[Fist Gamet]

http://www.sciencefi...sona_non_grata/

My first reaction upon reading this was 'well done, don't support this horrible little man by buying his books' and, I reckon I won't ever again. Still, it got me thinking about the wider question about whether or not an author's personal opinions on the world should lead to them being ostracised by the community at large. I mean, personal taste over his work aside, for consistency's sake I would have to apply this reasoning to all authors. So what if, for (extreme and hypothetical) example we were all to discover that SE shared Card's views on homosexuality and paedophilia? How far does my intolerance of intolerance extend? Does it only apply to authors I care little for?

Hmmm?

[Mentalist]

I'd say, separate the person from the product.


As long as the author doesn't use the book sas an engine to preach his ideas, I couldn't care less what he thinks on his own time.

[Use Of Weapons]

My view is: in all walks of life, talent in independent of attitudes or mores. I am happy to derive pleasure from the fruits of talent, even if they should bloom in fields I would not choose to walk myself. If the particular expression of talent were to _include_ reflections of the attitudes I found offensive, my response would be different. In sum: accept or reject works of art on their own merits, not those of their creators.

[worry]

Timely thread! I'd agree with UoW, though I would always suggest buying used books from these types of people if you're gonna buy anything.

BTW, that quote regarding how homosexuals aren't being denied marriage rights because they can always still find someone of the opposite sex to marry them, is when I knew OSC's goals included outright cruelty on top of the ignorance, bigotry, zealotry, and intellectual masturbation he occasionally indulges in. He's really something else, as opposed to the regular old cranky jackasses of sci-fi like Ray Bradbury or Harlan Ellison.

[Fist Gamet]

I just don't know if I am comfortable with the idea of someone like this getting my money if I buy his books. Would not the moral choice be to boycott his books? I mean, consumer goods are boycotted all the time because of allegations etc over practice and ethics, so why not books? Card's views are very strong, and, imho, dangerous and ugly.
I admit I find it interesting that you all seem happy to separate the man from the work, but where would you draw the line? Does it really not bother you how reprehensible the author is?
Jeffrey Archer was another example, for me, for different reasons. A cheat and a liar and convicted prejurer who may or may not have swindled millions from charity, I am damned sure I would never buy one of his books, and he might be tha greatest living author for all I know!

[Use Of Weapons]

People draw their moral boundaries in different locations, and there's nothing wrong with that when it doesn't impinge on the freedom of others. You have drawn your line in a different place to mine, and I completely understand your reasons for doing so, and sympathise to an extent you possibly don't realise. It is uncomfortable to realise that by buying an OSC book I am in a small way validating his worldview. But his worldview doesn't affect my freedoms or others', and people are free to hold whatever reprehensible views they wish, or what's a democracy for. If I choose to deny myself the man's work, what am I really gaining? This is a more urgent question when it's true genius that is so afflicted: the countless numbers of composers with anti-Semitic views, Wagner among them, whose works would need to be consigned to history, would in my view be a greater loss. Ultimately, I believe that there are occasions where the expression of a given talent rises above the person wielding it. So I draw my line elsewhere, and am reconciled to it.

[Binder of Demons]

Fist Gamet, on 18 March 2012 - 09:52 PM, said:

Jeffrey Archer was another example, for me, for different reasons. A cheat and a liar and convicted prejurer who may or may not have swindled millions from charity, I am damned sure I would never buy one of his books, and he might be tha greatest living author for all I know!

Don't worry Fist Gamet, you're safe on that count at least.


While i will take it on a case by case basis typically, I have been known to carry out a boycott or two for ethical reasons. My 10 year NESTLE boycott being one such example, though that is for the actions of a company. On a smaller scale, I used to support an Italian soccer team since i was a small child, and I stopped watching them for nearly 8 years over them signing a player whose views i found despicable. I couldn't stand seeing that smug git on the field wearing my team's colours, and it really tainted my view of the team forever more.

Now it may be easier to ignore when it comes to books, if the author doesn't include their own views too blatantly. But I think if I knew in advance I would find it hard to separate the two. In this instance i am glad i read ENDER's GAME a long long time ago, before i was aware of any of this.

[Kanese S's]

I'm also glad I read Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead before knowing about his RL views. Then again, it was a borrowed book, which I'm also glad of.

Not sure how I feel about it, really. Unlike Terry Goodkind, whose views I abhor, and whose writing is not very good (in my opinion), I did really enjoy the two Card books I read. So I'm conflicted.

[worry]

You just gotta reconcile the fact that "you only live once" with "this guy who sucks hurts the lives of people who only live once" and that's hard for most people.

[Paran]

Freedom of speech means that there will always be views outside of your own aired. There is a large segment of the world that holds very true to these views. Paying attention to these views and understanding the underlying issues is the path to wisdom here. Still, whether or not he likes homosexuals has little to do with the brilliance of Ender's Game and Speaker of the Dead.

Now The Yeard trying to have a go at the Clintons by portraying them as depraved sexpots, that I can do nothing but laugh at.

[Morgoth]

The problem is when their opinions bleed into their work, which is why I'm not touching anything by Card and Heinlein, amongst others.

[Abyss]

Fist Gamet, on 18 March 2012 - 09:52 PM, said:

... the idea of someone like this getting my money if I buy his books,,,

That's the key point for me.

[QuickTidal]

I've always steered clear of OSC because I'd heard about his RL views. Same goes for Elizabeth Moon (with the exception of one book I tried to read by her).

As much as I'd love to disassociate the author from the art, I find that more often than not I can't do it. My brain simply won't allow it. Especially in the case of someone as blatant as John C. Wright (for example) whose views on women border on the archaic and it bleeds into his work.

As much as I'd like to approach the art for the art's sake...I can't.

It's like with actors. Look at Mel Gibson. He makes reprehensible racist remarks, and his movie career goes pretty much down the tubes. That shows that a lot of the masses can't dissociate his personal views from his film work. Some still can I'm sure, and people can be forgiven if they change their ways. The problem with someone like OSC is he won't change his views, ever.

But yeah, I'm with Fist Gamet, I don't want to give him my money.

[D'rek]

Fist Gamet, on 18 March 2012 - 09:52 PM, said:

I just don't know if I am comfortable with the idea of someone like this getting my money if I buy his books. Would not the moral choice be to boycott his books? I mean, consumer goods are boycotted all the time because of allegations etc over practice and ethics, so why not books? Card's views are very strong, and, imho, dangerous and ugly.
I admit I find it interesting that you all seem happy to separate the man from the work, but where would you draw the line? Does it really not bother you how reprehensible the author is?
Jeffrey Archer was another example, for me, for different reasons. A cheat and a liar and convicted prejurer who may or may not have swindled millions from charity, I am damned sure I would never buy one of his books, and he might be tha greatest living author for all I know!

There's a difference, IMO, between someone like Jeffrey Archer who has actually hurt people by committed crimes (and been convicted for it by a jury of his peers, etc etc) than someone like Card who has an opinion I don't like but has only expressed his opinion, not committed directly harmful actions.

Morgoth, on 19 March 2012 - 09:24 AM, said:

The problem is when their opinions bleed into their work, which is why I'm not touching anything by Card and Heinlein, amongst others.

I should probably re-read it now that I'm older and confirm this, but his Homecoming series has a gay character and as far as I can recall it's depicted positively (the society the series is initially set in is bigoted against homosexualtiy, but the character who turns out to be gay is not portrayed as inferior or treated differently by the author or other quest characters for it).

That's from the early 90s, though - I can't comment on whether his opinions bleed into his more recent works.

This post has been edited by D'rek: 19 March 2012 - 07:00 PM

[Abyss]

D, on 19 March 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

...There's a difference, IMO, between someone like Jeffrey Archer who has actually hurt people by committed crimes (and been convicted for it by a jury of his peers, etc etc) than someone like Card who has an opinion I don't like but has only expressed his opinion, not committed directly harmful actions.
...

Agreed, but even so i choose not to give either person my money.

[Salt-Man Z]

Personally, I have no problem supporting authors artists whose opinions disagree (even vehemently) with mine.

D, on 19 March 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

I should probably re-read it now that I'm older and confirm this, but his Homecoming series has a gay character and as far as I can recall it's depicted positively (the society the series is initially set in is bigoted against homosexualtiy, but the character who turns out to be gay is not portrayed as inferior or treated differently by the author or other quest characters for it).

That's from the early 90s, though - I can't comment on whether his opinions bleed into his more recent works.

Again, an old work (70s or early 80s) but the protagonist of Songmaster has a positive gay relationship. He's had a handful of gay characters, generally well-portrayed (at worst, not poorly-portrayed) and I think for the most part those opinions of his most reviled by the internet have never bled into his works, or his approach to storytelling in general. He was, for example, rather indignant at J. K. Rowling's announcement post-HP that Dumbledore was gay, not because Dumbledore turned out to be gay, but because he felt she did a disservice to the character (and to gays); if Dumbledore's orientation was important enough to announce after the fact, why wasn't it important enough to indicate in the story?

[Abyss]

'supporting' is a fuzzy thing...
I support Card's right to speak publicly about his views and publish books in furtherance of whatever viewpoints he puts forward that don't amount to overt hatespeak a la nazism.

But will i show up to wave a placard on his behalf? Nope.
And will i buy his books? Also nope.

[D'rek]

Abyss, on 19 March 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

D, on 19 March 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

...There's a difference, IMO, between someone like Jeffrey Archer who has actually hurt people by committed crimes (and been convicted for it by a jury of his peers, etc etc) than someone like Card who has an opinion I don't like but has only expressed his opinion, not committed directly harmful actions.
...

Agreed, but even so i choose not to give either person my money.

Yup, and everyone's got to make that choice for themselves - I don't think there should be any major banning due to an author/artist's opinions. Let each customer and each bookstore/retailer choose for themselves.

Salt-Man Z, on 19 March 2012 - 07:56 PM, said:

Personally, I have no problem supporting authors artists whose opinions disagree (even vehemently) with mine.

D, on 19 March 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

I should probably re-read it now that I'm older and confirm this, but his Homecoming series has a gay character and as far as I can recall it's depicted positively (the society the series is initially set in is bigoted against homosexualtiy, but the character who turns out to be gay is not portrayed as inferior or treated differently by the author or other quest characters for it).

That's from the early 90s, though - I can't comment on whether his opinions bleed into his more recent works.

Again, an old work (70s or early 80s) but the protagonist of Songmaster has a positive gay relationship. He's had a handful of gay characters, generally well-portrayed (at worst, not poorly-portrayed) and I think for the most part those opinions of his most reviled by the internet have never bled into his works, or his approach to storytelling in general.
[snip]

Which is kinda odd, because he`s certainly not shy about putting religious influences into his works - the aforementioned Homecoming saga is modeled on (a) story(ies) from the Book of Mormon, the Ender sequels/spin-offs have tons of religious philosophizing, etc.

Then again, I don't know how much these things are his opinions influencing his works versus him consciously choosing to explore these ideas. I mean, I could say that Homecoming has a bunch of pro-marriage, pro-monogamy messages in it - the protaganists go from a women-dominated rapid-marriage-and-divorce culture full of adultery to all pairing up in (supposed to be) monogamous relationships to have families. But then again, it wasn't an unreasonable decision for the characters to make given their circumstances so who's to say his marital opinions influenced the plot of the book more than plain logic and the Book of Mormon wasn't just a classic story to derive ideas from?

This post has been edited by D'rek: 19 March 2012 - 08:27 PM

[McLovin]

My two cents - we can't live in a world where we only interact with people who agree 100% with us.

It makes sense to activist-consume certain things, like products that harm the environment. But to activist-consume based on people's opinion? Do as your conscience bids, but you're going to be very busy researching authors.

If you really want to advocate for a cause, pick an issue and donate your time/money to that. I've learned to be positive, do what I can, and let the rest ride.

[acesn8s]

I'll support Card's rights to say whatever he wants, but I won't support him. I figure there are enough other books out there for me to read. If someone asks me my opinion, I'll give it. I won't bang a drum if I see someone reading his stuff though.