PDA

View Full Version : Would you buy/read a book by an author you don't like?



Rowan
10-22-2010, 12:00 AM
Let me explain...
If an author acts like a jerk on the internet (social media, blogs, message boards for example) or at a signing (public venue), would that turn you off reading their book(s)?

There are many examples of authors throwing fits online (Alice Hoffman, Laurell K. Hamilton) over reviews, reader criticism, etc. Here are but a few:

Hoffman: http://popwatch.ew.com/2009/06/29/alice-hoffman-exacts-revenge-on-reviewer-but-why/

Hamilton: http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/004776.html
http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/004739.html

Anne Rice: http://www.tribalwar.com/forums/archive/t-326444.html

So, if you take a personal dislike to an author, would you still read their book(s)?

(As for me, the answer is no, I most likely wouldn't).

Chris P
10-22-2010, 12:07 AM
My original reaction was "probably not," but I listen to music by people I don't like, Guns 'N' Roses being a prime example. I wouldn't avoid an Anne Rice book because of the link you posted. I guess it would depend on how much they bugged me by their behavior.

Rowan
10-22-2010, 12:10 AM
My original reaction was "probably not," but I listen to music by people I don't like, Guns 'N' Roses being a prime example. I wouldn't avoid an Anne Rice book because of the link you posted. I guess it would depend on how much they bugged me by their behavior.

True. For me, if an author demonstrates truly repulsive behaviour then I'm not going to line their pockets. ;)

thothguard51
10-22-2010, 12:12 AM
Read a booK by an author I don't like? Yes, if its a good book.

Buy a book from an author I don't like? No, not matter how good the book is...

Its like me and Tom Cruize...I don't go to or buy any DVD's of his movies. But, if they are on TV, I might watch them if nothing else is on...which is seldom. The only reason I watched the Last Samurai was because of the other actors...not because of him.

Its the same with books...

blacbird
10-22-2010, 12:49 AM
Have done so, many times. One example: H.P. Lovecraft was a loathesome anti-semite and racist, revealed by letters and other stuff he wrote. But his horror fantasies don't really reflect that, and they stand or fall on their merits as stories, not on issues about the character of their author.

Kate Thornton
10-22-2010, 12:55 AM
Yes - I separate the person from the writer.
But I have to admit that many of my favorite writers are also very fine human beings with manners and everything.

Kitty Pryde
10-22-2010, 01:10 AM
An author who acts jerky--I'd still buy their books if they looked interesting. An author who takes a stand in a public forum as a racist (like Elizabeth M00n) or anti-gay (like 0rson Scott Card) or similar--no, I won't read their books anymore, nor will I recommend them to others. And yes, I do have a list :) I don't think it's that hard, as an intelligent blogging fiction writer, to avoid offending one's fans. But if they can't be bothered to care about their words, then I can't be bothered to buy their books.

backslashbaby
10-22-2010, 01:16 AM
I don't like monetarily supporting authors who need to STFU, but just being a jerk isn't enough to make me feel that way.

I can definitely like a work by a child molester, etc. I just won't give them any money or support.

Actors are kind of different because you have to look at them so much in their works. I'll never see past Mel Gibson's Mel Gibsonness now, for example. But he's pretty extreme.

jennontheisland
10-22-2010, 01:18 AM
No.

I believe consumers can advocate with their dollars and I won't buy a product that I don't believe has value. Whether it's because of their manufacturing process, company ethics, or whack-job-ed-ness of an author.

Besides, why do I want to give my money to people I don't like??

That said, I don't read most author blogs.

Rowan
10-22-2010, 01:21 AM
... An author who takes a stand in a public forum as a racist (like Elizabeth M00n) or anti-gay (like 0rson Scott Card) or similar--no, I won't read their books anymore, nor will I recommend them to others. And yes, I do have a list :) I don't think it's that hard, as an intelligent blogging fiction writer, to avoid offending one's fans. But if they can't be bothered to care about their words, then I can't be bothered to buy their books.

Exactly. Some people don't seem to realize how far and wide their audiences are--with mediums like Twitter, boards, Facebook, it's easy to step in it.

For the record, I won't blacklist an author because they have different beliefs, etc. but if I find someone to be a tiresome, insolent, obnoxious jerk then I'll find something else to read.

[Not that I expect all authors to be nice, sweet and beyond reproach--we all have our faults--but I won't waste my time or money on someone who goes out of their way to be a total @ss.] :D

Amadan
10-22-2010, 01:24 AM
I do avoid books by authors I don't like. I care less about it if the author is deceased. (And if the author is long dead, well, how many authors from the early 20th century or before had views that would stand up to scrutiny today?)


Have done so, many times. One example: H.P. Lovecraft was a loathesome anti-semite and racist, revealed by letters and other stuff he wrote. But his horror fantasies don't really reflect that, and they stand or fall on their merits as stories, not on issues about the character of their author.

He wrote some virulently racist stuff, yes -- but in fairness (and 'cause I actually wrote a biography of Lovecraft way back in middle school and still remember this), he seemed to repent of many of those views later in life.

whimsical rabbit
10-22-2010, 01:42 AM
No.

I believe consumers can advocate with their dollars and I won't buy a product that I don't believe has value. Whether it's because of their manufacturing process, company ethics, or whack-job-ed-ness of an author.

Besides, why do I want to give my money to people I don't like??

100% agreed. Call me a purist, but I apply this rule to anything I could spend money on, anything at all. If I found a person to be repulsive I would most definitely not contribute to their wealth, and would not be driven by curiosity to read a book of theirs either.

gothicangel
10-22-2010, 01:42 AM
Depends on the book. I don't buy into this cult of celebrity. If there is a great book, I will read it. Why would I deprive myself of the experience of reading a great book because I don't agree with someone's politics?

Take Anne Rice. I don't really care what she gets up to Amazon. What I do care about is that Interview With The Vampire is so damn clever.

leahzero
10-22-2010, 01:42 AM
I may still read, but definitely will not buy anything by any writer who acts like an ass.

And that goes beyond the obvious wrongs, like racism, homophobia, etc. Any author who disrespects their fanbase is out; for example, authors who excoriate their fans for innocent, tributary fanfiction and such.

I read a mediocre book earlier this year (title withheld, but you can find the review on my blog) where the author included a snarky, defensive foreword note to the effect of, "This is fiction, so don't criticize the liberties I've taken with history/geography/etc. because I don't want to hear it." Well, duh. All works of fiction contain that disclaimer on the first page with the publication info. This catty note, coupled with the author's uptight, pedantic tone on their blog, completely killed any goodwill that remained after the book's failed efforts. I felt like the author took a disdainful attitude toward their fans by default, and I have no time for an author who doesn't respect their readers.

It's almost unfortunate that modern authors can be judged not just by their works, but on their behavior on blogs, Twitter, Facebook, and elsewhere. They're much more exposed and visible.

KTC
10-22-2010, 01:59 AM
I use my voice...no matter how infinitesimally small it is. I will NOT go to a Tom Cruise movie. If I was equally repulsed by an author, I would boycott their book too. Not that my boycott is going to change the world...but it will change MY world.

Rowan
10-22-2010, 02:11 AM
Posted by Whimsical Rabbit:
100% agreed. Call me a purist, but I apply this rule to anything I could spend money on, anything at all. If I found a person to be repulsive I would most definitely not contribute to their wealth, and would not be driven by curiosity to read a book of theirs either.




I use my voice...no matter how infinitesimally small it is. I will NOT go to a Tom Cruise movie. If I was equally repulsed by an author, I would boycott their book too. Not that my boycott is going to change the world...but it will change MY world.

QFT...

[Whimsical Rabbit: LOVE your avi! So cute.]

brainstorm77
10-22-2010, 02:27 AM
I use my voice...no matter how infinitesimally small it is. I will NOT go to a Tom Cruise movie. If I was equally repulsed by an author, I would boycott their book too. Not that my boycott is going to change the world...but it will change MY world.


This.

whimsical rabbit
10-22-2010, 02:31 AM
[Whimsical Rabbit: LOVE your avi! So cute.]

:e2flowers

You reckon it'd work if I enclosed it in a submission envelope? :D

Mr Flibble
10-22-2010, 03:15 AM
If they are just a bit of an arse - sure. We're all an arse at times (well..I am)

Serious racism/anti-semitism-whateverism- no, probably not. Because it might leak through and then I'd have to wash my hands...then I would say ick and wish I hadn't given them money.

Ken
10-22-2010, 03:33 AM
... would color my perspective of them, but it wouldn't necessarily deter me from reading a book of theirs if I found the subject particularly interesting. And you know, most all of us act like jerks from time to time. So unless the remarks are really glaring and offensive in the first degree, I think we should be forgiving. Otherwise we may well find ourselves on the receiving end ourselves one day.

PoppysInARow
10-22-2010, 03:37 AM
Depends. If they really pissed me off, then probably not.

Rowan
10-22-2010, 03:52 AM
I guess I'm looking at this as more than a "one off", ie., not just an author having a bad day. I'm thinking more along the lines of a truly insufferable, nasty person with a bad attitude in general. I can forgive a random snarky comment but when they start to add up (a pattern), then all bets are off. ;)

I'm all for the notion of hitting 'em where it hurts---the wallet.

Ken
10-22-2010, 04:02 AM
I guess I'm looking at this as more than a "one off", ie., not just an author having a bad day.

... ah, that's a bit different.

milly
10-22-2010, 04:18 AM
I like to think I'd be able to separate my feelings about the author from the writing but, thankfully, Palin sucks either way :)

hence...I haven't had to face that tough decision just yet

Don Evan Scott
10-22-2010, 04:42 AM
No, I wouldn't buy their books. It is one thing for a writer (musician, sports star, etc) to be elevated to fame and success, but it is an entirely different think for a writer to elevate themselves beyond that.

dolores haze
10-22-2010, 04:48 AM
My reading is too important to me to allow the author's bad behavior to get between me and the book I want to read. That said - I haven't been able to read Orson Scott Card recently, but then he hasn't written anything I'm desperate to read recently.

scarletpeaches
10-22-2010, 08:41 AM
I have done - even when it comes to fellow AWers.

I think there's a difference between insulting fans or potential fans, and being an arse in your 'real'/personal life. The former would put me off, but if I know an author personally or on the internet and know he/she is a complete shit, well, that probably wouldn't put me off at least trying their work. If I enjoy it, great. If not, at least I tried.

I would reason, "Well, he/she isn't the sort of person I'd want anything to do with in real life, but at least they have one redeeming feature."

Mr Flibble
10-22-2010, 11:27 AM
I would reason, "Well, he/she isn't the sort of person I'd want anything to do with in real life, but at least they have one redeeming feature."

No one said you had to be a nice person to write a really good book. Handy, really, or I'd be screwed :D

scarletpeaches
10-22-2010, 11:28 AM
Just as well I'm bloody fantastic, though.

seun
10-22-2010, 12:23 PM
Interesting question. I watched the four Lethal Weapon films recently for the first time in years and didn't really give any thought to Mel Gibson's recent behaviour. I just enjoyed four entertaining films.

As blacbird said, HP Lovecraft was a racist. Knowing that hasn't stopped me enjoying some of his work. I suppose there's a line. If I discovered an author I liked was a rapist/child molester/wife beater, I'd stop reading their work, but I wouldn't if they turned out to be a drunken bully.

SPMiller
10-22-2010, 12:28 PM
I don't buy books written by people whose political/religious/ethical/moral views I consider repugnant. Buying such a book would mean I'm financing those views in some way.

That said, a writer acting like a jerk is not sufficient to turn me off. Everyone acts like "a jerk" now and then. For example, reacting poorly to negative reviews doesn't necessarily mean I won't buy that writer's books.

But if, while acting like a jerk, the writer in question reveals any opinions or beliefs I find disgusting, that will turn me off.

shaldna
10-22-2010, 12:39 PM
Personally it would put me off a little, no matter how good the writing is.

Bs_08
10-22-2010, 02:57 PM
I wouldn't spend money to read a book written by someone I don't like.

However, I do try to keep an open mind. When I was younger, for some reason I just DID NOT like Helena Bonham Carter. I'm not even sure WHY I didn't like her, I just didn't. I would avoid all movies with her in them. And then I saw Fight Club and was like... Well she's alright. And I saw a few other movies with her in them and now I'm a fan.

I don't know if I can show the same kind of open-mindedness for an author who goes insane on his/her fans (I don't think I can ever read another Anne Rice book, not even for free, not even if Christiano Ronaldo lay in my bed naked and tried to read it to me!) if she made a public apology though, it might help.

KTC
10-22-2010, 03:10 PM
My reading is too important to me to allow the author's bad behavior to get between me and the book I want to read. That said - I haven't been able to read Orson Scott Card recently, but then he hasn't written anything I'm desperate to read recently.


I don't know why I forgot about this example. I'm repulsed by the person that Orson Scott Card is. I would NEVER read a single book that he has published. NEVER.

scarletpeaches
10-22-2010, 03:30 PM
You know I'm going to have to google OSC now. Unless someone would be kind enough to rep/PM me what he did/said?

aruna
10-22-2010, 03:57 PM
Me too!

One utterly repulsive author I've read is V. S Naipaul. I just adored A House for Mister Biswas; but I haven't read anything since and I won't.
Houllebeqc has the reputation of being a through and through utterly detestable human being; I won't read him but his stuff doesn't interest me anyway (in contrast to Naipaul, whose books I would in principle read.)

I recently saw a movie by Roman Polanski. (The Ghost). I did have a twinge of conscience but put it behind me....

bearilou
10-22-2010, 04:08 PM
Whew. When the question came up, I was afraid I would be a lone voice.

If, as a reader, I'm asked to separate the views of a character from the views of an author, then I feel it is reasonable to do the same in reverse. The views of an author are not the views of a character.

Huge but coming.

I'm afraid I can't separate it myself if I see an author behaving like a total dirtbag online/in interviews. If I find an author's behavior/political views distasteful to me, I can't make that separation. It colors my interest to read anything by them. I am no longer desirous to read anything by them. My interest wanes. :shrug


It's almost unfortunate that modern authors can be judged not just by their works, but on their behavior on blogs, Twitter, Facebook, and elsewhere. They're much more exposed and visible.

It is unfortunate and you'd think they would learn by now to temper their words. They are writers, after all, and words carry power. In those cases, the power to destroy.

There are authors who I will simply not read because I've discovered their attitudes and beliefs are offensive. I've heard an author has a fantastic series of books. It gets recommendations on this board all the time. I find his views distasteful. Any desire I had to read his works is gone. I'm not boycotting. I'm not interested in reading his books.

There is an author on the AW boards that was so ugly to me personally that it's pretty guaranteed that I won't read any of his books either. I'm not boycotting him. One person not purchasing his book is not going to break him. I'm sure he's a great writer. He sold a book for publication! That's more than I have. But his behavior in the thread and toward me colored my interest and so it'll never happen. :gone:

Zefiris
10-22-2010, 04:26 PM
Nope,

If the person is a dickhead then I won't spend money on their stuff no matter how talented they are.

This goes through to Music, films, tv-shows. . .anything really.

seun
10-22-2010, 04:55 PM
Nope,

If the person is a dickhead then I won't spend money on their stuff no matter how talented they are.

This goes through to Music, films, tv-shows. . .anything really.

You must have a lot of spare money ;)

Rowan
10-22-2010, 05:07 PM
...There is an author on the AW boards that was so ugly to me personally that it's pretty guaranteed that I won't read any of his books either. I'm not boycotting him. One person not purchasing his book is not going to break him. I'm sure he's a great writer. He sold a book for publication! That's more than I have. But his behavior in the thread and toward me colored my interest and so it'll never happen. :gone:

This is an interesting (and valid) point. This is a very popular board and there are a lot of readers who 'lurk'. Does anyone temper their behaviour on here for that very reason? For that matter, do you think authors should?

I agree with bearilou on this one, and I unfortunately feel the same about a couple of authors on here. To clarify, I'm not talking about authors/people who disagree with me (but do so in a professional/courteous manner). I'm referring to authors/people who are downright nasty on a routine basis... :Shrug:

On the flip side, I've found some fantastic books written by AWers! :)

whimsical rabbit
10-22-2010, 05:11 PM
You know I'm going to have to google OSC now. Unless someone would be kind enough to rep/PM me what he did/said?

I want to know, too. Can someone enlighten me please?

ETA: Pretty easy to find after all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_Scott_Card#Personal_views

Yup, that's pretty much what I'd called 'being repulsed by an author's beliefs'. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, because I read his viewpoint book and was planning to read his fiction too. I guess I won't. I guess I'll just go with Nancy Kress's both viewpoint manual, and her fiction-- unless someone has reason to deter me?

scarletpeaches
10-22-2010, 05:14 PM
I am reliably informed by another couple of members that he not only disagrees with gay marriage (to which I would reply, each to their own, his opinion, meh), but he's rabidly anti-gay and advocates revolution against the government which allows it (to which I would reply, ":eek:")

BenPanced
10-22-2010, 05:22 PM
You can read it here. (http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html)

Or here. (http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html)

And here. (http://mormontimes.com/ME_blogs.php?id=1586) (This link might take a bit to come up, if at all; I kept getting server errors.)

scarletpeaches
10-22-2010, 05:25 PM
I only saw the Wiki page earlier, which painted him as an all-round, "I don't agree with gay marriage but apart from that, rainbows and kittens and skittles and candy floss," kinda guy.

I shall now click Beep's links. Wish me luck.

Chris P
10-22-2010, 05:45 PM
This is an interesting (and valid) point. This is a very popular board and there are a lot of readers who 'lurk'. Does anyone temper their behaviour on here for that very reason? For that matter, do you think authors should?

I agree with bearilou on this one, and I unfortunately feel the same about a couple of authors on here. To clarify, I'm not talking about authors/people who disagree with me (but do so in a professional/courteous manner). I'm referring to authors/people who are downright nasty on a routine basis... :Shrug:

If I interacted with my favorite authors (well, most are dead now) as much as I interacted with people on AW, I'd see less-savory sides of them too. I was initially put off by some of the stuffed shirts here, but in time I recognized that many of them really knew their stuff. It took a while to distinguish a jerk from a useful jerk.

SPMiller
10-22-2010, 05:59 PM
OSC is a popular example, but don't forget that asshole, John C Wright. There are more, but I'll leave it at those two for now.

Seems my chosen genres have more than their share.

SPMiller
10-22-2010, 06:10 PM
Also pertinent, a tor.com thread on this issue: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2009/08/outrage-and-art

This site's owner even posted there, I see.

seun
10-22-2010, 06:10 PM
Does anyone temper their behaviour on here for that very reason?

I tone down my sexiness when I'm here. :e2brows:

bearilou
10-22-2010, 06:16 PM
On the flip side, I've found some fantastic books written by AWers! :)

I have, too! And in genres I wouldn't normally pick up as a first choice.

BenPanced
10-22-2010, 06:21 PM
Does anyone temper their behaviour on here for that very reason?

I tone down my sexiness when I'm here. :e2brows:
I don't, as evidenced by my userpic.

scarletpeaches
10-22-2010, 06:23 PM
Well it's a damn shame you don't play for my team, is all I can say.

Jamesaritchie
10-22-2010, 06:47 PM
Who cares what the writer is like? Do you refuse to buy a chair because the person who made it is a jerk? Do you refuse to eat a steak because the rancher who raised the steer is an idiot?

The real idiot is the person who can't separate a writer from his book. As a writer, anyone so intellectually limited is not someone I want reading my books, anyway.

Lyra Jean
10-22-2010, 06:48 PM
Honestly an actors or writers personal views have never really stopped me from purchasing their books or watching their movies.

Did anyone buy books when Stephen King was an alcoholic? Wouldn't you be afraid that you were just supporting his habit at the time?

I see it as their opinion and everyone can have one. Now if it was something along the lines of Roman Polanski and being a child molester that is something else entirely. But just for having an opinion no. I try to separate the work from the person. If I can do that with actors I can do that with authors.

scarletpeaches
10-22-2010, 06:48 PM
I just thought...what if someone is a real See You Next Tuesday, but they publish under a pen name? What if you've read a book by someone you strongly dislike...but never know?

seun
10-22-2010, 07:08 PM
I just thought...what if someone is a real See You Next Tuesday, but they publish under a pen name? What if you've read a book by someone you strongly dislike...but never know?

What if you really enjoyed that book?

BenPanced
10-22-2010, 07:10 PM
Who cares what the writer is like? Do you refuse to buy a chair because the person who made it is a jerk? Do you refuse to eat a steak because the rancher who raised the steer is an idiot?

The real idiot is the person who can't separate a writer from his book. As a writer, anyone so intellectually limited is not someone I want reading my books, anyway.
Well, I guess as an intellectualy limited idiot, I probably won't be reading any of your books any time soon. Silly me for letting my personal views get in the way of reading Orson Scott Card, who campaigns to make sure I'm denied my basic civil rights.

On that note, I'll take my leave of this thread.

scarletpeaches
10-22-2010, 07:11 PM
What if you really enjoyed that book?That was my point. :D

Rowan
10-22-2010, 07:22 PM
I tone down my sexiness when I'm here. :e2brows:

You know, I had my suspicions... ;)


Posted by Chris P:
If I interacted with my favorite authors (well, most are dead now) as much as I interacted with people on AW, I'd see less-savory sides of them too. I was initially put off by some of the stuffed shirts here, but in time I recognized that many of them really knew their stuff. It took a while to distinguish a jerk from a useful jerk.
Well, I'm not so much referring to "stuffed shirts" as people who are just nasty and unkind for the sake of being so, like it's a sport or mental illness. ;) To me, there's a difference.


Posted by SusanL:
If I dislike to author for whatever reason, I won't read their books. Why would I waste my time and money on someone who has obvious ongoing attitude? There are too many good writers out there who do not have that.

Exactly my point. :)

Rowan
10-22-2010, 07:27 PM
Who cares what the writer is like? Do you refuse to buy a chair because the person who made it is a jerk? Do you refuse to eat a steak because the rancher who raised the steer is an idiot?

The real idiot is the person who can't separate a writer from his book. As a writer, anyone so intellectually limited is not someone I want reading my books, anyway.

So, you're calling us idiots now? Because our opinion differs from yours? Way to prove my point. Thanks.

JamieFord
10-22-2010, 07:29 PM
I didn't think this would ever be an issue, but then bought a book by an award-winning author that happened to be an English teacher in his past life--and taught one of my best friends. She dished so much dirt on this guy I couldn't quite pick up the book again. Sometimes you just don't want to know...

Mr Flibble
10-22-2010, 07:29 PM
I've been thinking about this (yeah, dangerous I know.). There are a couple of writers I don't read, and it's not because of their views as such. It's because their views are too apparent in their books (I don't mean just one book where the POV character has views I don't agree with - I mean across several books they display less than savoury attitudes consistently)

If they had those views, but they weren't apparent in their books, I suppose I would still read them. But they're in there and it turns me off, so I don't read them any more.

In the end, it's all about the book.

ChaosTitan
10-22-2010, 07:30 PM
I just thought...what if someone is a real See You Next Tuesday, but they publish under a pen name? What if you've read a book by someone you strongly dislike...but never know?

And on a similar note, what of the thousands of authors who don't make their beliefs publicly known, and who aren't vocal on hot-button issues? Their beliefs don't go away just because they don't blog openly about them.

LaurieD
10-22-2010, 07:31 PM
If I'm insulted or offended personally, then no, I'm almost certain I wouldn't buy or read their work.

But if the behaviour in question is a rant about idiots who are willing to stand in line to have a book signed only to tell the author they didn't like it or is a rant in retaliation directed at people who feel a need to publically blast negativity about an author or her work, what do I care? If they (the authors) want to blast away at the people who get under their skin and don't care about adding more fuel to the fire, it doesn't bother me or change my opinion about their stories.

I'm more inclined to not buy or not read a book because I don't like what I've previously read of theirs - whether it's the story itself or the way they string their words together.

scarletpeaches
10-22-2010, 07:31 PM
I'm more offended by people who pretend to be nice to get friends and fans, than by those who are open and honest about their arseholery* anyway.

*That's a real word.

Plus, arseholery is a matter of opinion. What some folks hate, will draw others to you.

Rowan
10-22-2010, 07:32 PM
I've been thinking about this (yeah, dangerous I know.). There are a couple of writers I don't read, and it's not because of their views as such. It's because their views are too apparent in their books (I don't mean just one book where the POV character has views I don't agree with - I mean across several books they display less than savoury attitudes consistently)

If they had those views, but they weren't apparent in their books, I suppose I would still read them. But they're in there and it turns me off, so I don't read them any more.

In the end, it's all about the book.

Oh yeah, authors proselytizing in books is a huge turnoff! I can get past it if it's integral to character development but then it's usually obvious and not an "author's platform".

On the topic of pen names and authors who are crap* but don't show it/blog about it: I'm more worried about what I do know and what I do observe. So, back full circle. If an author publicly acts like an ass all or most of the time, then I most likely won't waste money / time on their books. If an author plays nice to build up a fan base, well I consider that pretty damn smart and good business protocol. You can't please everyone all of the time but you don't have to go out of your way to be a total jackass. Just MHO. :)

ETA: *"Crap", not as a reference to writing skill, but crap as in "bad behaviour". :)

seun
10-22-2010, 07:36 PM
Oh yeah, authors proselytizing in books is a huge turnoff! I can get past it if it's integral to character development but then it's usually obvious and not an "author's platform".


...cough....Dean Koontz...cough

scarletpeaches
10-22-2010, 07:39 PM
...cough....Dean Konntz...coughDogs are angels! All dogs are angels!

SHUN THE UNBELIEVER!:mob

bearilou
10-22-2010, 07:49 PM
What if you really enjoyed that book?

If, say Orson Scott Card, an author whom I won't read because the brand name has been tainted (and if you think about it, an author's name is a brand name for books) and I have no interest in his works now due to this negative press, wrote a book as Piffle B. Waterloggin and I read it and loved it, I really wouldn't think more about it.

Piffle B. Waterloggin wrote a book that I enjoyed. Books I enjoy I keep around and read again. Piffle B. Waterloggin is a name that does not have any negative associations.

Let's say I find out that OSC is PBW. Yeah. I would be a little disappointed and then when looking at the book again, I would also find that the interest in keeping the book around for a second read would also diminish. It would go into the 'to be sold/given away' box.

It's not so much that I am vehemently opposed to their philophy/politics/body wash and wish to make a statement. But it is that their jerkass attitudes that put me off will put me off anything they write, due to their jerkass attitudes. I'm no longer interested in reading anything by them. They've gone out of their way to be nasty d-bags. I don't like that/agree with them and yes, it does color how I view them and their work.

They're entitled to behave and do and say anything they want. If they do so under their writing name, they should feel free to continue to do so.

I'll see the negative press attached to that name and it will unbalance things unfairly that I want nothing to do with them.

I'm only human.

Guess that makes me an idiot, too?

Rowan
10-22-2010, 07:51 PM
IdiotsRUs, can we borrow your user name? ;)

brainstorm77
10-22-2010, 07:54 PM
And on a similar note, what of the thousands of authors who don't make their beliefs publicly known, and who aren't vocal on hot-button issues? Their beliefs don't go away just because they don't blog openly about them.

It's impossible to let what you don't know, influence you.
However, if I do catch wind of it, then yes it will made a difference. For example: If I found out an author is a pedophile, I would not by any of their books.

SPMiller
10-22-2010, 07:58 PM
The fact that we know these authors's personal opinions at all is self-evident proof that they have in some way used their status as writers to communicate those beliefs to an audience. That alone is sufficient for me to refuse to monetarily support their lives. As writers, we had better not voice opinions in public fora unless we're willing to deal with the consequences. I am. That's why I post under my real name.

However, that doesn't mean I refuse to read tainted works. I can imagine myself checking such books out from the library. Haven't done so yet, though. And yeah, I know libraries buy the books. I know. I'm just not willing to buy them myself.

scarletpeaches
10-22-2010, 08:01 PM
Anyone who communicates their beliefs can be said to have used their status as a writer/butcher/baker/candlestickmaker to do so. Blogs and websites aren't limited to writers.

As for libraries? The authors still get money for having their books borrowed. PLR, after all.

Mr Flibble
10-22-2010, 08:03 PM
IdiotsRUs, can we borrow your user name? ;)


Nuh-uh. I need the disclaimer there up front :D

bearilou
10-22-2010, 08:05 PM
Anyone who communicates their beliefs can be said to have used their status as a writer/butcher/baker/candlestickmaker to do so. Blogs and websites aren't limited to writers.

As for libraries? The authors still get money for having their books borrowed. PLR, after all.

[hides my candlestickmaking blog site]

scarletpeaches
10-22-2010, 08:06 PM
Too late - you've been outed. I will never buy a candle again.

quicklime
10-22-2010, 08:21 PM
my first inclination was to say "no", but I remember Anne Rice's shitfit about the movie adaptation of Interview...and her glowing review of Cruise afterwards, when the studio ignored her and cut the film, and it was about to be released (I'm guessing she had a take in it, or realized pissing in her own drinking well would not help sell future movie rights). I also loathe when King started The Plant and said things about "stealing from the blind newsboy"....it is one thing to say that if folks want to steal, you have zero intention of producing product, another to make yourself into a poor, disadvantaged martyr when you get a 20 million advance

bearilou
10-22-2010, 08:43 PM
Too late - you've been outed. I will never buy a candle again.

Damn it.

...what if I change my name?

virtue_summer
10-22-2010, 08:45 PM
Of course I'll still read work by an author I don't like personally or disagree with politically, assuming the work itself looks interesting. Sorry, I enjoy good stories too much to restrict my reading that way. If I stopped reading an author because I thought they were a jerk, then that means I would no longer be supporting good writing or storytelling because that would no longer be my primary consideration. Thus, to be fair I'd have to flip it around and do it in reverse as well, reading books that didn't interest me and/or that I thought were flat out crap, all so that I could support authors who did seem like nice people personally or agreed with me politically. I refuse to do that.

If the author seemed like a jerk I'd just avoid personal contact with them, like not attending a book signing. If the author airs a political opinion outside of their work that I disagree with, I can always air my own dissenting opinion should I feel the need to do so. And of course I wouldn't support any work they produced that I felt was itself repugnant. But then that's off topic isn't it as it's judging a work on its own merits rather than according to extraneous information I happened to gleam about the author. Part of this is a do unto others, I think. I don't want someone deciding my fiction isn't worth reading because I belong to a different political party than they do or they happened to find out about something I said that to them put me in a bad light (none of us are perfect). Thus I won't do that to other people.

whimsical rabbit
10-22-2010, 09:45 PM
Did anyone buy books when Stephen King was an alcoholic? Wouldn't you be afraid that you were just supporting his habit at the time?

I see it as their opinion and everyone can have one. Now if it was something along the lines of Roman Polanski and being a child molester that is something else entirely.

See, that's it. There's a difference between being an alcoholic and a homophobic. The former goes through a personal odyssey, even out of sheer stupidity, but does not violate other people's rights. The latter is harmful to society. I think this is where you draw the line.


Who cares what the writer is like? Do you refuse to buy a chair because the person who made it is a jerk? Do you refuse to eat a steak because the rancher who raised the steer is an idiot?

The real idiot is the person who can't separate a writer from his book. As a writer, anyone so intellectually limited is not someone I want reading my books, anyway.

James, I'm not going to take what you said personally, but in my opinion this is the kind of thinking that gives power to the wrong people. I just don't think I'm depriving myself of good writing by refusing to make a person who I consider immoral/dangerous/an absolute &^%$ even richer or more famous. There's plenty of good writing out there. I don't have to go for the racist/homophobic/xenophobic or whatever. I can help boost the reputation and pocket of someone that will not abuse the power I'll give him.

To put it otherwise, I prioritise morality over personal enjoyment (and I'm sorry if this sounds terribly self-righteous, but it's just the way I feel).



I'm more offended by people who pretend to be nice to get friends and fans, than by those who are open and honest about their arseholery* anyway.

*That's a real word.

Plus, arseholery is a matter of opinion. What some folks hate, will draw others to you.

True, morality is subjective, but our choices do reflect our morality. I do see your point, but I consider pretence and arseholery (see, I believe you :D) equally off-putting.

Or maybe not. At least the person that bothers to pretend does not feel so proud about his jerkiness and feels entitled to shout it out loud.


If, say Orson Scott Card, an author whom I won't read because the brand name has been tainted (and if you think about it, an author's name is a brand name for books) and I have no interest in his works now due to this negative press, wrote a book as Piffle B. Waterloggin and I read it and loved it, I really wouldn't think more about it.

Piffle B. Waterloggin wrote a book that I enjoyed. Books I enjoy I keep around and read again. Piffle B. Waterloggin is a name that does not have any negative associations.

Let's say I find out that OSC is PBW. Yeah. I would be a little disappointed and then when looking at the book again, I would also find that the interest in keeping the book around for a second read would also diminish. It would go into the 'to be sold/given away' box.

It's not so much that I am vehemently opposed to their philophy/politics/body wash and wish to make a statement. But it is that their jerkass attitudes that put me off will put me off anything they write, due to their jerkass attitudes. I'm no longer interested in reading anything by them. They've gone out of their way to be nasty d-bags. I don't like that/agree with them and yes, it does color how I view them and their work.

They're entitled to behave and do and say anything they want. If they do so under their writing name, they should feel free to continue to do so.

I'll see the negative press attached to that name and it will unbalance things unfairly that I want nothing to do with them.

I'm only human.

Guess that makes me an idiot, too?

Exactly. We're not saying that jerks cannot produce good writing, but rather examine why we would refuse to read them.

So yeah, I'd stop reading as soon as I found out that an author I despised used a fake name for a book I loved. I don't reject the writing. I reject the personality that's going to become famous and rich out of it, and will use such influence in a negative way.


The fact that we know these authors's personal opinions at all is self-evident proof that they have in some way used their status as writers to communicate those beliefs to an audience. That alone is sufficient for me to refuse to monetarily support their lives. As writers, we had better not voice opinions in public fora unless we're willing to deal with the consequences. I am. That's why I post under my real name.

100% agreed.

seun
10-22-2010, 10:08 PM
Guess that makes me an idiot, too?

Not even slightly.

Phaeal
10-22-2010, 10:46 PM
OSC's fiction subtly squicked me out long before he was outed. Must be my Piscean psi powers!

Amadan
10-22-2010, 11:42 PM
I am reliably informed by another couple of members that he not only disagrees with gay marriage (to which I would reply, each to their own, his opinion, meh), but he's rabidly anti-gay and advocates revolution against the government which allows it (to which I would reply, ":eek:")

What makes Card special is not his anti-gay marriage position. Brandon Sanderson, another Mormon author, whom I like, has also admitted he is against gay marriage, but stated his opposition (http://www.brandonsanderson.com/article/51/EUOLogy-Dumbledores-Homosexuality) in a much more tempered way that suggested he is still open to hearing the other point of view and doesn't actually wish to oppress gay people.

Card, on the other hand, joined people like John C. Wright in openly stating that homosexuality is morally the same as bestiality and pedophilia. Card also wrote an infamous rant (http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html) in which he stated that homosexuality should be criminalized in order to keep gays in their place.


Who cares what the writer is like? Do you refuse to buy a chair because the person who made it is a jerk? Do you refuse to eat a steak because the rancher who raised the steer is an idiot?

The real idiot is the person who can't separate a writer from his book. As a writer, anyone so intellectually limited is not someone I want reading my books, anyway.

Actually, yes, if I know that the person profiting from the chair I want to buy is a nasty bigot, I'll go buy a chair from someone else. Likewise any other business decision. Of course I can't go around checking the background of everyone who produces everything I buy, and corporate ownerships make it even more impractical to only give money to people who don't offend you.

But authors are different. A book is very much a personal creation from the individual who wrote it. You're buying a personalized product from an individual in a way you usually are not when buying furniture or food or other consumer goods. You're directly contributing to the author's prestige and career. So far from being "idiotic," I'd say it's quite meaningful to say, "I don't want to give money to or encourage the career of someone whose beliefs offend me and who is actively working against ideals that I believe in."

I'd be very comfortable comparing my "intellectual limitations" against yours.

Lyra Jean
10-22-2010, 11:50 PM
Amadan,

I don't see how a book is any different than say a restaurant where a specific well known chef works at. After all everyone puts a little bit of themselves into their work. Writers use words, chefs use food, furniture makers use wood or plastic whatever.

Lyra Jean
10-22-2010, 11:53 PM
See, that's it. There's a difference between being an alcoholic and a homophobic. The former goes through a personal odyssey, even out of sheer stupidity, but does not violate other people's rights. The latter is harmful to society. I think this is where you draw the line.


I don't know. I guess it would depend if the alcoholic writer would drive drunk or becomes abusive when he is drunk.

I separate their professional lives from their private lives otherwise I wouldn't be able to really enjoy any form of entertainment. I find adultery to be morally reprehensible which means if I were to only watch movies by actors who didn't commit adultery that would be a very small amount of movies I would be able to watch.

Amadan
10-23-2010, 12:09 AM
I don't see how a book is any different than say a restaurant where a specific well known chef works at. After all everyone puts a little bit of themselves into their work. Writers use words, chefs use food, furniture makers use wood or plastic whatever.


Hey, if you'd be comfortable patronizing the restaurant of a renowned bigot and hatemonger, bon appetit!

Lyra Jean
10-23-2010, 12:19 AM
Hey, if you'd be comfortable patronizing the restaurant of a renowned bigot and hatemonger, bon appetit!

I didn't say I would. I'm just saying I don't see a difference between a book and any other product for purchase.

whimsical rabbit
10-23-2010, 12:38 AM
Actually, yes, if I know that the person profiting from the chair I want to buy is a nasty bigot, I'll go buy a chair from someone else. Likewise any other business decision. Of course I can't go around checking the background of everyone who produces everything I buy, and corporate ownerships make it even more impractical to only give money to people who don't offend you.

But authors are different. A book is very much a personal creation from the individual who wrote it. You're buying a personalized product from an individual in a way you usually are not when buying furniture or food or other consumer goods. You're directly contributing to the author's prestige and career. So far from being "idiotic," I'd say it's quite meaningful to say, "I don't want to give money to or encourage the career of someone whose beliefs offend me and who is actively working against ideals that I believe in."

Exactly so.

As a matter of fact I am a very conscious consumer, and this is reflected on all my financial transactions, from the choice of my bank to the musician I'll listen to. Like others said, it may not make much difference for them, but it will for me. And if other people followed my example, it would make a hell of a lot of difference for this poor world too. I happen to blame indifference more than bigotry to be honest.


I don't know. I guess it would depend if the alcoholic writer would drive drunk or becomes abusive when he is drunk.

I wouldn't buy the book of a serial drinking driver either. Although we've been talking in regards to King, who's the first to admit his fallacy in his own very book, instead of bragging about it and campaigning pro alcoholism.


I separate their professional lives from their private lives otherwise I wouldn't be able to really enjoy any form of entertainment. I find adultery to be morally reprehensible which means if I were to only watch movies by actors who didn't commit adultery that would be a very small amount of movies I would be able to watch.

I see your point, but I think there are differences between adultery and homophobia. Adultery can have many causes, is often regretted, and affects only the two partners involved. On the other hand, campaigning for the violation of basic human rights is something that affects an amount of fellow humans that cannot be disregarded, endangers the very foundations of society and insults the very basic principles of democracy.

I guess I'm talking about boycotting people who's moral values are diametrically oppositional to mine. For example, I wouldn't dine in restaurants that serve foie-gras, I wouldn't buy from retailers that explore 10-year old kids (I got a strict list of retailers I use), I wouldn't read the work of homophobes, and I wouldn't trust my money with banks that have been known to invest on guns.

Because at the end of the day I don't have to go to that particular restaurant, I don't have to listen to that particular artist, there are a million banks to choose from, and even more shops to buy from. I don't see my list of options getting any shorter.

bearilou
10-23-2010, 12:54 AM
Because at the end of the day I don't have to go to that particular restaurant, I don't have to listen to that particular artist, there are a million banks to choose from, and even more shops to buy from. I don't see my list of options getting any shorter.

Much this-ness to this!

It's about informed decisions. No, I can't boycott every furniture store in the US on the off chance they sell furniture made from wood gathered from clearcutting the rain forest. But when I find out they do, I'm now informed and can make that decision.

And one furniture store out of how many in the US alone? How are my chances diminished in any significant way?

To tell me that I'm missing out on the expert craftsmanship of the furniture manufacturer? What difference does that make? I will never be able to afford to buy furniture from all of them so how am I missing out?

Yeah, sure, I may not get the sooperdooper quality that manufacture of furniture brings into that store. But I have a hard time believing they are the only game in town that sells quality furniture.

Same with books. Okay. So, I refuse to read an author because I'm not interested in them now that I know what assholes they are. Does anyone really mean to tell me that my reading life will suffer that appreciably with the plethora of books out there still to be read, written by authors who haven't felt the need to be jerks? Really?

Lyra Jean
10-23-2010, 01:07 AM
Much this-ness to this!

It's about informed decisions. No, I can't boycott every furniture store in the US on the off chance they sell furniture made from wood gathered from clearcutting the rain forest. But when I find out they do, I'm now informed and can make that decision.

And one furniture store out of how many in the US alone? How are my chances diminished in any significant way?

To tell me that I'm missing out on the expert craftsmanship of the furniture manufacturer? What difference does that make? I will never be able to afford to buy furniture from all of them so how am I missing out?

Yeah, sure, I may not get the sooperdooper quality that manufacture of furniture brings into that store. But I have a hard time believing they are the only game in town that sells quality furniture.

Same with books. Okay. So, I refuse to read an author because I'm not interested in them now that I know what assholes they are. Does anyone really mean to tell me that my reading life will suffer that appreciably with the plethora of books out there still to be read, written by authors who haven't felt the need to be jerks? Really?

No, I don't think anyone's life would be lessened by choosing not to buy something.

With my post to Amadan she was saying that books are somehow fundamentally different than say a dish from a world-class chef or a piece of furniture made by some famous designer. I was just that there is no difference.

bearilou
10-23-2010, 01:13 AM
No, I don't think anyone's life would be lessened by choosing not to buy something.

With my post to Amadan she was saying that books are somehow fundamentally different than say a dish from a world-class chef or a piece of furniture made by some famous designer. I was just that there is no difference.

[nodnod] And I agree with you. It was just that whimsical rabbit said something that touched back on something else said a few pages ago that finally coalesced into why it bothered me when it was first said.

...and I got long-winded. :)

whimsical rabbit
10-23-2010, 01:23 AM
Don't you just love it when we all agree? :e2headban

gothicangel
10-23-2010, 01:28 AM
My personal opinion is that I would hate to think I had deprived myself of the pivotal book of the 21st century because they said something I disagreed with.

That's the thing with free speech, we have to let the assholes have their voice. Our responsibilty is to say 'no you are wrong, and this is why.'

Amadan
10-23-2010, 01:46 AM
With my post to Amadan she was saying that books are somehow fundamentally different than say a dish from a world-class chef or a piece of furniture made by some famous designer. I was just that there is no difference.

He said no such thing. Artisan creations are alike in that respect, but I brought up consumer goods and corporations precisely so I didn't get the usual counterargument that comes up in these discussions: "Oh, how do ever buy anything when you can't know every single company and individual involved in its manufacture?"

My point was that books are different from buying a folding chair at Target, not that books are different from buying a unique piece of designer furniture from an artisan.


My personal opinion is that I would hate to think I had deprived myself of the pivotal book of the 21st century because they said something I disagreed with.

That's the thing with free speech, we have to let the assholes have their voice. Our responsibilty is to say 'no you are wrong, and this is why.'

I wish I had a dime for every time someone brings up "free speech" and "censorship" in a completely irrelevant context. No one suggested that assholes shouldn't be allowed to write books. I'm not practicing censorship by not buying them.

shadowwalker
10-23-2010, 02:38 AM
I don't let an author's personal life affect whether or not I'll read their books - unless, as others have mentioned, things I strongly disagree with get 'preached' in the book. None of us are perfect and I'm quite sure there are things we each believe or promote that would be offensive to others. If the person can write well and it's a genre I enjoy, I'll read it. And if I really enjoy it, I'll buy it. Some of my favorite authors are not my favorite people. But I don't have to sit next to them at dinner. Or think about them as I read their books.

Sydewinder
10-23-2010, 02:44 AM
This is an interesting debate. I'm on the "I don't care in the slightest as long as the book is good," team.

I think Tom Cruise is a bit of douche, but I'll rent his movie as soon as it's out because I think he's a great actor. I don't watch Mel Gibson's movies anymore because the last two sucked; my decision has nothing to do with his personal life.

Here's the thing - and no offense intended. Authors choose to lock themselves in rooms and type on keyboards, in solitude, for hours and hours over the span of months and months. There's something very wrong with them (us). Plus, getting into the minds of characters day-in and day-out takes its toll. An author could look right at me and tell me they hate me, my children, all children, my dog, all dogs . . . you get the idea . . . but if their book is good I'll read it (and buy it). Heck, I might even get a kick out of being hated by someone (I hope it's someone famous).

If anything, seeing an author act out makes me more conscious of them and I'm probably more likely to look for their names at bookstores.

DancingMaenid
10-23-2010, 03:08 AM
Honestly, it depends. It would influence my decision, yes. But it would depend on how much I wanted to read their books and whether their writing reflected my reasons for disliking them in the first place. If the books can stand on their own merit, the writer's character probably will not stop me from reading them outright.

However, in some situations I may not want to financially support a writer whom I dislike. But in that case, I can always check the books out from the library.

Don Evan Scott
10-23-2010, 05:22 AM
Who cares what the writer is like? Do you refuse to buy a chair because the person who made it is a jerk? Do you refuse to eat a steak because the rancher who raised the steer is an idiot?

The real idiot is the person who can't separate a writer from his book. As a writer, anyone so intellectually limited is not someone I want reading my books, anyway.

So you are saying that someone who won't buy a book from a jerk is an idiot -- so then what is someone who won't sell a book to an idiot?

:)

And by the way, yes, if I knew that a rancher was a jerk, I'd buy my steaks elsewhere. People do stuff like that everyday. Do you eat at restaurants where the wait staff is rude to you? If so, well...

scarletpeaches
10-23-2010, 07:59 AM
Or maybe not. At least the person that bothers to pretend does not feel so proud about his jerkiness and feels entitled to shout it out loud.I see pretence as a lie, and there are plenty of folks guilty of that on AW. At least the 'out and proud' arseholes are honest about what they are.

The funny thing is, those very people often gain the respect of others for having the balls to say what others wouldn't.

The lurkers support me by email!

aruna
10-23-2010, 11:45 AM
I'm a very conscious comsumer, always have been, my kids even more so. My son boycotts everything from Nestle and certain other companies, for instance. I buy all my fruit and vegetables from a small greengrocer rather than from the supermarket, and buy coffeee, tee and bananas from Fair Trade. I believe in putting my money where my mouth is. That's the way I was brought up, my mother being founder and president of the Consumer's Association in Guyana!
When it comes to authors it's only taking things a step further. If I know the author actively supports movements I abhor I won't support him or her. There are plenty of good books worth reading out there; that just helps narrow the far too wide choice, so no loss.

gothicangel
10-23-2010, 12:46 PM
I wish I had a dime for every time someone brings up "free speech" and "censorship" in a completely irrelevant context. No one suggested that assholes shouldn't be allowed to write books. I'm not practicing censorship by not buying them.

Just because we don't like what someone says, doesn't mean they don't have a right to say it.

Therefore it is extremely pertinent to the discussion. And highly ironic.

gothicangel
10-23-2010, 12:47 PM
my first inclination was to say "no", but I remember Anne Rice's shitfit about the movie adaptation of Interview...and her glowing review of Cruise afterwards, when the studio ignored her and cut the film, and it was about to be released (I'm guessing she had a take in it, or realized pissing in her own drinking well would not help sell future movie rights).

Tom Cruise as Lestat was a crime against fiction. Even more so today.

aadams73
10-23-2010, 03:37 PM
Or maybe not. At least the person that bothers to pretend does not feel so proud about his jerkiness and feels entitled to shout it out loud.



I see pretence as a lie, and there are plenty of folks guilty of that on AW. At least the 'out and proud' arseholes are honest about what they are.


Interesting, because I've thought about this a lot lately.

I want there to be a dividing line between the public me and the private me. My opinions and the minutae of my life aren't up for grabs. So, even right now, when I'm still nobody, I'm aware of what I say and how I act publicly.

I'm not being untrue to myself--far from it. I'm choosing to act appropriately and professionally.

This ties into what I wrote in another thread: Writing is a solitary endeavor; publishing is not. There's a lot at stake when you get a publishing deal. People are relying on you to make money--so they can recoup their investment and (hopefully) turn a profit. It's a team effort where everyone does their piece to ensure this happens. I feel it's part of my job (as the person whose name is on the cover--therefore the public "face" of that product) to not behave in a way that would jeopardize the return of that investment. It is in my very best interests. And it benefits the "team".

Bottom line: This is my career. Mine. If that means showing a certain reserve, I'm okay with that. There are places I can go (my friends, my family, my agent) to vent if need be (and I do, on occasion). I've worked too hard to be careless.

I don't see it as pretending. It's about being professional.

Anyway, back to the original question:

If I sat around not buying books by people whose opinions didn't gel with mine, I'd probably never get much reading done. When it comes right down to it, I'm good at separating the author from the story. I don't care about OSC's opinions; Ender's Game totally rocked, and there was nothing in there that hinted at the author's biases--at least not that I noticed.

I don't agree with his views, but they in no way colored my perception of what was a fantastic story.

That said, there is one extremely popular author whose books I refuse to buy. I've heard stories about that person from various reliable sources, and all of them point to that author being someone who is consistently rude to assistants, drivers, and anyone s/he decides fits in the category of "the little people."

That's just not okay by me, so I show my disapproval with my wallet. S/he is probably too busy crying all the way to the bank to worry too much anyway. ;)

KodyBoye
10-23-2010, 03:49 PM
I'm so/so on it. I've been interested in reading Elizabeth Moon's The Deed to Paksinarion omnibus because a friend's father lent it to me and I think it would be interesting, but I wouldn't buy it at full price based solely on the fact that it's huge. On another hand, I won't read anything Stephanie Meyer writes due to her alignment with the Mormon church (long story short, but basically because of their anti-gay stuff) and I won't read Orson Scott Card due to his homophobia based solely on the fact that I won't support that.

I dunno. I guess it all depends on whether or not I find out about what they're doing later. I've often worried about my public reputation based on the fact that I'm an open book and talk about my life fairly openly (my sexuality, my thoughts on equal rights, my health issues [which range to recurring blood infections to anxiety disorder,] my atheism,) but I've told myself that I'm being myself, so... *shrug*

Is it a double-sided sword to voice your opinion about certain things? I'd say yes, but I guess you have to shed a little blood eventually. You can hardly stay neutral nowadays.

jana13k
10-23-2010, 04:08 PM
I haven't wanted to read a book of an author that was reported to behave badly, but I'd also want to SEE that behavior and wouldn't take someone else's word for it. The Internet is kinda sensational.

Now, on the other hand, I have overheard authors talking at national conferences, in public areas, seriously running down other authors to the point that I made sure I found out who they are and I will not buy books from any of them. Talk about classless. I overheard one author (when she walked into a party) say to another "I have to find someone good enough to talk to. This entire room is full of losers who aren't doing as good as me."

Wow. And for the record, I would never associate with someone stupid enough to say that in public when they can be overheard. My friends are a lot smarter.

Rowan
10-23-2010, 04:40 PM
Interesting, because I've thought about this a lot lately.

I want there to be a dividing line between the public me and the private me. My opinions and the minutae of my life aren't up for grabs. So, even right now, when I'm still nobody, I'm aware of what I say and how I act publicly.

I'm not being untrue to myself--far from it. I'm choosing to act appropriately and professionally.

This ties into what I wrote in another thread: Writing is a solitary endeavor; publishing is not. There's a lot at stake when you get a publishing deal. People are relying on you to make money--so they can recoup their investment and (hopefully) turn a profit. It's a team effort where everyone does their piece to ensure this happens. I feel it's part of my job (as the person whose name is on the cover--therefore the public "face" of that product) to not behave in a way that would jeopardize the return of that investment. It is in my very best interests. And it benefits the "team".

Bottom line: This is my career. Mine. If that means showing a certain reserve, I'm okay with that. There are places I can go (my friends, my family, my agent) to vent if need be (and I do, on occasion). I've worked too hard to be careless.

I don't see it as pretending. It's about being professional.

Anyway, back to the original question:

If I sat around not buying books by people whose opinions didn't gel with mine, I'd probably never get much reading done. When it comes right down to it, I'm good at separating the author from the story. I don't care about OSC's opinions; Ender's Game totally rocked, and there was nothing in there that hinted at the author's biases--at least not that I noticed.

I don't agree with his views, but they in no way colored my perception of what was a fantastic story.

That said, there is one extremely popular author whose books I refuse to buy. I've heard stories about that person from various reliable sources, and all of them point to that author being someone who is consistently rude to assistants, drivers, and anyone s/he decides fits in the category of "the little people."

That's just not okay by me, so I show my disapproval with my wallet. S/he is probably too busy crying all the way to the bank to worry too much anyway. ;)

I agree with most of this post but the bolded portions in particular. There are authors I won't read for these very reasons (being total jerks), and I don't feel any loss...way too many other options. Like Aruna said, I like to put my money where my mouth is too. It doesn't give me a lot of power but what it does give me is priceless.

I wasn't going to address this but changed my mind because I think it needs to be said. As for the comments re: AWers "pretending" to be nice. :Shrug: If you don't personally know people on here, how would you know they're pretending? IMHO, I'd rather have someone 'pretend' to be polite on a board (ie., tone it down) than be a total jackass, because there's no point and absolutely nothing to be gained by the latter.

I don't expect to get along smashingly well with everyone but there's something to be said for being kind, considerate and apologizing when/if you've been immature or snarky.

For me, actions speak louder than words. And as Aadams73 said and I said earlier, it's a business and acting professionally is just good business sense.

whimsical rabbit
10-23-2010, 05:01 PM
I see pretence as a lie, and there are plenty of folks guilty of that on AW. At least the 'out and proud' arseholes are honest about what they are.

The funny thing is, those very people often gain the respect of others for having the balls to say what others wouldn't.

The lurkers support me by email!

Fair enough. For me, this is just a point of perspective.

The way I see it, honesty has nothing to do with being downright rude or inconsiderate. I don't think that people who just blurt out whatever comes to their heads as having balls, but more as extremely selfish and reluctant to make an effort.

There are other options between being a slimy hypocrite and a serial insulter.

All that said, I think it's got to do with how much you take personally too. There's a vast difference between being pissed off because somebody explicitly offended you, or merely dared to disagree with your point.

Anyway, I'm still a newbie and so I couldn't really tell you who's pretending here on AW, or who respects whom. You've been here much much longer than me, so you have formed opinions. I've just started to get mere impressions. I give everybody equal chances in the hope that they will do the same (although I have to admit my avatar is indeed my despicable, nasty, shameless method to earn me rep points, and it seems to be working so far :evil).

Manuel Royal
10-23-2010, 05:50 PM
A lot of us (writers) are, in social terms, jerks. Intelligent, but not necessarily wise. If I happen to know a writer is a jerk in a really bad way, it sours my enjoyment of their work, sometimes to the point where I'll avoid it (e.g., Orson Scott Card, although Enchantment sucked so bad it's reason enough to lose interest in him).

But -- knowing that I'm a jerk myself sometimes, I set the jerk bar fairly high. (I'm glad that decades of humiliation and failure have knocked most of the arrogance out of me.)

scarletpeaches
10-23-2010, 07:17 PM
I wasn't going to address this but changed my mind because I think it needs to be said. As for the comments re: AWers "pretending" to be nice. :Shrug: If you don't personally know people on here, how would you know they're pretending? IMHO, I'd rather have someone 'pretend' to be polite on a board (ie., tone it down) than be a total jackass, because there's no point and absolutely nothing to be gained by the latter.If you don't know someone personally, how do you know they're a jackass and not just having a bad day?

Satori1977
10-23-2010, 07:59 PM
Authors having a bad day, saying something stupid, meh, I can look past things like that.

Being a horrible, hateful, disgusting individual like Orson Scott Card apparently is (and I had no idea before today), then no. I don't plan on ever reading his work.

But I try to be a conscientious consumer as well. I wouldn't buy anything from a bigot, a pedophile, a wife beater. I won't buy from a company that uses non-sustainable palm oil, or meat from a farmer that abuses their animals. If I know about it, then yes, I want my dollar to count.

Rowan
10-23-2010, 08:13 PM
If you don't know someone personally, how do you know they're a jackass and not just having a bad day?

Because, as I've stated routinely in previous posts, it's the consistency of the behaviour. I think I specifically said "I'm not referring to a one-off..." or something to that effect.


ETA: Post #22: Posted by Rowan:
I guess I'm looking at this as more than a "one off", ie., not just an author having a bad day. I'm thinking more along the lines of a truly insufferable, nasty person with a bad attitude in general. I can forgive a random snarky comment but when they start to add up (a pattern), then all bets are off. ;)



Guess I should also add this as well:


ETA: Post #58: Posted by Rowan:
Well, I'm not so much referring to "stuffed shirts" as people who are just nasty and unkind for the sake of being so, like it's a sport or mental illness. ;) To me, there's a difference.

Phaeal
10-23-2010, 08:14 PM
Bottom line: This is my career. Mine. If that means showing a certain reserve, I'm okay with that. There are places I can go (my friends, my family, my agent) to vent if need be (and I do, on occasion). I've worked too hard to be careless.

I don't see it as pretending. It's about being professional.


Damn it, woman. I'm applauding this so hard my hands are sore.

Re whether I'll read an obnoxious writer's work. It depends on whether he can keep his obnoxiousness to himself or whether he tries to impose it on others. Think, say, write what you like. Try to make me or anyone else conform to your views? Nope. Now I'm putting my wallet away. AND my library card, too.

Amadan
10-23-2010, 08:59 PM
Just because we don't like what someone says, doesn't mean they don't have a right to say it.

Therefore it is extremely pertinent to the discussion. And highly ironic.

You seem to be missing the point even when it's underlined and repeated.

Find me one single person in this thread who has suggested that anyone doesn't have a right to say any damn thing they please? No one, to my knowledge, has ever suggested that Orson Scott Card should be imprisoned, his blog removed from the internet, or his books all taken off shelves and burned. In other words: censorship has never been advocated.

Not buying your books because I don't like what you say isn't censoring you.



I want there to be a dividing line between the public me and the private me. My opinions and the minutae of my life aren't up for grabs. So, even right now, when I'm still nobody, I'm aware of what I say and how I act publicly.

This is actually generally good advice, not just for authors. We all know that prospective employers will routinely Google your name, which is why so many people have realized it's not such a good idea to have pictures of you getting shit-faced drunk on Facebook. Not being an asshole in public just makes good sense. (Not that I recommend being an asshole in private either.)


If I sat around not buying books by people whose opinions didn't gel with mine, I'd probably never get much reading done.

Oh yes, I do a great deal of "sitting around not buying books by people whose opinions don't gel with mine." :rolleyes:

Not to pick on you, but it's kind of funny how you did exactly what so many other people in this thread have done: claimed that you think it's silly not to read books by authors you don't agree with, and then added, "But there's one author...." So obviously, some things will cross your personal "Too assholeish to read his books" threshold.

Seriously, I doubt anyone chooses to exclude every author whose opinions don't gel with theirs. There's a difference between "I won't read books by anyone who votes differently than me," and "I won't read books by racists and homophobic assholes."

DancingMaenid
10-23-2010, 09:35 PM
Seriously, I doubt anyone chooses to exclude every author whose opinions don't gel with theirs. There's a difference between "I won't read books by anyone who votes differently than me," and "I won't read books by racists and homophobic assholes."

Yep, exactly. I don't spend too much time worrying about whether people share my beliefs, but if someone is hateful and bigoted, like Orson Scott Card? I don't feel any compulsion to respect that "difference of beliefs."

It's interesting what some people have said about professionalism. I hadn't thought about it from that angle. Since writing isn't a job for me, professionalism isn't something I've ever really thought much about. Nor is it something I necessarily expect from writers. But I do think that if someone is trying to promote themselves as a writer and have it be a career, professionalism is important.

virtue_summer
10-23-2010, 09:36 PM
There's one thing that's bugging me about this thread and it's the mixed up comparisons. Choosing not to go to a restaurant where the staff is rude to you is not comparable to the issue at hand because the attitude of the restaurant staff is a direct part of your dining experience. People don't go to restaurants just to eat but to enjoy themselves while they're eating. Choosing not to buy products that were manufactured in ways you dislike is not comparable to the issue at hand because again that's a boycott of exactly what it is you have a problem with. In order to make an apt comparison to the issue at hand you have to use an example where what is being boycotted and the reason it's being boycotted have less of a direct connection.

If I refuse to read Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game because I disagree with his political views, for instance, I'm not taking a stance on how the product (the book) was produced because it's not his writing process I'm objecting to, and I'm not objecting to the product itself because I haven't judged the book on its own merits. I'm judging him in one arena (personal/political) and instead of finding relevant ways to object to his views on that same field, I'm boycotting a product that has nothing to do with them. This kind of boycott makes no sense to me because what would be the constructive purpose? What change does a boycott like this strive to bring about? To stop the author from producing the kind of books you're boycotting? No, because that's not your problem. To stop the author from producing their product in a certain way? No, because you claim that's not your issue either. Hence the boycott serves no constructive purpose. It simply lets the one doing the boycotting feel as though they are taking a stand without, in my opinion, actually taking one. To take a real stand is to address the issues one has a problem with directly.

DancingMaenid
10-23-2010, 09:46 PM
Well, if you're buying books, I think boycotts can make sense. Can I be confident that if I purchase Orson Scott Card's books, my money won't indirectly help fund homophobic actions? I don't think I can. I don't want to financially support someone who supports bigotry and could use that money to further it.

When it comes to reading books in general (since I can get a lot of books from the library), it's hard to fully distance the author from the work. Sometimes it's impossible.

One time, I read a story that I really liked. Later, I discovered some things about the writer's character and beliefs that put the story in an entirely new light. I realized that what they were trying to say with the story was perhaps not what I initially read into it, and that changed my perception of the story itself.

scarletpeaches
10-23-2010, 09:52 PM
If I withheld money from authors in case they did something with that money I didn't approve of, I'd never buy any books.

My gut reaction to some folks is, "Ugh. No. Ptooey." But that's all it is. A gut reaction, not based on logic or "Okay, now let's separate the artist from his work."

I can understand why some people would choose not to buy Author X's work. I might not agree with their choice, though.

And really - are you stopping Author X from burning down houses, eating children or listening to Britney Spears albums?

I'd say not. So the authors you so dislike are hardly being punished.

And as I said earlier, opinions which drive some away, will draw others close. So it all evens out in the end.

At the risk of Godwinning this thread, there are readers who have nothing to do with Mein Kampf.

Doesn't seem to have affected sales any.

Me? I'm off to read The Satanic Verses.

shadowwalker
10-23-2010, 09:55 PM
Not buying your books because I don't like what you say isn't censoring you.

Well, in a way it is. It's like saying, "Okay, authors - think as I think, say only what won't offend me, join only organizations I approve of - because otherwise I will attack you through an area of your life that has nothing to do with any of the above. You will pay for your beliefs!"

Just another perspective... ;)

brainstorm77
10-23-2010, 09:56 PM
Don't we all pay for our beliefs one way or another? Nobody is telling someone else how to think or how to act. YOu can think, act whichever way you want. That's a personal freedom we all share.

In this world there are consquences for ones actions. You have to roll with the punches and expect it.

If an author is a racist(just an example) and they make that fact known, then they have to deal with some not flocking to buy their books.

Amadan
10-23-2010, 09:56 PM
In order to make an apt comparison to the issue at hand you have to use an example where what is being boycotted and the reason it's being boycotted have less of a direct connection.

If I refuse to read Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game because I disagree with his political views, for instance, I'm not taking a stance on how the product (the book) was produced because it's not his writing process I'm objecting to, and I'm not objecting to the product itself because I haven't judged the book on its own merits. I'm judging him in one arena (personal/political) and instead of finding relevant ways to object to his views on that same field, I'm boycotting a product that has nothing to do with them. This kind of boycott makes no sense to me because what would be the constructive purpose? What change does a boycott like this strive to bring about? To stop the author from producing the kind of books you're boycotting? No, because that's not your problem. To stop the author from producing their product in a certain way? No, because you claim that's not your issue either. Hence the boycott serves no constructive purpose. It simply lets the one doing the boycotting feel as though they are taking a stand without, in my opinion, actually taking one. To take a real stand is to address the issues one has a problem with directly.

The boycott serves the constructive purposes of (1) expressing your disapproval and (2) not giving money to someone you'd rather not support financially.

I doubt very much that Orson Scott Card will change his views, even if everyone on the planet refuses to ever buy his books again. But since you want a "practical purpose" in doing this: such expressions of disapproval are putting authors on notice that noxious views may create a backlash. Elizabeth Moon just got disinvited as Guest of Honor for Wiscon because she posted a benighted rant about immigrants and Muslims on her blog.

Some authors will shrug this off, or make noises about "silencing" and "political correctness." Others, however, will probably think a little more carefully about their assumptions, and about the wisdom of spouting off about how certain classes of people are undesirable without considering that maybe some of those "undesirables" are (or were) actually fans of their work.

Amadan
10-23-2010, 10:04 PM
At the risk of Godwinning this thread, there are readers who have nothing to do with Mein Kampf.

Doesn't seem to have affected sales any.

Kind of a specious point. The author isn't still collecting royalties.


Well, in a way it is. It's like saying, "Okay, authors - think as I think, say only what won't offend me, join only organizations I approve of - because otherwise I will attack you through an area of your life that has nothing to do with any of the above. You will pay for your beliefs!"

Even if people were actually launching boycotts against authors who don't "think as I think, say only what won't offend me, join only organizations I approve of," which no one is, that's still not censorship unless they're actually trying to get them imprisoned and/or forbidden to speak or publish anywhere.

DancingMaenid
10-23-2010, 10:26 PM
If I withheld money from authors in case they did something with that money I didn't approve of, I'd never buy any books.

But there's a difference between knowing that they might do this and having reasonable concern or evidence that they would.


And really - are you stopping Author X from burning down houses, eating children or listening to Britney Spears albums?

I'd say not. So the authors you so dislike are hardly being punished.

I don't care about punishing anyone. I care about sticking to my values.


At the risk of Godwinning this thread, there are readers who have nothing to do with Mein Kampf.


But here's the thing: Hitler is dead. He's been dead for a long time. I'm not sure who profits from sales of Mein Kampf, but I would assume that it isn't Nazis or any sort of Aryan group. I wouldn't buy the book if money would go to Hitler or anyone who supports his cause.

Also, people generally know what they're getting into with Mein Kampf. I would guess that most of the interest in it today is from a historical perspective. It can be valuable to study the thinking of historical figures, even (or perhaps especially) those whom we find reprehensible. Some fiction has value for similar reasons.

This is different than giving money to a living author who supports causes you find reprehensible, or picking up a book that looks perfectly innocent only to find the author's bigoted beliefs inside.

Xelebes
10-23-2010, 10:51 PM
Who cares what the writer is like? Do you refuse to buy a chair because the person who made it is a jerk?

Depends on what kind of jerk.


Do you refuse to eat a steak because the rancher who raised the steer is an idiot?

You really would eat a steak raised by an idiot of a rancher? Ew.



The real idiot is the person who can't separate a writer from his book. As a writer, anyone so intellectually limited is not someone I want reading my books, anyway.

It is difficult to not have one's own stench not carry through their work, on the other hand.

gothicangel
10-24-2010, 12:01 AM
Shouldn't have thought so. But there again, I'm not so hot of German publishing law.

aadams73
10-24-2010, 12:04 AM
Oh yes, I do a great deal of "sitting around not buying books by people whose opinions don't gel with mine." :rolleyes:

Not to pick on you, but it's kind of funny how you did exactly what so many other people in this thread have done: claimed that you think it's silly not to read books by authors you don't agree with, and then added, "But there's one author...." So obviously, some things will cross your personal "Too assholeish to read his books" threshold.


I should have chosen my words with less understatement and more punch.

"People whose opinions don't gel with mine," is my diplomatic way of saying, "People who act like jerks and try to cram their extreme views down the throats of others."

(ETA: I just reread the sentence above and I'm still not entirely sure I'm saying what I want to say. So I may clarify that later.)

And, yes, there is that one author. But it has nothing to do with their viewpoints, and whether or not I agree with them, and everything to do with their treatment of other people in the publishing business--my business. I'm boycotting their consistent lack of professionalism and decency in a business setting in the one way I have power to do so.

Also, I never said anyone was silly to not read authors they don't agree with. Everyone has their own prejudices and standards, and that's their prerogative. We all select (or don't select) our reading materials in some way that makes sense to us. Vive la difference.

gothicangel
10-24-2010, 12:07 AM
From wikipedia:


"At the time of his death, Hitler's official place of residence was in Munich (http://absolutewrite.com/wiki/Munich), which led to his entire estate, including all rights to Mein Kampf, changing to the ownership of the state of Bavaria (http://absolutewrite.com/wiki/Bavaria). As per German copyright (http://absolutewrite.com/wiki/Copyright) law, the entire text is scheduled to enter the public domain (http://absolutewrite.com/wiki/Public_domain) on December 31, 2015, just over 70 years after the author's death. The copyright has been relinquished for the English, Dutch and Swedish editions. Historian Werner Maser, in an interview with Bild am Sonntag (http://absolutewrite.com/wiki/Bild-Zeitung) has stated that Peter Raubal (http://absolutewrite.com/w/index.php?title=Peter_Raubal&action=edit&redlink=1), son of Hitler's nephew, Leo Raubal (http://absolutewrite.com/wiki/Leo_Raubal), would have a strong legal case for winning the copyright from Bavaria if he pursued it. Raubal, an Austrian engineer, has stated he wants no part of the rights to the book, even though it could be worth millions of euros (http://absolutewrite.com/wiki/Euros).[17] (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/#cite_note-16) The government of Bavaria, in agreement with the federal government of Germany, refuses to allow any copying or printing of the book in Germany, and opposes it also in other countries but with less success. Owning and buying the book is legal. Trading in old copies is legal as well, unless it is done in such a fashion as to "promote hatred or war," which is generally illegal. In particular, the unmodified edition is not covered by 86 StGB (http://absolutewrite.com/wiki/StGB) that forbids dissemination of means of propaganda of unconstitutional organisations, since it is a "pre-constitutional work" and as such cannot be opposed to the free and democratic basic order, according to a 1979 decision of the Federal Court of Justice of Germany (http://absolutewrite.com/wiki/Federal_Court_of_Justice_of_Germany).[18] (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/#cite_note-17) Most German libraries carry heavily commented and excerpted versions of Mein Kampf. In 2008 (http://absolutewrite.com/wiki/2008), Stephan Kramer (http://absolutewrite.com/w/index.php?title=Stephan_Kramer&action=edit&redlink=1), secretary-general of the German Central Council of Jews (http://absolutewrite.com/wiki/Central_Council_of_Jews), not only recommended lifting the ban, but volunteered the help of his organisation in editing and annotating the text, saying that it is time for the book to be made available to all online."

whimsical rabbit
10-24-2010, 04:28 AM
The boycott serves the constructive purposes of (1) expressing your disapproval and (2) not giving money to someone you'd rather not support financially.

As it has been stated a plethora of times in this thread. And it's not just the money, it's also the reputation. Making a jerk richer and famous is very dangerous.

At the end of the day, it may be true that you won't make them change their minds, but going around making them richer isn't excessively constructive either.


I don't care about punishing anyone. I care about sticking to my values.

Indeed.

I don't think McDonalds would ever collapse because I refuse to spend my hard-earned money there, but it makes me have a shiny clear conscience.

Perhaps if other people shared that constructivism and peace of mind, less jerks would have the power to influence the masses.

And to be completely honest, my reading list has not become any shorter. I never read that many *&^% anyway.

SPMiller
10-24-2010, 11:07 AM
I want to make one point very clear: I agree with MacAllister's argument, posted elsewhere, that we shouldn't assume a writer's biases necessarily make it into their fiction. I even recall taking a stand against a uni prof who insisted we could tell about Heinlein's beliefs through a particular short story of his.

All I was saying is that I have no interest in financing the person behind the fiction, because that directly supports the views they espouse and express to their audiences. And again, I'm not interested in censorship, and the only way someone could misinterpret that from what I wrote is bad reading comprehension. A bigot's books may be well-written and entertaining, and they should continue to be available to the public. But I won't buy them.

Sydewinder
10-24-2010, 12:00 PM
On another hand, I won't read anything Stephanie Meyer writes due to her alignment with the Mormon church . . . .

Fiction is art. It's entirely subjective and people might love and hate it in equal measure for entirely similar reasons. But not buying a book because you find out that the author has a particular religious view that you don't agree with? really? That's rational thinking? would you not buy a painting because the artist did drugs and you don't agree with drug use?

Trust me, I get not wanting to read Twilight, but I don't get not wanting to read it because the author is a mormon. I mean, wow. Oh, I don't want to read author x's novel about space monkeys because he's a jew, and I don't agree with jewish beliefs even though his book is about space monkeys and I happen to like space monkeys. yeesh.

KodyBoye
10-24-2010, 02:45 PM
Fiction is art. It's entirely subjective and people might love and hate it in equal measure for entirely similar reasons. But not buying a book because you find out that the author has a particular religious view that you don't agree with? really? That's rational thinking? would you not buy a painting because the artist did drugs and you don't agree with drug use?

Trust me, I get not wanting to read Twilight, but I don't get not wanting to read it because the author is a mormon. I mean, wow. Oh, I don't want to read author x's novel about space monkeys because he's a jew, and I don't agree with jewish beliefs even though his book is about space monkeys and I happen to like space monkeys. yeesh.

Stephanie Meyer contributes 10% of her income to the Mormon Church. Back in 2007 (when Twilight was starting to become more successful as the movies were coming out,) the Mormon Chruch donated 100,000 dollars to the Yes for 8 campaign, which helped deny me civil rights as a gay man. As of recently, the Mormon Church recently denounced the death of seven young men (not all of whom were gay) who committed suicide based on their sexuality or the perceived sexuality. I will not give money to someone who supports such an organization, just like I won't give money to a blantantly-ignorant homophobe (AKA, Orson Scott Card.) I especially won't give Meyer money because she's been so open about her contributions to the church.

Also, added to her religious views, her writing is also filled with backward logic about how girls should be treated by men. She promotes pedophilia, stalking, domestic violence and, some would say, rape. I'm also not of the opinion that a true artist would sell out to their fans just because they wanted Bella to become a vampire in the end (because discussions with friends have told me that Bella's character arc would have kept her from being a vampire because by becoming a vampire, she would lose everything that was dear to her.) I also do not find if practical for girls to think that if they put themselves in life-threatening situations, their boyfriends will instantly be there to save them (AKA the Bella Jumping from a Cliff Syndrome.)

But to answer your question, yes--if someone is selling something and I don't agree with their moral or ethical practices, I'm not going to give them money and/or support them. Would you let your child be babysat by a pedophile? No, of course not, but that can also be misconstrued as not giving them money based on them as a person (AKA 'not giving money to a painter just because he does drugs.')

I rest my case there.

scarletpeaches
10-24-2010, 03:24 PM
Wow. Guess I better keep my religion to myself just in case.

For the record, I'm not LDS, so it's safe to buy my books.

...Or is it?

bearilou
10-24-2010, 03:53 PM
...because you find out that the author has a particular religious view that you don't agree with? really? That's rational thinking? would you not buy a painting because the artist did drugs and you don't agree with drug use?

Could we please stop with the implication that there is something wrong with us because we've chosen, for our own personal reasons, to draw the line HERE instead of OVER THERE in regards as to what we will or will not continue to READ from an author who has shown their ass in public and we take exception to that/our impressions are now colored?

And for that matter, could we stop with the parallels that have arisen of finding an author's repugnant behavior in public but still willing to read their works because we are not influenced by such behavior with supporting pedophilia, drug use, moral degeneracy or genocide?

You don't like it? Fine. You don't agree? Excellent. No one has suggested you had to. I appreciate discussion where there is disagreement. Do you think that we could do so with a little less condescension all around?

I really had expected better.

whimsical rabbit
10-24-2010, 04:25 PM
But not buying a book because you find out that the author has a particular religious view that you don't agree with? really? That's rational thinking? would you not buy a painting because the artist did drugs and you don't agree with drug use?

No, you're right that's not rational thinking. Religious fundamentalism is actually bigotry, and it's bigotry we're mainly rejecting in this thread.

KodyBoye's thinking on the other hand, is very very very rational indeed-- mainly because he is immediately affected by the implications of the author's choice to financially sustain an organisation with homophobic policies. This has absolutely nothing to do with religion whatsoever. Absolutely nothing at all.

I'd also like to repeat what SPMiller said (as did I a few posts back, but apparently it's been ignored). We're not rejecting books because of their content, but because we make a conscious choice as consumers. Fiction is art and craft and whatever it is, but a book is also a product. I wash my hands clean of supporting talented or talentless authors I consider highly immoral and dangerous to society. I don't care if the bigotry is depicted in the works or not. I don't care if it's the masterpiece of the century. I just won't buy it.

For exactly the same reasons some of you have made it explicit at another thread going on a couple of months ago, that you would never buy anything by the Rejection Queen, because you found her behaviour and professional conduct (or lack thereof) unpleasant.

Ken
10-24-2010, 04:47 PM
... there are honestly very few books that I'd consider essential reading that I'd feel like I'd really missed out on by not reading. If I don't read one book I can always pick up something similar and derive just as much satisfaction, etc. There are hundreds of thousands of books that are published each year. Lots to choose from, enabling one to slight certan titles easily and effortlessly and be no worse for the wear.

For me, personally, this is really neither though as I don't read any modern books, pub'd after 1950. I will be making some exceptions to read some AWer's books, now that I've got a bit of spare jack. Bright set of people on this board with lots of interesting things to say. Sure their books will be equally so! And that also goes for peeps I don't quite click with ;-)

Phaeal
10-24-2010, 05:03 PM
And may I go on record to say that I only worship the Outer Gods, and their Soul and Messenger Mr. Nyarlathotep is on record that no Outer God is homophobic or racist or otherwise bigoted. The Outer Gods will eat anyone.

Thank you.

No one paid for this political announcement. Just sayin'.

Rowan
10-24-2010, 05:05 PM
Fiction is art. It's entirely subjective and people might love and hate it in equal measure for entirely similar reasons. But not buying a book because you find out that the author has a particular religious view that you don't agree with? really? That's rational thinking? would you not buy a painting because the artist did drugs and you don't agree with drug use?

Trust me, I get not wanting to read Twilight, but I don't get not wanting to read it because the author is a mormon. I mean, wow. Oh, I don't want to read author x's novel about space monkeys because he's a jew, and I don't agree with jewish beliefs even though his book is about space monkeys and I happen to like space monkeys. yeesh.

I'll reiterate what others have stated here, and to quote P&CE Mod Williebee, perhaps a reminder is in order: RYFW. Respect Your Fellow Writer. [Note, I'm NOT a Mod but have seen this reminder pop up numerous times in P&CE ;) It applies across AW].

KodyBoye is entitled to his/her opinion, just as you are. Just because someone's opinion differs from your own does not make that person irrational, an idiot, or intellectually inferior.

And on that note: If you were curious as to the basis for KodyBoye's stance, why not ask in a rational manner? It's a two-way street.


ETA: I worship horses, as should be evident from my rotating avi's. And dogs! They rock! :)

Phaeal
10-24-2010, 05:16 PM
Arabian horses are indeed godly. And English bulls. And tigers. And king cobras. And jumping spiders. And peregrine falcons. And beech trees. I will buy the books of anyone who supports them.

Um, unless they're otherwise jerks. Although anyone who liked all of the above couldn't be a jerk. No way.

Rowan
10-24-2010, 05:18 PM
Arabian horses are indeed godly. And English bulls. And tigers. And king cobras. And jumping spiders. And peregrine falcons. And beech trees. I will buy the books of anyone who supports them.



But not praying mantids or camelback crickets. Eeekk!:scared:

ETA: I love trees! Especially Elms, Willows, Birch and Oak.

brainstorm77
10-24-2010, 06:24 PM
She promotes pedophilia, stalking, domestic violence and, some would say, rape.


Ok. I did read the books. How was it pedophilia when Bella was of age to consent? How was it stalking when she also obsessed over Edward? Domestic violence? Rape? Where did that take place in the books? Perhaps I missed it? Seriously, point it out. I'd like to know. And I am not being snarky in asking any of this...

Rowan
10-24-2010, 06:26 PM
Ok. I did read the books. How was it pedophilia when Bella was of age to consent? How was it stalking when she also obsessed over Edward? Domestic violence? Rape? Where did that take place in the books? Perhaps I missed it? Seriously, point it out. I'd like to know. And I am not being snarky in asking any of this...

I think he's referring to the "imprinting" thing (re: pedophilia)--where the werewolves "imprint" on the infants/children. I must admit I found that creepy! As for domestic violence, maybe a reference to the one alpha wolf (Sam?) hitting his mate/wife. Not sure though! :)

brainstorm77
10-24-2010, 06:29 PM
I think he's referring to the "imprinting" thing--where the werewolves "imprint" on the infants/children. I must admit I found that creepy!

Ah yeah. That did slip my mind. I did find that rather strange myself. Some things about the books have muddled in my mind. However, I did not find myself screaming pedophile, I just thought it a weird addition to the story. Perhaps I am in the minority... I'd be interest to hear what others think.

But writing about stuff isn't endorsing it. I write about child abuse in my current WIP. Am I endorsing it and saying, 'go abuse your child'? I think not! I also write about drug abuse and another character is a closeted gay male.. Am I telling people to use drugs and remain closeted? I mean, come on...

Rowan
10-24-2010, 06:33 PM
Ah yeah. That did slip my mind. I did find that rather strange myself. Some things about the books have muddled in my mind. However, I did not find myself screaming pedophile, I just thought it a weird addition to the story. Perhaps I am in the minority... I'd be interest to hear what others think.

I was so annoyed by Bella that I missed half the plot. :) When I first read about the imprinting, I'll admit my initial impression was "pedophilia".

On another note, friends of mine have brought up the "Mormon" undertones of the series (in particular, a comparative religion/philosophy major). It's something I never thought much about but it's interesting and I too am curious as to what others might think. Would be a good thread--religious undertones in bestselling fiction. :D

Kate Thornton
10-24-2010, 06:35 PM
Would be a good thread--religious undertones in bestselling fiction. :D

Yes - I always think of C. S. Lewis when the topic comes up.

brainstorm77
10-24-2010, 06:36 PM
I was so annoyed by Bella that I missed half the plot. :) When I first read about the imprinting, I'll admit my initial impression was "pedophilia".

On another note, friends of mine have brought up the "Mormon" undertones of the series (in particular, a comparative religion/philosophy major). It's something I never thought much about but it's interesting and I too am curious as to what others might think. Would be a good thread--religious undertones in bestselling fiction. :D

Bella isn't a great character in my opinion. I didn't like her. The books were 'meh' in my eyes. But lots like them and bravo for them.

As for the Mormon Church, I don't enough to make comment TBH.

Rowan
10-24-2010, 06:36 PM
Yes - I always think of C. S. Lewis when the topic comes up.

Exactly! Me too. Let's see, other authors who weave religion into their works.......... *thinking* Anyone?

brainstorm77
10-24-2010, 06:38 PM
Or, are you always endorsing what you write?

Kate Thornton
10-24-2010, 06:39 PM
brainstorm - another good topic - I think we have enough here for several new threads!

Rowan
10-24-2010, 06:40 PM
Or, are you always endorsing what you write?

Excellent point. Or what your characters think/feel/do...? As a writer, you can put everything you despise into a character and then kill them off. :)

brainstorm77
10-24-2010, 06:40 PM
Yes Indeedy, Kate.

Sydewinder
10-24-2010, 06:41 PM
I guess I would just be exhausted if I had to run a background check on every product I purchased to make sure the creators of such didn't do anything that violated my moral sensibilities. I mean, perhaps I shouldn't support any publishing house who has published books by mormons or catholics (given that the two religions were just as vocal of their stance on Prop 8).

Assumptions are drawn in this thread and I was pointing out that one person's religion does not mean they necessarily feel a certain way about certain current events. Mormons, like all christians, are supposed to pay a tithe. 10% of their income to help those less fortunate. Like most christians, that tithe is often paid to their church so that the church can use it to help those less fortunate. They aren't required to pay it to their church. They can give it to anyone or anything that they feel will help those less fortunate. For all you know, Stephanie Meyer gave her money to an organization that helped bullied youth.

I know plenty of devout mormons who were not in support of prop 8 and who feel it a shame that homosexuals don't have the same rights as everyone else. I also know plenty of catholics who feel that way too. I even know a few folks who have no religious affiliation and yet supported prop 8.

We're way off topic here, so I'll just say that my point is, if you look hard enough, you'll always be able to find something that you don't agree with.

Satori1977
10-24-2010, 06:44 PM
IMO, an author has to be a really horrible person for me to not want to buy their book (based soley on their lifestyle or values). If someone is just a jerk, and says stupid things, probably won't stop me.

If they are overly religious, a member of the NRA, or don't like dogs, or the million other things I don't understand or agree with, that won't stop me from buying their books.

But if someone is a bigoted twat (like Card), someone not just expressing different beliefs, but so outspoken about them as to try and deny gay people any rights as human beings, then that is going too far.

Just like I will not watch a Roman Polanski film, or buy tickets or memorabilia for the Eagles because of Vick. If someone is a disgusting person, I will not support them in their line of work. It is their profession, how they make and income, and I choose not to help them in any way. I do find it comparable to any other type of business. I watched the show last night "What would you do?" A show that wants to see how people would react in different situations. They had a man (an actor) that worked behind the counter of a shop, making racial slurs to a Muslim woman (also an actor). If I were there, after seeing that display, I would not spend my money there ever again. And I would tell everyone I knew about it.

No, my few bucks wouldn't make a dent in that person's wallet. But it is the principle of the matter. I would do it because I feel it is the right thing to do, and wouldn't feel good about myself otherwise.

Not talking about censorship. Just my beliefs. My values.

KodyBoye
10-24-2010, 06:44 PM
Ok. I did read the books. How was it pedophilia when Bella was of age to consent? How was it stalking when she also obsessed over Edward? Domestic violence? Rape? Where did that take place in the books? Perhaps I missed it? Seriously, point it out. I'd like to know. And I am not being snarky in asking any of this...

I haven't read the books, but from discussions I've had with friends who have read said books, I was of the opinion that Edward was stalking Bella before she was eighteen. I've also been told that the night they marry, he hurts her so violently when they first go to bed together that he has to turn her into a vampire because she's lost so much blood.

*shrug*

I haven't read the books. This is just from discussions I've had with people about it.

Rowan
10-24-2010, 06:45 PM
Or, are you always endorsing what you write?

This brings us back to 'proselytizing' by authors (discussed up thread). Some do it blatantly and others do it very subtly but either way, I find it annoying...pushing your agenda via your work.

brainstorm77
10-24-2010, 06:45 PM
I haven't read the books, but from discussions I've had with friends who have read said books, I was of the opinion that Edward was stalking Bella before she was eighteen. I've also been told that the night they marry, he hurts her so violently when they first go to bed together that he has to turn her into a vampire because she's lost so much blood.

*shrug*

I haven't read the books. This is just from discussions I've had with people about it.

The bolded isn't true. You may want to read the books.

The stalking is debatable. She did nothing to refute him.

Rowan
10-24-2010, 06:49 PM
The bolded isn't true. You may want to read the books.

The stalking is debatable. She did nothing to refute him.

Yeah, that's not how she becomes one of the undead. At all... and the stalking bit? If anything, Bella is "stalking" (ie., obsessed) Edward! IMHO. :D

brainstorm77
10-24-2010, 06:50 PM
Yeah, that's not how she becomes one of the undead. At all... and the stalking bit? If anything, Bella is "stalking" (ie., obsessed) Edward! IMHO. :D

Yeah, she is obsessed with him from day 1.:tongue

KodyBoye
10-24-2010, 06:53 PM
This is what I've heard from friends, so I can't validate it. I don't care for what the books are about anyway, so I won't be touching them anytime in the foreseeable future. haha.

I should probably add this, seeing as how I might be seen as mean-spirited otherwise:

I'm glad she got the success she did. I really, truly am, because I know how insanely hard it is for someone to break into the industry, let alone make any kind of success about it. I may not like what she's about of what she's writing about, but I do give her kudos for creating something that people have enjoyed and something that has made a better future for herself.

Williebee
10-24-2010, 06:54 PM
MOD NOTE:

Soccer Mom will probably be around in a bit, but since my name has been inserted into the conversation ---

It would seem obvious that any person could choose to read or not read a book for pretty much any personal reason, and that reason would be legitimate to them. And, legitimate enough, unless there was a job or a grade on the line, to ward off any assumed duty for retribution or verbal abuse. Please, chill.

Rowan
10-24-2010, 06:58 PM
This is what I've heard from friends, so I can't validate it. I don't care for what the books are about anyway, so I won't be touching them anytime in the foreseeable future. haha.

I should probably add this, seeing as how I might be seen as mean-spirited otherwise:

I'm glad she got the success she did. I really, truly am, because I know how insanely hard it is for someone to break into the industry, let alone make any kind of success about it. I may not like what she's about of what she's writing about, but I do give her kudos for creating something that people have enjoyed and something that has made a better future for herself.

And you just demonstrated what the OP is all about--you made a personal choice, based on your personal feelings, not to read this author. And there's nothing wrong with that. We all have our "hot button issues" and that's what this thread is all about. It doesn't make you inferior or wrong. :)

KodyBoye
10-24-2010, 07:04 PM
I'm glad you see it that way (and I'm glad others have as well.) I wanted to add more, but I don't see how I can do it in an articulate manner as to not offend anyone on accident. :/

Lyra Jean
10-24-2010, 07:15 PM
I haven't read the books, but from discussions I've had with friends who have read said books, I was of the opinion that Edward was stalking Bella before she was eighteen. I've also been told that the night they marry, he hurts her so violently when they first go to bed together that he has to turn her into a vampire because she's lost so much blood.

*shrug*

I haven't read the books. This is just from discussions I've had with people about it.

If you had read the books you know that the sex scene is consensual. He isn't hurting Bella on purpose it is just that he is so much stronger than she is. She wants to have sex with him. In fact, it was something she made Edward agree to before she be turned into a vampire is to have sex with her while she is still human.

She only gets turned into a vampire during her birth because her child is unknowingly killing Bella while coming out. Edward even up to this point is unwilling to turn Bella into a vampire because he doesn't want her to end up in hell. Which is his belief because they are vampires.

Williebee
10-24-2010, 07:25 PM
If you had read the books you know that the sex scene is consensual. He isn't hurting Bella on purpose it is just that he is so much stronger than she is. She wants to have sex with him. In fact, it was something she made Edward agree to before she be turned into a vampire is to have sex with her while she is still human.

She only gets turned into a vampire during her birth because her child is unknowingly killing Bella while coming out. Edward even up to this point is unwilling to turn Bella into a vampire because he doesn't want her to end up in hell. Which is his belief because they are vampires.

Does anybody else, old enough to remember it, think this reads like a contemporary version of "Dark Shadows" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUi3t_80fTo)?

brainstorm77
10-24-2010, 08:19 PM
Does anybody else, old enough to remember it, think this reads like a contemporary version of "Dark Shadows" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUi3t_80fTo)?

I've heard if it, but know nothing of the story.

bearilou
10-24-2010, 08:26 PM
No, you're right that's not rational thinking. Religious fundamentalism is actually bigotry, and it's bigotry we're mainly rejecting in this thread.

I'm going to agree and disagree with this. The subject of the thread has sort of evolved into bigotry but that is not really where I'm coming from.


Let me explain...
If an author acts like a jerk on the internet (social media, blogs, message boards for example) or at a signing (public venue), would that turn you off reading their book(s)?

<snip for brevity>

The links Rowan provided are about authors behaving like asses online. There are other examples of authors being jerks, of course, but these do stand out even in my mind. I knew about them before Rowan listed them. I do a lot of scooting around on the internet, interact with many different groups of fandoms. I run across these acts of assholery in my scootings abouts.

I didn't 'do research' on the authors before I picked up their books. I didn't need to. I get recommendations from others (including many from the very forum here) and I see if the book is a good fit interest wise. Does the book interest me? I get it and read it.

But see, I don't read in a void. When I pick up a book by an author and their writing clicks with me, I am further in turn interested in the person behind the words. Who are they? Do they own cats? Do they live on a farm? In the city? Do they knit? Weave? Collect seashells? Play in Fantasy Football? I like these things. It makes the author more, I don't know, real? Approachable? Firmly planted on the Planet Earth and not off in the clouds with the other gods of the pantheon?

And then Anne Rice's declaration that if you don't like her books its because you're interrogating them from the wrong perspective? OSC's rantings about homosexuals? These things don't exist in a vacuum. They are out there for all to see. The authors went out of their way to make their opinions (which is entirely within their prerogative to do) known.

It's going to make me look at them and go 'wow. That is...crazysauce right there." It has now colored my perception of them, whether she or he, you or I like it or not. It doesn't matter if the line of tolerance is pushed further away or further in. It's me, it's mine, I own it. And yeah, I do lose a little respect for them when they go off like that and, consequently, it does alter how desirous I am now to read their works.

Especially when I have a huge TBR pile. I don't think it's going to be hurt very hard by the absence of their book.

I realize authors have feet of clay. I realize they have bad days and good days. The ones that have bad days at least have the sense to rant/vent to those close to them and/or stay off the internet until it passes instead of taking it out on everyone they come across IRL or electronically.

If you think that standing at the copier and ranting about the current politics, state of the country, religious fervor, the latest bestseller doesn't affect those who are within hearing range? If you don't think those things don't affect how others will view you and want to interact with you?

And the range of hearing on the internet is quite large. Lasts a lot longer, too.

I'm starting to get long winded. Think it's time to beat this discussion with my hat.

Rowan
10-24-2010, 08:48 PM
Does anybody else, old enough to remember it, think this reads like a contemporary version of "Dark Shadows" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUi3t_80fTo)?

YES!! I never thought of that but you're right. :)

Amadan
10-24-2010, 10:14 PM
Oy, I'm always up for a nice round of Twilight bashing (though I think the last word on that was the Sparkledammerung (http://stoney321.livejournal.com/317176.html)), but it does have a tendency to take over threads, doesn't it?

Bottom line: everyone has their own personal line in the sand where an author can piss them off enough that they won't read/buy that author's works.

Absolute statements like "Anyone who'd do that is an idiot" are peevish and ill-thought.

Criticizing someone else for having a line in a different place than yours is also pretty judgmental. Then you really are begging for people to do comparison checks on your moral stances and finding the hypocritical weak points (and there always are some).

I've already said I won't read anything by Orson Scott Card, but I'm not going to shun anyone who still reads him. And I'll admit that I wasn't an OSC fan to begin with, so I'm not really making a sacrifice by deciding there are other books to read. If an author I really like (and who is in the middle of a series I'm reading) suddenly came out as an unrepentant asshat, that would become more of a moral quandary for me. (I'd probably wait to get said asshat's books in the library or used.)

Wayne K
10-24-2010, 10:36 PM
What does it say that I've read Mein Kampf, but not Twilight? :D

virtue_summer
10-24-2010, 10:40 PM
It's possible to support art while disagreeing with the artist on other issues. If it wasn't I couldn't have read OSC's fiction and voted against prop 8 at the same time, thereby supporting his art but opposing his politics. As to money going to support views I disagree with, why shouldn't that be the choice of the person I gave the money to? I paid for a product and the work that went into the product. I didn't buy the artist. The fact is that I'm not morally bereft because I read books by authors I disagree with or dislike as people. My values and outlook are just different than others who choose otherwise. I'm valuing the distinction between art and artist and disagree that association with one is an endorsement of the other on personal/political fields.

I'm also, I realized, viewing books in a different way from some of you. I don't believe I can toss a good book because of who the author is and not suffer because there are other books out there that are "just as good." Orson Scott Card, Ray Bradbury, and Octavia Butler are all science fiction writers, for instance, but I don't think their books are interchangeable at all. Tossing Ender's Game for a reread of The Martian Chronicles or Parable of the Sower would not provide the same experience to me. Thus I would be impoverished as a reader were I to do so. Others who don't see books in such an individual manner probably don't see things this way so I'm sure it's not as much of an issue to them.

Stlight
10-24-2010, 10:41 PM
Somebody, please, what does Rice mean by this?

if you don't like her books its because you're interrogating them from the wrong perspective

scarletpeaches
10-24-2010, 10:43 PM
Somebody, please, what does Rice mean by this?

if you don't like her books its because you're interrogating them from the wrong perspectiveLoosely translated?

"You're not intelligent enough to understand my books wah wah wah you big poopy-head meanies, watch me go batshit on Amazon bottom fish bananas wibble."

Amadan
10-24-2010, 10:46 PM
Others who don't see books in such an individual manner probably don't see things this way so I'm sure it's not as much of an issue to them.


Yes, it's not an issue to me because I lack your refined literary sensibilities and I think all books are alike.

scarletpeaches
10-24-2010, 10:46 PM
Well screw this thread to Hades! It just earned me this rep point from someone who shall remain nameless:
I WON'T BUY UR BOOKZ BCUZ UR A GURL AND U'LL USE THE MONEY TO BUY GURL STUFF AND UR HAV GURL GERMZ

blacbird
10-24-2010, 11:01 PM
I buy gasoline at a nearby Tesoro station purely because it is conveniently located. That company is owned by the Koch brothers, whose political views are no public secret and are appalling to me. Once in a great while I am obligated to go to WalMart for something; same situation. I watch movies starring John Malkovich and Jon Voight and Clint Eastwood because they are good moviemakers, and ignore their well-established political views.

I'd bet everyone here purchases stuff from places whose owners and management differ strongly in political and social views. Or may even have lousy public behavior problems. Don't see anything different about books.

gothicangel
10-24-2010, 11:05 PM
Well screw this thread to Hades! It just earned me this rep point from someone who shall remain nameless:

Anne Rice? :D

Stormhawk
10-24-2010, 11:06 PM
Well screw this thread to Hades! It just earned me this rep point from someone who shall remain nameless:

New keyboard. Yow owe me one. *cleans away milk*

Amadan
10-24-2010, 11:09 PM
I buy gasoline at a nearby Tesoro station purely because it is conveniently located. That company is owned by the Koch brothers, whose political views are no public secret and are appalling to me. Once in a great while I am obligated to go to WalMart for something; same situation. I watch movies starring John Malkovich and Jon Voight and Clint Eastwood because they are good moviemakers, and ignore their well-established political views.

I'd bet everyone here purchases stuff from places whose owners and management differ strongly in political and social views. Or may even have lousy public behavior problems. Don't see anything different about books.


We've already established that nobody is claiming to spend every single dollar in an atmosphere of ideological purity.

You'd think some people are, I dunno, threatened by the idea that some readers might choose to avoid reading books by authors who piss them off.

scarletpeaches
10-24-2010, 11:15 PM
Anne Rice? :D
New keyboard. Yow owe me one. *cleans away milk*I couldn't possibly reveal the name of the guilty party but it rhymes with PenBanced.

Bs_08
10-24-2010, 11:20 PM
Somebody, please, what does Rice mean by this?

if you don't like her books its because you're interrogating them from the wrong perspective

i think what she means is, you are trying to "analyze" her book (but she uses the word "interrogate" to make it sound more aggressive?) but you have the wrong" ideas/point of view/expectations" in your head.

i might be totally wrong about what she meant though. she does tend to go overboard with thesaurus abuse sometimes and comes out with wacky word combos like this...

frimble3
10-24-2010, 11:21 PM
When I pick up a book by an author and their writing clicks with me, I am further in turn interested in the person behind the words. Who are they? Do they own cats? Do they live on a farm? In the city? Do they knit? Weave? Collect seashells? Play in Fantasy Football? I like these things. It makes the author more, I don't know, real? Approachable? Firmly planted on the Planet Earth and not off in the clouds with the other gods of the pantheon?

And I don't care about any of that. I don't even read the author bios on the back of the book, let alone look for writers or info about them on the internet. It's the same for music, when the 'MTV'-type stations played videos all day I was perfectly content. Now they have interviews and bios and lifestyle things, and I don't watch them anymore. 'Cause I don't care. Shut up and play. In the same vein, shut up and write. 'Cause all I care about is the book.

A question for those of you who do care about all that stuff: If an author was a wonderful person, supported all the right causes, adopted special needs children and rescued dogs, lived an organic/vegan/environmentally sustainable life, but his books were boring twaddle in a genre you didn't like, would you buy his books to be 'supportive'?

whimsical rabbit
10-24-2010, 11:28 PM
Yes, it's not an issue to me because I lack your refined literary sensibilities and I think all books are alike.

First, I'm going to rep and thank Amadan for this. :kiss:

Second, because I really said and repeated and explicated all I had to add to a very good thread that I really don't want to see getting screwed, I'm going to take my fair share of reps (apparently my avatar trap worked :e2woo:) and hit the road.

Merry Christmas To All, and To All a Good Night.

Mr Flibble
10-24-2010, 11:40 PM
Why does it matter how other people choose their books?

If you refuse to read books with purple covers because purple is associated with Royalty and you don't like that, fine. Or becuase purple is the secret colour of the flying spaghetti monster, fine

If you won't read a book because the author is LDS/Christian/Not-Christian whatever, good for you.

If I won't read a book with a pink cover because I wouldn't be seen dead with anything pink, that too is up to me.

Everyone has their reasons for buying/not buying books. Some are rational (pink covers are generally chicklitty/contemp romance, which ain't my bag, baby) or irrational (I just hate pink, k?)

But they are mine. And yours are yours, and no one else's business tbh. But because I will read a book by someone I think is a jerk, or you won't, it doesn't mean we get to tell each other how we should be picking our books, or slinging arrows because other people do it differently than us. Cos let's face it, we're all going to pick the books we will anyway....and this is a good thing, or we'd all only read the same few books, and then where would the industry be, huh?

Amadan
10-24-2010, 11:44 PM
A question for those of you who do care about all that stuff: If an author was a wonderful person, supported all the right causes, adopted special needs children and rescued dogs, lived an organic/vegan/environmentally sustainable life, but his books were boring twaddle in a genre you didn't like, would you buy his books to be 'supportive'?

:rolleyes: :e2hammer: :e2zzz:

Mr Flibble
10-24-2010, 11:49 PM
It has been noted by rep that my avie is not just pink, but sparkly pink.

It's an ironic sparkly pink pony, innit?

:D

gothicangel
10-24-2010, 11:54 PM
i think what she means is, you are trying to "analyze" her book (but she uses the word "interrogate" to make it sound more aggressive?) but you have the wrong" ideas/point of view/expectations" in your head.

i might be totally wrong about what she meant though. she does tend to go overboard with thesaurus abuse sometimes and comes out with wacky word combos like this...

I've just read an article on IWTV that accuses the book [not Rice] of being homophobic and paedophillic. It was called Interrogating The Vampire, so I suspect the author was the target.

DancingMaenid
10-25-2010, 12:07 AM
Wow. Guess I better keep my religion to myself just in case.

For the record, I'm not LDS, so it's safe to buy my books.

...Or is it?

To me, the issue isn't religion in particular. I judge religions on the same merits that I judge any organization or group. The LDS church gave a lot of money and effort to political movements that have sought to deny me my civil rights. It doesn't really matter to me if they're a religion doing that or a secular organization.

And I'm very wary of any of my money going to such an organization, directly or not.


I guess I would just be exhausted if I had to run a background check on every product I purchased to make sure the creators of such didn't do anything that violated my moral sensibilities.

And I don't think many people do do background checks. I sure don't. But if something comes to my attention that bothers me, how can I ignore that? And why should I?


We're way off topic here, so I'll just say that my point is, if you look hard enough, you'll always be able to find something that you don't agree with.

And that's why you have to prioritize. I doubt anyone here would refuse to read a book because, I don't know, they love bananas and they found out the author hates them.

There are some things I can accept, and others I can't. But if I find an author's beliefs or the organizations they support to be in the latter category, I'm not going to feel right ignoring that.


As to money going to support views I disagree with, why shouldn't that be the choice of the person I gave the money to? I paid for a product and the work that went into the product. I didn't buy the artist. The fact is that I'm not morally bereft because I read books by authors I disagree with or dislike as people. My values and outlook are just different than others who choose otherwise. I'm valuing the distinction between art and artist and disagree that association with one is an endorsement of the other on personal/political fields.

And that's okay. For me, I do feel like my values are jeopardized.


I'm also, I realized, viewing books in a different way from some of you. I don't believe I can toss a good book because of who the author is and not suffer because there are other books out there that are "just as good." Orson Scott Card, Ray Bradbury, and Octavia Butler are all science fiction writers, for instance, but I don't think their books are interchangeable at all. Tossing Ender's Game for a reread of The Martian Chronicles or Parable of the Sower would not provide the same experience to me. Thus I would be impoverished as a reader were I to do so. Others who don't see books in such an individual manner probably don't see things this way so I'm sure it's not as much of an issue to them.

*shrugs* I do see books in an individual manner. I can't see how I couldn't. So I don't think that's really the issue. To be honest, it's a little...insulting to imply that someone who doesn't want to read one author sees all books at interchangeable. We all have to make decisions about what books we want to read (unless you have unlimited time).

You can't "replace" a story, but you can find things you like better and that you're not uncomfortable reading. Why should I waste my time trying to force myself to feel okay about a writer and stories that I don't feel okay about?

Rowan
10-25-2010, 01:01 AM
Okay, once again because unlike Whimsical Rabbit, I started this thread and won't leave it alone...

If you continuously act like an ass online--anywhere, but let's use this board for an example--I won't be buying/reading your book. That's my opinion and I don't expect everyone to agree with me. And I already know such authors don't care and won't be impacted by my "pass" on their books, so no need to spell it out to me. ;) *I* care. That's all that matters to me.

So, having said that...I agree with Amadan's most recent post. Not everyone agrees. Some people don't give a toss if an author is the most obnoxious, vile creature on the planet. Personally, I'm not going to read anything by such a person. And I think it goes without saying that such people know who they are, etc. I'm not talking about a bad day or a one-off, I'm referring to people who are just jerks for the sake of being jerks. Like I said before---as if it's a game to them or a sign of mental illness or whatever. It's not that difficult to be diplomatic or professional, especially if you're trying to sell a product. I'm not even referring to political or religious views but personal conduct. Accountability for your actions.

The world of publishing goes on, with our without my support of A, B or C book. But in my little world, I rule. :D

whimsical rabbit
10-25-2010, 01:14 AM
Okay, once again because unlike Whimsical Rabbit, I started this thread and won't leave it alone...

:gone:

But... But... But: :deadhorse

I-I... I... :e2cry: But you'd still read my book, right? Cause... cause... I... I got a bunny avatar, right? :e2cry:

Amadan
10-25-2010, 01:16 AM
I-I... I... :e2cry: But you'd still read my book, right? Cause... cause... I... I got a bunny avatar, right? :e2cry:

Only if you're a vegan who adopts special needs children and rescued dogs.

Rowan
10-25-2010, 01:24 AM
:gone:

But... But... But: (violent horse abuse smilie removed)

I-I... I... :e2cry: But you'd still read my book, right? Cause... cause... I... I got a bunny avatar, right? :e2cry:

I repped you for the cutest bunny avi--I was one of the suckers! :D (Is your book about bunnies?)

And cease and desist with the horse beating! ;)

Ken
10-25-2010, 01:26 AM
But they are mine. And yours are yours, and no one else's business tbh. But because I will read a book by someone I think is a jerk, or you won't, it doesn't mean we get to tell each other how we should be picking our books, or slinging arrows because other people do it differently than us.

... agreed.

Voice your opinions by all means no matter how much they differ from those of other members. Don't hesitate to do that for a moment! Just don't insist on people accepting your views.

If they're swayed by what you've got to say, they're swayed. If not, they're not and just leave it at that. The important thing is just getting a bunch of different perspectives on matters out there and available to be considered by everyone.

Not to claim dominance.

whimsical rabbit
10-25-2010, 01:54 AM
Only if you're a vegan who adopts special needs children and rescued dogs.

If you support me by purchasing my dull book, I'll be able to adopt special needs children and rescued dogs, and promote equality between all genders, and give peace a chance, and heal the world, and let it be. :yessmiley


(Is your book about bunnies?)

No, it's about death, alcoholism, and domestic abuse. I'm sure I can shove some bunnies in there though. :e2writer:

Mr Flibble
10-25-2010, 01:56 AM
. I'm sure I can shove some bunnies in there though. :e2writer:
As long as it doesn't include orifices...

virtue_summer
10-25-2010, 01:59 AM
Can I just say that I think my most recent comments were misunderstood? I was trying to make a point about my particular perspective, not judge anyone else's. When I said some people seem to see books as interchangeable I didn't mean they had no taste or didn't choose their books based on their own criteria, which seems to be how some people took it. I meant that if someone says they're not missing anything by choosing not to read one book as they can read another book that's just as good, they're treating those books as interchangeable. One can be exchanged for another. There have been a few comments along those lines in this thread and that's what I was thinking about. It wasn't an insult. And I wasn't aiming it at everyone who chooses not to read particular authors either. I realize that some recognize they might be missing out on enjoying an author's books and choose not to read them anyway. I just don't share the perspective that I'm not missing out at all if I choose to reject all of an author's books because I have issues with them personally or politically. All of which would be assuming you were interested in their books in the first place.

Bs_08
10-25-2010, 02:32 AM
I've just read an article on IWTV that accuses the book [not Rice] of being homophobic and paedophillic. It was called Interrogating The Vampire, so I suspect the author was the target.


oh that sounds really interesting! i just googled it and found some stuff, thank you! I think i'm going to have a lot of fun reading this!

DancingMaenid
10-25-2010, 02:48 AM
Can I just say that I think my most recent comments were misunderstood? I was trying to make a point about my particular perspective, not judge anyone else's. When I said some people seem to see books as interchangeable I didn't mean they had no taste or didn't choose their books based on their own criteria, which seems to be how some people took it. I meant that if someone says they're not missing anything by choosing not to read one book as they can read another book that's just as good, they're treating those books as interchangeable. One can be exchanged for another. There have been a few comments along those lines in this thread and that's what I was thinking about. It wasn't an insult. And I wasn't aiming it at everyone who chooses not to read particular authors either. I realize that some recognize they might be missing out on enjoying an author's books and choose not to read them anyway. I just don't share the perspective that I'm not missing out at all if I choose to reject all of an author's books because I have issues with them personally or politically. All of which would be assuming you were interested in their books in the first place.

Ah, okay, thanks for clarifying. I wasn't quite sure what to make of your initial statement.

I'm not sure I agree, though. Of course, I can't speak for everyone. But I don't think that saying you aren't missing anything by not reading a particular book implies interchangeability.

I mean, I don't like eating salmon. I've tried it a couple times, but I just can't stomach it. I really like catfish, though.

If I say I'm not missing out on anything by not eating salmon, it doesn't mean that I think I get the exact same experience eating catfish -- if I did, then I probably wouldn't like catfish.

Maybe salmon can be really great if you like it. And maybe Ender's Game is a really good book. But I don't like salmon, and my knowledge of Orson Scott Card and some of what I've read from him has hurt my ability to like or trust anything he has to say.

So I don't feel like I'm missing out. It's not like I'd really love to go get some salmon or read Orson Scott Card right now. I don't expect either experience would be enjoyable for me.

Rowan
10-25-2010, 02:57 AM
Ah, okay, thanks for clarifying. I wasn't quite sure what to make of your initial statement.

I'm not sure I agree, though. Of course, I can't speak for everyone. But I don't think that saying you aren't missing anything by not reading a particular book implies interchangeability.
...
So I don't feel like I'm missing out. It's not like I'd really love to go get some salmon or read Orson Scott Card right now. I don't expect either experience would be enjoyable for me.

Bolding is mine...

I agree. It's not about "giving something up" but making a conscious choice not to partake in something, in this instance, a book by a particular author(s). When I say there are thousands of other books available, I mean precisely what I'm saying... How can I regret not reading Author A or B's book when I have some many others to enjoy? For the most part, I personally had zero interest in reading Author A or B's books, a point virtue_summer brought up...

Hope that makes sense...

whimsical rabbit
10-25-2010, 03:06 AM
I understand and accept that I may be missing on some great writing. On the other hand, I do feel there's plenty of great writing out there. True, each book is unique, but the argument can work both ways if you see what I mean. I miss a great book, I find another.

The thing is, there are a few issues I feel very strongly about. As it happens, homophobia is one of them. It's not like I have an endless list of dislikes and go about rejecting every person that'd disagree with me about anything. At the end of the day if you are that dismissive as a person, chances are, it'll affect your every day relations as well.

I'm merely saying that if a public figure, a business, anyone is actively and emphatically involved in one of those few issues I so passionately campaign against, I'd feel as if betraying my morals, not by reading their work, but by actively boosting their pockets and ego.

Shadow_Ferret
10-25-2010, 03:30 AM
If I don't like an entertainer, I don't patronize their product. Period.

Soccer Mom
10-25-2010, 04:25 AM
Good heavens. I went camping and come back and...and...

Time for a new thread to play in. This one is going nighty-night.