Well, I try to cover the range of opinions I foresee in four or five witty statements, but I cannot anticipate every possible nuance without running polls with 94 available answers. That's why we have comment threads!
The option you appear to have missed is where I stand. I do keep a personal blacklist of authors who have "offended" me, though I do not phrase it that way because it centers my feelings rather than their actions. But "punishing" them is not the point. The point is that reading is a fairly intimate form of communication, to me, where I spend hours or days fairly deep inside someone else's head, and if the things they've said or done outside their books reveal that their head is not a good place then I just do not want to give myself over to that.
This is about where I stand, too. It's similar to the unlikable protagonist thing - why the heck would I want to spend time with an author who is going to make me feel like shit? (to whit: I'm female, queer, mentally ill, chronic pain that hinders my physical ability, and atheist.) There are many books to read, and books are EXPENSIVE, so I am going to try and aim to avoid books that view me as lesser. Because, it's going to come out in the writing and the world-building. It always does.
A stray comment or a particular ethical belief is rarely a dealbreaker for me, but when authors engage in bad behavior online - hounding the writers of negative reviews, insulting readers, etc - that gets me to stop reading their books faster than a lead weight dropping.
my views on my own actions are a bit different than my views on 'blacklists' in general. as with other moral beliefs of mine, the fact that I feel I cannot engage or support something, does not automatically mean I feel I have the right to demand others do likewise. I may not want to give an author money, regardless of how small a percentage of his or her overall income it is, due to how I view them and their behavior; while I may enlighten someone to what they have said/done if they were unaware, ultimately whether anyone else chooses to buy or not buy their work is their decision, not mine
( ... )
While authors behaving badly makes me feel less inclined to read them, I've never seen one who behave so badly I felt the need to keep track of names.
Authors who I find offensive are a different matter. They fall into three categories for me though. Authors who I still might read at some point, but I'd avoid giving money to. (Card) Authors who are dead, so the money thing isn't a big deal anymore. And authors who I'd avoid like the plague anyway, because I've got a strong impression I'd find their work offensive. (Beale)
Mostly, I do try to avoid finding anything personal about them, because humans are never flawless, so there's bound to be something that would disappoint me. This probably means I've given money to someone I'd find as repellent as Card in what they'd do with it, but I can live with that. I read for enjoyment, not as a political statement.
Mostly, I do try to avoid finding anything personal about them, because humans are never flawless, so there's bound to be something that would disappoint me
I agree with this (for the most part), and that goes for all artists. I don't care that this actor threw a temper tantrum or that that musician said some crappy stuff. I found out from their blog that my favorite author believes some things that I think are ludicrous at best. It doesn't diminish my love of their books, it just makes me very selective about what parts of the blog I read.
This conversation keeps being framed wrong, almost every time I see it. It's not about an author saying something that offends me. In fact, it's not about being offended at all! Nobody I know is not going to see the movie because OSC said something that offended them. If they're not going to see it, it's because he has done things that people see as wrong, harmful, damaging. Actively working against the rights of others is just a little bit worse than saying something offensive.
That's a reasonable point, but while Orson Scott Card is a special (and unusually virulent) case, I'm unconvinced that the censure of authors generally for expressing poorly-vetted ideology is based on any such fine distinctions.
When did he do that? I remember him having an admirable and highly-sympathetic black protagonist in Carrion Comfort, so I would be very surprised him prejudiced against blacks in general. Are you sure he didn't simply say something about some particular people who happened to be black?
A black protagonist? That's your riposte? That's worse than someone claiming they have black friends, for fuck's sake.
(pssst -- let's not mention that almost without exception it's black on white or black on Asian violence.)
Which raises the question -- how does one determine if a child is "at risk" if she's never been in the school system in the first place? Easy -- glance at income, but mostly fund it if the kids are hispanic or black. My understanding is Dan Simmons objects to the funding of schools because hispanic and black kids might get the money. Also, he doesn't seem to be pleased that the mayor of Denver is black.
I would, in fact, logically-assume that someone who had black friends was less likely to have serious prejudice against blacks qua blacks than someone who didn't. And Natalie Preston was a particularly admirable character. Why would someone who hated blacks have a heroic black protagonist?
The violence in Carrion Comfort was mostly mind-controlling mutant on ordinary person, though various people (black, white and other) were used as their pawns. In the end, the ordinary humans got some serious payback against the mind controllers.
It happens to be true that blacks commit interracial violent crimes, and for that matter commit all violent crimes, at a rate disproprtionately high compared to their numbers. You may argue about the reasons for this, but the fact itself is determinable by direct analysis of the numbers. Pointing this out is not racist, it is acknowledging a reality.
Do you have any source as to Dan Simmons arguing against the funding of schools, or for that matter the mayor Denver, on the basis of the races of the
( ... )
Comments 72
Reply
Reply
This is about where I stand, too. It's similar to the unlikable protagonist thing - why the heck would I want to spend time with an author who is going to make me feel like shit? (to whit: I'm female, queer, mentally ill, chronic pain that hinders my physical ability, and atheist.) There are many books to read, and books are EXPENSIVE, so I am going to try and aim to avoid books that view me as lesser. Because, it's going to come out in the writing and the world-building. It always does.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Authors who I find offensive are a different matter. They fall into three categories for me though. Authors who I still might read at some point, but I'd avoid giving money to. (Card) Authors who are dead, so the money thing isn't a big deal anymore. And authors who I'd avoid like the plague anyway, because I've got a strong impression I'd find their work offensive. (Beale)
Mostly, I do try to avoid finding anything personal about them, because humans are never flawless, so there's bound to be something that would disappoint me. This probably means I've given money to someone I'd find as repellent as Card in what they'd do with it, but I can live with that. I read for enjoyment, not as a political statement.
Reply
I agree with this (for the most part), and that goes for all artists. I don't care that this actor threw a temper tantrum or that that musician said some crappy stuff. I found out from their blog that my favorite author believes some things that I think are ludicrous at best. It doesn't diminish my love of their books, it just makes me very selective about what parts of the blog I read.
This conversation keeps being framed wrong, almost every time I see it. It's not about an author saying something that offends me. In fact, it's not about being offended at all! Nobody I know is not going to see the movie because OSC said something that offended them. If they're not going to see it, it's because he has done things that people see as wrong, harmful, damaging. Actively working against the rights of others is just a little bit worse than saying something offensive.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
(pssst -- let's not mention that almost without exception it's black on white or black on Asian violence.)
Which raises the question -- how does one determine if a child is "at risk" if she's never been in the school system in the first place? Easy -- glance at income, but mostly fund it if the kids are hispanic or black.
My understanding is Dan Simmons objects to the funding of schools because hispanic and black kids might get the money. Also, he doesn't seem to be pleased that the mayor of Denver is black.
Reply
The violence in Carrion Comfort was mostly mind-controlling mutant on ordinary person, though various people (black, white and other) were used as their pawns. In the end, the ordinary humans got some serious payback against the mind controllers.
It happens to be true that blacks commit interracial violent crimes, and for that matter commit all violent crimes, at a rate disproprtionately high compared to their numbers. You may argue about the reasons for this, but the fact itself is determinable by direct analysis of the numbers. Pointing this out is not racist, it is acknowledging a reality.
Do you have any source as to Dan Simmons arguing against the funding of schools, or for that matter the mayor Denver, on the basis of the races of the ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment