You can't reasonably expect people of different eras to adhere to the social values of our time. That said. Many of those works are going to promote or normalize attitudes that are unacceptable now. So the issue is not simply "am I giving them my money" but am I internalizing this message or supporting it's spread?
I like Georgette Heyer, her books are lively and fun to read but (among other things) she's got some anti-Semitic messages in some of them and that's not ok. Discussing her books without acknowledging those elements is problematic because glossing over the ugly bits doesn't reduce their impact or influence it just lets it happen unchallenged. And it makes it easier for those elements to alienate people who are targeted by it. So, sure read books by historical authors, buy them, talk about them, and we should talk about them. Recommend them to people if you choose, just be mindful that you might be recommending elegant writing or insightful prose but someone else is also going to read the less laudable bits along with them and those are important to acknowledge too.
Annnd part 2; Modern writers.I think the issue is different for contemporary authors, someone who's currently living can and often does actively work in support of their beliefs to one degree or another. I'm going to bring this back to Card because he's an easy one. He speaks publicly in support of his beliefs and uses his notoriety as an author to widen the reach of his voice, and commits his own money -which is going to come from sale of his works- to promoting his agendas.
Someone who's dead isn't going to be actively campaigning for their own -isms and while their works may speak for them or be used by others to express those beliefs, it's still a different matter. The dead only have what voice they've left behind them. The living are free to continue any argument they choose.
It's not just authors (and I think there's a rather bizarre tendency in some people to try and exempt authors from this discussion) actors, musicians and even companies among others come under the same scrutiny.
Lots of people don't enjoy Tom Cruise anymore after his affiliations and activities were revealed. There's tons of other public figures that you could say the same about. Plenty of people won't shop at Walmart or Chick-fil-something-or-other (I can't recall the name) because the heads of the company dictate a public stance or policy they find wrong, and conversely plenty of people probably make a point to shop there to show support for their stance. Everyone draws lines like this to some degree, even if it's saying "I don't care, I'll shop wherever."
Voting with your wallet is a perfectly acceptable stance, except apparently when it comes to books. Where readers somehow owe authors not only to buy and read their books despite any opposing feelings they have themselves but also to give the authors the benefit of the doubt to the point where we're supposed to simply ignore any bad behavior or reprehensible beliefs because they put pen to paper -or fingers to keyboard- and that somehow makes them unassailable.
Being able to write doesn't make you exempt from the consequences of your actions or speech. If you put your beliefs out in public view, some people are going to disagree, and they have the right to refuse to do business with you because of that.
As for library, downloads, etc. I agree with Nyssa library use does count as support, checkouts are going to factor in to how long a book stays on shelves and if more are ordered. And asking for a book to be bought by your library is an excellent way to support an author you like. Downloads -paid, not public domain- again sends money their way and more than that, if it's not self-published it works to further their career with their publisher, showing them as a viable asset by contributing to their sales numbers.
As for borrowing from someone, or picking up a used copy..... that's going to be personal preference, just like the rest of this. I guess it's a viable option if you don't want to "support" an author but still want to read their works.
Sorry for the wall of text everyone, I'm apparently incapable of expressing an opinion in a brief format.
I really don't go looking for what authors do and don't say publicly. I usually judge a book on it's own merit, whether I liked it or not. There is content I try to stay away from like pedophilia, graphic depictions of rape but again that comes down to content. And even with those it depends, if I feel it was done merely for shock value then it turns me off. If it is used to challenge the reader then that's different to me.With modern writers there are things that turn me off about them but again, it's usually not because of who/what they are or endorse. I really don't bother looking. The things that more modern authors do that annoy me are more along the lines of not finishing a series, being rude to reviewers that give them (most of the time justified) low ratings, putting out a poorly edited or proofread book. To me that's insulting to the reader. We are giving you our hard earned money, the least you can do is give it a once-over before publishing it. And my biggest purr peeve: Leaving a book unfinished just to get the reader to buy the next book. That will absolutely guarantee that I will not buy the next one and probably nothing else by them.
As far as older writers, if I really can't take the content then I won't read it but most of the I just realize that it was a product of the times and while unfortunate, unless it's absolutely disgusting in content I will still read it.
So, long story short, I guess, to me it's all about the content.
Aerulan wrote: "Voting with your wallet is a perfectly acceptable stance, except apparently when it comes to books. Where readers somehow owe authors not only to buy and read their books despite any opposing feelings they have themselves but also to give the authors the benefit of the doubt to the point where we're supposed to simply ignore any bad behavior or reprehensible beliefs because they put pen to paper -or fingers to keyboard- and that somehow makes them unassailable.Being able to write doesn't make you exempt from the consequences of your actions or speech. If you put your beliefs out in public view, some people are going to disagree, and they have the right to refuse to do business with you because of that. ."
THIS
My cousin and I were discussing THIS VERY THING this weekend.
We were both chortling over the strange way authors (and their fandoms) try to position it so that authors can have their cake and eat it, too.
Example: Supposedly, readers are supposed to 100% divorce the author from the work. "Let the work stand by itself!" is the rally cry. IF (and only if) the author has said/done something that could cause the reader to DNF/DNR/boycott the author and her work(s).
EXCEPT
Readers are always encouraged to think really hard about all the work the author put into that work! It's their livelihood! And their dream! You can't give it a bad review! THINK OF THE AUTHOR!! the wails implore. IF (and only if) the work is of such quality that the reader would give the work a bad review.
So. WTF is it?? I fall on the side of "Think of myself!"
Can you guys make a bullet list of authors you and others disapprove of and reasons on a single post? I'd like to see everyone's input. :) Be it weird or no.
Spottyblanket wrote: "Can you guys make a bullet list of authors you and others disapprove of and reasons on a single post? I'd like to see everyone's input. :) Be it weird or no."Nope! At least, I can't. Normally I don't even think about them til their names pop up.
Spottyblanket wrote: "Can you guys make a bullet list of authors you and others disapprove of and reasons on a single post? I'd like to see everyone's input. :) Be it weird or no."The only two I have put on my ban for life list are Stephanie Meyer and E.L. James
MrsJoseph wrote: "My cousin and I were discussing THIS VERY THING this weekend.We were both chortling over the strange way authors (and their fandoms) try to position it so that authors can have their cake and eat it, too...."
It's such a weird mindset both on the part of authors and their fans.
I can't think of any other job where people act like you're entitled to be exempt from criticism both for your actual job performance and your actions while you are representing your brand/company.
If you eat at a restaurant and get food poisoning, nobody demands that you keep quiet about it because "the chef worked hard on it!" and they certainly don't expect you to keep eating the meal you're served if the meat is raw or ingredients rancid. Or that you keep going back because the restaurant deserves an infinite number of chances. Let alone if the staff makes ugly comments or threatens you if you don't tell your friends it was the best meal you ever ate.
Nobody expects you to buy artwork you hate and hang it on your wall just because "the artist tried really hard and you should support that."
I guess it's a nice system for an author if you can fool enough people into believing you deserve that kind of treatment.
Spottyblanket wrote: "Can you guys make a bullet list of authors you and others disapprove of and reasons on a single post? I'd like to see everyone's input. :) Be it weird or no."Well I can't remember many names off the top of my head (and I'm not gonna get references so this is what I recall of the issues, not guaranteed to be absolutely accurate details. Google for better facts if you want to pursue it) but.....
(view spoiler)
Mod
Because she needed to be at the center of every story about her, she wrote about it for the Guardian....
https://www.theguardian.com/books/201...
Aerulan wrote: "Voting with your wallet is a perfectly acceptable stance...Being able to write doesn't make you exempt from the consequences of your actions or speech. If you put your beliefs out in public view, some people are going to disagree, and they have the right to refuse to do business with you because of that."Yes indeed -- well said!
Spottyblanket wrote: "Can you guys make a bullet list of authors you and others disapprove of and reasons on a single post? I'd like to see everyone's input. :) Be it weird or no."Samuel R. Delaney. He's a fan of NAMBLA.
Gracie wrote: "The only two I have put on my ban for life list are Stephanie Meyer and E.L. James ..."Why them Gracie?
Funny, when I've checked this thread out in the past, I've always thought it was looking at things/opinions/politics 'above' my understanding/interest. In theory, there are reasons I wouldn't read someone's book, but I've never really come across them in practice (I've just looked up what NAMBLA means, and that is appalling and would def be on any list I had of boycotting an author). I'm a solid fiction girl, but there have been the occasional times I've heard about a biography being released and thought 'that would have some great stories... but I wouldn't buy it cause 'that person is an idiot and doesn't deserve my money or time', and even a few times I've declined a book because the person would be 'telling stories' about others who I like or respect, so I'm not going to hand some greedy bastard money to use them as bait for others buying their own bland story. Like it's been mentioned about movies a couple of times here, if it's got Tom Cruise in it, I'm not watching it. Same for Jim Carry. I was a HUGE fan of Jean Claude VanDam(? the 'roided up action actor from the '90's) growing up then I heard he was abusing his wife... I was done.I will read, and enjoy reading about things that I would NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS condone or put up with in reality. Be it sex, abuse, dominance, weaknesses, evil, addictions, whatever, it doesn't bother me to read it, and I quite often enjoy the insights and resolutions that the authors can come up with. I can even get all 'awe, they are so happy' about the kidnapped torture victim stockholming with the abuser and getting their f'ed up HEA. The times it does bother me, it can usually be traced back to the 'bad' characters intent. I loved FSoG in all its ridiculousness, yet I think I read another 'bdsm' book around the same time and slammed it. They were both ill-informed, and anyone who pays any attention can see the Christian is a bad and dangerous Dom who no one should be trusting him to submit to as he was portrayed. The difference between the two Dom's that got to me was Christian was focused on 'making her submit to make her happy to make him happy'. The other Dom was focused on 'her submitting cause he needed to Dom someone'. There's even a cheesy fluff author with ridiculously simple, predictable and standard plots that I enjoyed reading for the easy HEA factor, but she wrote a second set which I kept wanting to reread, but couldn't make myself cause my teeth would start grinding at the thought... Over time I'd forgotten why it had bugged me, but recently made myself reread it. The first two of the second set were like nails on a chalkboard to me and were almost painful to read, but I knew that I had liked it the first time for some reason and couldn't pin point why it was so grating now... The final story in that set was great, and was what had had me not trying to shred my iPad to get rid of the first two books. The difference between the three was that the first two H's were intent on making their h's pay for both tempting them and for all other slights that previous woman had made. The third books was the standard 'may or may not have been looking for a wife' H, who didn't punish her for things she had nothing to do with. Again, I can put up with a lot of 'you should be hung for that' if the intent is right. Doormat h's for their own sakes is not something I will put up with... If it's not just part of a learning curve, I'm done.
As for people bring up authors that annoy them rather than being a political type choice... I'm all over that shit! I used to be a huge fan of Anne Rice, but finally gave up after she seemed to drop the vamp/witch series with no word... above someone mentioned she's a review hater and incites fans against bad reviewers, I never knew that, and can say if I was reviewing back then, I would have probably made her list. Not finishing series drives me up the f'ing wall. I can vent for hours on the subject, so here is my (not so) short opinion.
If an author starts a series, finish it. If you are a person who struggles to finish things like this or can't perform under the pressure of eager fans, either don't publish (harsh), or finish the series before you release. If you 'lose the thread of the story' or the shit hits the fan in your life and you can't finish it... MAKE THAT CLEAR! That means clearly letting the fans know what's going on, ie. 'I'm done and it won't be finished', or 'I'm majorly delayed, and I hope to finish one day, but will update you all in 6mths.' I think they should also make it clear on any earlier books in the series that remain up for sale that the series has stalled and will remain incomplete, or regular updates will added. It's the electronic age, the authors can update these items from their living rooms. People have spent hard earned money and time supporting their books and deserve to know what's going on if it's stalled. And on the editing front... It should be done. Releasing books that have the characters names spelt incorrectly, spelling mistakes and continuity errors isn't justified by saying 'I'm an Indi'. The occasional error happens, but when they are constant it's just not fair to publish it because you're too lazy to clean it up.
Sorry, might have gone a little off track... But you get my drift ;)
I won't read Marion Zimmer Bradley because of the abuse, and my Mum donated all her books to get them out of the house.I also won't read Michele Bardsley and got rid of all her books after I brought some tie-in mugs from her that never manifested, nor did the promised refund which was dragged out until the paypal protection ran out and then there was never any other response beyond a final "the cheque is in the mail". I am not supporting an author who personally ripped me off.
Spottyblanket wrote: "Can you guys make a bullet list of authors you and others disapprove of and reasons on a single post? I'd like to see everyone's input. :) Be it weird or no."Joyce Carol Oates
George RR Martin (rape is NOT entertainment sir)
Orson Scott Card... you just suck and Ender's Game is the most overhyped crap ever
Aerulan wrote: "It's such a weird mindset both on the part of authors and their fans.I can't think of any other job where people act like you're entitled to be exempt from criticism both for your actual job performance and your actions while you are representing your brand/company.
If you eat at a restaurant and get food poisoning, nobody demands that you keep quiet about it because "the chef worked hard on it!" and they certainly don't expect you to keep eating the meal you're served if the meat is raw or ingredients rancid. Or that you keep going back because the restaurant deserves an infinite number of chances. Let alone if the staff makes ugly comments or threatens you if you don't tell your friends it was the best meal you ever ate.
Nobody expects you to buy artwork you hate and hang it on your wall just because "the artist tried really hard and you should support that."
I guess it's a nice system for an author if you can fool enough people into believing you deserve that kind of treatment."
Oooh, I SO agree. I wish I could get away with that kind of stuff at work, lol.
Kris wrote: "Spottyblanket wrote: "Can you guys make a bullet list of authors you and others disapprove of and reasons on a single post? I'd like to see everyone's input. :) Be it weird or no."Joyce Carol Oate..."
Kris, I'm curious about Joyce Carol Oates - I am back and forth on her writing/stories personally, but didn't know if there was a bigger issue I was unaware of?
El, I can't say why exactly. I think it was something I had to read in the 80s in college that dealt with a predatory male, who was a so NOT cleverly disguised Satan, and an innocent girl. I don't think I ever got past some point where, if I am remembering correctly, he forced her to go with him even though she didn't want to go and knew it was literally dangerous. I just put the book done and said "No."Since then I just have a visceral reaction to her name and I become physically sick until I flip past her story.
I was excited to read If I Was Your Girl by Meredith Russo until I learned that the author has been accused of rape and child abuse. Somehow this doesn't appear to be discussed anywhere, and she even has a new book deal with another young adult title slated for publication.
After his perverted totally unrelated to the story, so uncalled for sex scene in Cujo, and the father-daughter incest theme of Dolores Clairborne, I won't touch Stephen King's filth again!
What's the Name of That Book???
Books mentioned in this topic
A Room with a View (other topics)Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been? (other topics)
Fahrenheit 451 (other topics)
The Official Fahrenheit 9/11 Reader (other topics)
Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been? (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Bradbury (other topics)Ray Bradbury (other topics)
Thomas C. Foster (other topics)
Nicole Hollander (other topics)
Ray Bradbury (other topics)
More...
^ Same, except I slugged through one of short stories and threw in the towel.
Found him preten..."
That would be my general opinion of him as well.