SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

Trike wrote: "Steve wrote: "I'm going to buck the trend here and say that it makes no difference to me at all. An author's private life and actions make no difference to whether I enjoy their art. I don't insist..."

Well, it would seem to be all very good reasons not to elect him to public office. However, you can still read his work without supporting his causes, if you find any of his work worth the effort. Libraries and used book stores, don't funnel the money to the author or the publisher.

Baelor wrote: "This is the essence of my complaint. It enables someone to just avoid actually assessing whether something is or is not unethical/immoral by just labeling something as "problematic" and by extension socially unacceptable. That level of vagueness is almost never appropriate.

Compare being told "this is a little problematic" with "this is a little racist.""

But it is appropriate here, because this is a discussion thread which is open to a wide variety of issues that an author may have done that readers might find problematic. It's not specific to racism, or anything else, specifically, but open to all types of behaviors or attitudes that we might take issue with.

"Problematic" let's the member decide what behavior they feel is appropriate to be discussed in this thread, whether that's racism, or child abuse, or fat shaming or whatever.

Baelor wrote: "- Is "life of the author" a sufficient time to show disapproval for the author's actions?

Has it been established that buying books constitutes approval? In other words, does buying Marx's Communi..."

Baelor, you're expressing your opinion as fact, as though everyone should agree with it. The purpose of this thread is to discuss our own opinion.

Also, you're looking at the word "problematic" from a perspective that isn't matching the word. This thread is for discussing what we do when we learn the creator did something we morally oppose. That means when it becomes a problem for us, not that we're labeling the author as a problem.

The easy ones for me are when a writer/artist/director/whatever dams themselves with their own words. My rule is this:

If you express your views in public, and especially if you do it on an ongoing basis, and I object to those views, I will not support your work and will point out your attitudes to those who ignore or are unaware of your views.

I did that yesterday about a particular comic strip artist. A friend sent me one of their strips, I sent them several quotes and links to offensive ignorant rants by the artist.

I stopped supporting a SF writer whose work I quite like but upon following them on Twitter, I found their politics and mine don't get along. Disappoint. (But it made me really think ... maybe keep your politics to yourself on social media unless you don't care that 30% - 50% of your readers will stop buying your works because of your views?)

Others I've vowed to never read or buy because of repeated offensive public outbursts -- homophobic, bigoted, misogynistic, etc.

Well, hadn't been thinking of historically significant books when I wrote my previous comment - there is a place for those on shelves.

Agree with Micah (and many other's) comments.

Regardless of your political reviews, this last election was so contentious that I found out more than I wanted to know on Twitter or Facebook (more to do with people producing craft items than authors, the authors I follow and I seem to be in alignment). I've got a whole list of "never buy from again". I realize some could say this is not being open to hearing other arguments, but - as others have mentioned - money matters. Where it goes, what it supports. Numbers of followers can feed ads or revenue / image. If I'm aware of an issue, I'd rather see my money support areas I can stand behind (I tend to buy eBooks and rarely use the library).

So I have a question. MZB was accused of an act that would constitute a crime as well as a violation of trust. But is being accused the same things as having done?

The scene in Mists of Avalon is written in a context of historical past where things were very different than they would be now. And it is to be hoped that it was Fiction, not something she had experience of.

I don't read L. Ron Hubbard, but it has nothing to do with winning a beat on whether or not he could create a cult that could make money (allegedly.). It has to do with having attempted to read Battlefield Earth I found it dry, boring and not worth much effort. I thought even less of his Dianetics book. (My Brother flirted briefly with joining, but that was more to do with the girl he wanted to date than any real conviction.

I also don't read Stephen King after finding him casually vicious in his descriptions in Needful Things. I found it nasty and disturbing. Of course, I haven't heard anything about him personally in any real sense, so it is a case of the work, not the individual.

Occasionally I have issues with the age difference in relationships in the Dragon Rider Books, not to mention the 'rape' scene with Lessa, but again I haven't heard anything negative in relation to Anne McCaffery.

For me, it is the work, not the creator that makes a difference.

Many authors are less than admirable people. But sometimes a flawed human being can do something that breaks the mold and create something wonderful that will last the ages.

Heck in a biography of Tolkien it was presented that he would dress up like a Saxon Warrior and chase his neighbors around with a Sword, yelling at them in Old Anglo-Saxon. Which shows I wouldn't want to be his neighbor, but Lord of the Rings is still a Masterpiece. Written by a Nutty Professor, but a Masterpiece none the less.

From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of problematic
1 a : posing a problem : difficult to solve or decide
b : not definite or settled : uncertain their future remains problematic
c : open to question or debate : questionable
2 : expressing or supporting a possibility

It seems to me that 1c is the relevant meaning here, but 1a also applies. It's used as a generic or blanket term that allows us to discuss issues like this in general terms which, hopefully, keeps the conversation from devolving into more specific and contentious details. There are few words that seem to stir up more contention in public forums than 'racism'. 'Homophobia' is a close second. In polite conversation I prefer to reserve them, and words like them, until they're specifically needed.

I think there is (and needs to be) a huge gulf between what I personally find objectionable and what should be allowed to exist. If something bothers me, I have the choice of how to respond. Do I choose to support or participate in something I find objectionable? Do I want to fill my mind with something that I feel ethically opposed to the content or source? I make my choice, you make yours. I don't believe that we have to right to police the choices of others. I can tell you my reasoning, and I'll listen to yours, but the choice has to be individual. It's not a duty but it is an ethical, or for some a moral, choice.

There also has to be a big difference, for me at least, between what I will read to educate myself or further my understanding, and what I choose to read for entertainment. I prefer most of my entertainment to be at least somewhat escapist. I want relief from the stress of what may be going on in my family, my community, and the world. I don't want to feel ethically conflicted about the books I read for entertainment, I want to lose myself in the worlds, characters, and stories.

How do I feel about others who make different choices than mine? I think that would depend on patterns of behavior. It matters if the person seems to seek out that sort of book or author, or also espouses the kind of ideology that I find objectionable.

Is it necessary to connect the author's personal views to their books? Given that the content of the book is built entirely from the imagination, ideas, and experiences of the author's mind, then yes, I think there is a connection. That doesn't equate every book they write to some kind of secret manifesto, but I don't think it can't help but influence the writing. I may still choose to read something by the author but I will absolutely read it with a more critical eye than I might have otherwise. At the very least, it damages my ability to just enjoy the story. At worst, I may feel like I'm betraying my values.

It seems to me that we've gotten to a point in this country where we have become so polarized that we can't think of "the other side" as anything but idiots, criminals, or psychopaths. I see things as a lot more grey.

I'm not going to abandon an author just because his or her personal political beliefs are different than mine. Of course, if their political and social views are incorporated too heavily in their writing... obviously I'm less likely to stick with an author who's views diverge too far from my own.

On the other hand, if they are so extreme as to vocally support things violence, bigotry, or sexual abuse, I feel I have to draw the line even if they don't bring that hate into their writing. I really loved MZB's Mists of Avalon and OSCs Ender's Game, but having learned more about those two authors I doubt I'll ever read anything else they wrote.

Liz wrote: "From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of problematic
1 a : posing a problem : difficult to solve or decide
b : not definite or settled : uncertain their future remains problematic
c : open to question o..."

Your post resonates with me, Liz. Well said.

Heck in a biography of Tolkien it was presented that he would dress up like a Saxon Warrior and chase his neighbors around with a Sword, yelling at them in Old Anglo-Saxon.

What? Where did you get that tale? It's certainly not from the Humphrey Carpenter biography, which is generally regarded as the authorized/reliable one.

Margaret wrote: "Heck in a biography of Tolkien it was presented that he would dress up like a Saxon Warrior and chase his neighbors around with a Sword, yelling at them in Old Anglo-Saxon.

What? Where did you get..."

I don't recall the title any longer, I think I was 17 or so when I read it. I filed it under the allegedly, but to cool not to remember category. Things like the convention where L. Ron Hubbard took a drunken bet to create a cult that could make money and thus Scientology was born. Might not be true, but it would be a shame if it isn't.

Dj wrote: "So I have a question. MZB was accused of an act that would constitute a crime as well as a violation of trust. But is being accused the same things as having done?

The scene in Mists of Avalon is..."

here's her testimony about her knowledge that her husband was having a relationship with a 14-15 year old child and that she had no problem with it.

https://web.archive.org/web/201408022...

Dj wrote: "Libraries and used book stores, don't funnel the money to the author or the publisher. ."

Libraries buy the books. If there is a demand for them, they will buy more. Not just of that specific book but also from that author in general.

Sorry, the only solution is to declare them anathema and cut them out of your life.

Trike wrote: "Dj wrote: "Libraries and used book stores, don't funnel the money to the author or the publisher. ."

Libraries buy the books. If there is a demand for them, they will buy more. Not just of that sp..."

*Your only solution. Whether or not I agree, we're still adhering to the rules of civil discourse. This is not the place to decide a new moral baseline for our society, though I think we'd be pretty good at it!

Michael wrote: "I'm not going to abandon an author just because his or her personal political beliefs are different than mine."

It’s less about belief than behavior. Advocating for reprehensible behavior is enough to get me to reject an author, because they normalize horrible things, and others often take that rhetoric and run with it, inflicting real pain and suffering on innocents.

This is actually playing out on Twitter right now. Worldcon has refused attendance to an Hispanic author I’ve never heard of before. He’s playing this up as being persecuted for his beliefs, but the real reason is because he is a Sad Puppy who has been attacking, trolling and threatening authors — most of them women — that he has designated as SJWs. He has clearly stated that he intends to cause trouble at the con, so they wisely revoked his pass.

He’s being ostracized for his behavior, not his beliefs. People like his friends and fellow Sad Puppies (read: “assholes”) John Wright and Larry Correia are exactly the same. It’s entirely possible that these guys think that they’re merely causing mischief to fight against something that’s wrong with our culture (possible but not probable), but the idiots who follow them have resorted to doxxing, SWATting and threatening to rape and murder the targets of their scorn, which are mostly women.

All of that is despicable. But it has nothing to do with being conservative, but everything to do with terrorizing people simply because they are different from you.

But it is appropriate here, because this is a discussion thread which is open to a wide variety of issues that an author may have done that readers might find problematic. It's not specific to racism, or anything else, specifically, but open to all types of behaviors or attitudes that we might take issue with.

Again, the issue is with the vaguaries of "problematic" content. If the content is offensive, say that. If it is objectionable, say that. If it is immoral, say that. Those all may have different responses.

The issue is that "problematic" does not mean "something that I have an opposition to." That is, however, how it is often used.

Liz wrote: "From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of problematic
1 a : posing a problem : difficult to solve or decide
b : not definite or settled : uncertain their future remains problematic
c : open to question o..."

Liz, from the definition posted, it is still not the material that is problematic but the response. We are discussing what happens when an author does something we oppose, which means that the behavior itself absolutely is settled as unacceptable in our mind. This is why the situation is problematic but the work or author in question is not.



Definitions aside, the boycott aspect is the one that resonates most with me, perhaps because my reading experience is pretty intensely governed by whatever I am reading rather than anything in my surroundings (including knowledge about the author), so there is no emotional bleeding.

It is, however, not how its being used here. Stick with the topic or go somewhere else. We're not discussing which definition of "problematic" we prefer.

Baelor wrote: "The issue is that "problematic" does not mean "something that I have an opposition to." That is, however, how it is often used. ."

You wouldn’t go into a Beyoncé forum complaining about the word “bootylicious” before it was added to the dictionary. Maybe you would. But you shouldn’t.

Trike, behave.

for me, I do make a distinction between things I'm reading for myself vs. for knowledge. Unfortunately I can't avoid all people I find horrific in my reading for things like education and, well, my job, but things I choose have to be things I don't believe will hurt people. It's not a politics thing or even my feelings. People with power can cause real harm and have, indirectly, to me and people I love. I can't just let that be bygones, myself.

I think the question of who gets hurt by a boycott to be an interesting one, though.

When I was a teenager I went through a huge Orson Scott Card phase. I read a LOT of his books. I also read his web site (what might now be called a blog) quite a bit during those years. I later read the second Ender series when it came out and decided I was done with him towards the end of that. According to GR I've read 20 of his books in all.

I wouldn't say that I couldn't enjoy his work solely because I find his views repugnant (which I do). I will say that I can't enjoy his work because his largely-deluded worldview infects his fictional worlds as well, in ways that are obvious now but that I couldn't recognize when I was a teenager and he was less vocal.

One example: in his Homecoming series he has a small group of characters who are basically separated from the rest of humanity forever. One is a gay man who does not have the practical choice of being in a same-sex relationship but who ultimately chooses to have children in a platonic relationship with a woman. There was no hate in his portrayal of the character; in fact it was a positive portrayal in a lot of ways. The otherwise problematic decision for him to remain in a non-sexual relationship with a woman and raise a family was at least believable to 14-year-old David (who was a little bit clueless). I don't believe OSC had ever made any public statements expressing his views of homosexuality at the time.

OSC has since stated explicitly that this is God's challenge and test of all gay people: that they are required partner with someone of the opposite sex to raise a family (in an otherwise non-sexual relationship if necessary). Now that I know that, the book and character and his portrayal are changed forever. What I know about his beliefs fundamentally changes the story itself.

A similar thing happened with the second Ender series: had he never spoken publicly about politics, I could have read it as just a story. Once he started writing about global politics and the middle east, it became clear that his understanding of the world is simplistic and distorted to say the least, and that understanding is reflected in his books. Knowing that, the way nations and conflicts are presented in the books is glaringly stupid and shallow, and I can't not recognize it as such because I know his own view of the world is so shallow. If I didn't know his politics, I could have glossed over their reflection in the books, but now I can't.

I'm by no means specifically an Orson Scott Card fan, as I've honestly probably only read two of his books. Ender's Game had been recommended to me years ago by someone at the time because he knew I enjoyed science fiction.. and honestly.. I'm still not certain if his introduction to the book along with some other heavier sci-fi pieces, was meant to challenge my belief I liked it.. or for my enjoyment. I'd hope the latter.

In any case, while I support and respect your stance on the matter.. I think a good story.. is just that.. and for me.. I tend to judge them on their own merits rather than the writer's personal feelings or agenda regarding real world situations. I knew literally nothing about him as a person, until reading your post, but that's because I never took a personal interest in him either. A lot of people have views that you or I may consider deluded or even ignorant. I'd venture to even say, we all do.. to some degree. But he's still a brilliant storyteller.

Trike wrote: "It’s less about belief than behavior. Advocating for reprehensible b..."

Thank you for this. It's an important distinction to make between disagreeing with an author's ideology and refusing to support someone who puts that ideology into harmful actions.

There is an important twist to the question asked by this thread: while we have discussed the case of authors with reprehensible or abhorrent beliefs or behaviors repelling or not readers from their books, there is also a kind of reverse situation. I am talking about specific groups or individual readers that auto-censor certain books based only on their religious, social or political beliefs (those of the readers). I have seen examples online of Christian fundamentalists (typically evangelicals) who will raise a stink and try to censure a book simply because it writes about a point of view that contradicts or rejects the religious views of those readers. Maybe that twist would be worth a thread of its own, or could it be integrated into this thread. Opinions?

I think it would be an interesting topic to visit, for certain.. and would probably warrant its own thread..

Baelor wrote: "Liz, from the definition posted, it is still not the material that is problematic but the response..."


The author is problematic because their behavior is problematic. MZB's behavior was reprehensible. She abused and victimized children so, yes, that's settled in my mind as wrong and unacceptable. OSC advocates and actively campaigns for things that harm an already marginalized group of people. Also a wrong and unacceptable thing to me. HP Lovecraft wrote about how black people are subhuman and should be treated as such. Again, I do find this to be wrong and unacceptable.

Certain things that I value are fairly immutable. Causing tangible harm to those don't deserve it, advocating that harm, and inspiring others to cause harm are ethically wrong in my beliefs and I make no apologies for that. You are, of course, free to disagree and to see me as problematic. It won't even make me feel bad.

It's not as simple as having a difference of opinion or political ideology. I'm pretty much never in favor of banning books or actual censorship. However, I don't even see this as a boycott. I haven't seen anyone here advocating an organized effort to stop people from buying books by problematic authors. We each decide how we'll spend our own limited book budgets. There are so many reasons why we might choose to buy one book and not another. This is just one of those reasons. I won't spend my money on books by people I consider reprehensible.

This is such a gray area, really.. but we're sort of discussing two different sides to the issue. On the one hand, finding out there's something about an author that I find irreconcilable might mean I'd no longer buy anything from them because I wouldn't want to support someone who I feel is harmful or just.. so distasteful.. I don't want to fund them.. that's entirely different from the original question in the topic.

That question referred to discovering after the fact, that the author of a work you enjoyed was this kind of person.. and how one might handle that. In which case, while I assume most of us would simply cease to continue buying their work, I don't feel it changes the work we're already familiar with, only as someone stated prior.. it may change our perspective of that work. But again, a story resonates with you.. or it does not. Finding out deeper meaning.. doesn't make the storytelling suddenly bad.. it simply causes conflict within us when we disagree with the hidden content or the narrative of that author's path..

I rarely bother about the private lives of authors. Unless it blatantly affects the writing it isn't a factor in choosing books to read.

If not giving money to bad people was something I believed in with regard to my shopping choices, there would be almost nothing in the shops I could buy. Picking only on writers seems a bit pointless.

V.W. wrote: "I rarely bother about the private lives of authors. Unless it blatantly affects the writing it isn't a factor in choosing books to read."

Yup. Also, about 90% of my books are borrowed.

I have stopped reading books by perfectly nice authors because they tackled issues in a way that made me half blind with rage. I'm far more interested in how the book presents itself to me and I almost never think of the author in connection to the book.

Michel wrote: "There is an important twist to the question asked by this thread: while we have discussed the case of authors with reprehensible or abhorrent beliefs or behaviors repelling or not readers from thei..."

We have a thread for Banned
Books if we want to discuss specific reasons a specific book was banned, or why we ban things in general. I'd really love to hear how other nations do this--so far I think most of the thread is US-specific.

You're always welcome to start a thread. I think a thread on what it means to have an "echo chamber", what we see as the dangers of living in one and what we personally do to overcome that could be extremely interesting.

But as always, any conversations that cast aspersions on an entire group of people to which we do not personally belong is not tolerated and will be deleted where we see them. I know that's not really where you were going with this, Michael, but it bears repeating.

Liz wrote: "Trike wrote: "It’s less about belief than behavior. Advocating for reprehensible b..."

Thank you for this. It's an important distinction to make between disagreeing with an author's ideology and r..."

I agree that this is a key distinction. I'm with the crowd that gets sick to her stomach when thinking about MZB, and I certainly avoid anything written by her. But these truly reprehensible authors are few and far between.

I think boycotting books by authors whose beliefs (especially political) are different than ours just because of that can make our reading habits into an echo chamber. Books like Atlas Shrugged and The Communist Manifesto challenged me to crystallize why I didn't like them. Will I be reading the complete works of Ayn Rand? Likely not. Will I ever read it again? Definitely not. But I'm glad I read it.

Part of the issue here is that our political beliefs are often grounded in our moral beliefs. And I get that - sometimes I catch myself doing it as well. But, someone made a point about how increasingly, in the US at least, we have a tendency to see people on the "other side" are morally reprehensible or at best stupid. I guess my question is, how will we ever have dialogue or really come to understand one another if we only listen to or talk to people who think the same way we do?

One last comment - I'm reading Woolf's A Room of One's Own at the moment, which isn't directly related, but she makes a point about how some authors (e.g. Shakespeare) transcend their own life stories in their art so much that it's hard to know who the author is behind the work - the artist is in some sense invisible. But this is very hard to do - most artists let their complaints and issues bleed through the woodwork. I thought this was a great point: often I'll be reading a perfectly good - sometimes even great - book, and there'll be this one scene, or side comment, or something which doesn't totally fit and I don't know why it's there. It's the author peeking behind the curtain.

Francisca wrote: "One last comment - I'm reading Woolf's A Room of One's Own at the moment, which isn't directly related, but she makes a point about how some authors (e.g. Shakespeare) transcend their own life stories in their art so much that it's hard to know who the author is behind the work - the artist is in some sense invisible. But this is very hard to do - most artists let their complaints and issues bleed through the woodwork. I thought this was a great point: often I'll be reading a perfectly good - sometimes even great - book, and there'll be this one scene, or side comment, or something which doesn't totally fit and I don't know why it's there. It's the author peeking behind the curtain."

Beautifully said and well-framed, Francisca.

Slate.com just published an interview that I feel is relevant to this discussion. The journalist interviewed the NYTimes film critic about how the Weinstein/Louis C.K/#MeToo affects movie viewing.

I think this quote from the last bit of the interview is particularly good:
"You can’t deny anyone’s discomfort or rejection of the work on these grounds, but there also needs to be room to experience it and to appreciate it, and I actually think that the long-term aggregate work of cultural processing, of which criticism is a part, does that. Tastes change, and values change, and work is constantly being re-evaluated and rejected or neglected and then rediscovered. … We don’t have to worry about that too much. That process will happen in ways that we can’t predict or control, and in a way, what we need to think about now is our own ethical standards and our own values and how those relate to the art that we experience, that we appreciate, that we love."

Uh, I frankly don't see anything in that quote except a lot of pedantic, empty words. Tastes and values have nothing to do with how reprehensible sexual harassment is. 'there also needs to be room to experience it and to appreciate it..' (the artistic work). While ignoring the suffering of the victims of abusive behavior and sexual harassment by men intoxicated by their 'greatness'? Please!

I don't think they are arguing that we should ignore the harm done by the perpetrators. But that we still need to allow space to debate the value of their works as it relates both to the artist and our culture.

They focus on Woody Allen for part of the interview. The film critic grew up idolizing Allen, loved Annie Hall. I've never seen Annie Hall, but I've never heard of any problematic (objectionable) scenes within the film. Annie Hall is often considered one the great films in American cinema. What I believe they are saying is that its okay to watch Annie Hall and debate its value as a film on its own and in relation to its creator's reputation. And it's also okay to be repulsed by Allen's newest film which is inspired by his own horrible choices and acknowledge that there is no way to separate that film from its creator.

Allison wrote: "We've all been there. We're happily consuming some media, really pleased with it and how it makes us think or feel...and then we learn the creator did something we morally oppose."

Allison's original post mentioned "media." We've talked mostly about books and authors, and the last few comments have brought in movies. I've been thinking a bit about this while reading the thread.

Musicians and actors tend to be more visible than authors, so I think we tend to link them more closely with the art. For me personally, I used to love Louis CK. Now just hearing his name makes me cringe. I don't think I could ever watch him again.

Oddly though, I don't seem to have as much of a strong reaction when it comes to music. I know all of the allegations against Michael Jackson, but I grew up on his music and still enjoy it. I can't really stand Justin Bieber as a person and tend to dismiss his music out of hand. However, I won't say that I don't find the occasional tune catchy and will sing along to the radio. I won't however, buy his music.

Is there a difference to how you respond to actors or musicians when you find out they have done something objectionable, than there is to how you respond to authors?

Coincidentally, today is Diane Keaton’s birthday.

Trivia about Annie Hall:

“Diane Keaton” is a stage name. Her birth name is Diane Hall, but she couldn’t use that because another actress worked under that name and SAG rules prohibit that in order to avoid confusion. Diane’s favorite movie star was Buster Keaton, so she chose that as her last name. Her outfits, which launched an androgynous fashion trend, were based on a combination of Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin. Diane’s nickname at the time was “Annie”. So Annie Hall is named after her, which was Woody Allen’s love note to her, and to this day Diane Keaton considers Allen her one true love.

Annie Hall was originally a surrealist murder mystery, but the film’s editor told Allen that the best parts were the relationship scenes between him and Keaton, so he cut together a version without the mystery or bizarre internal monologue. With some tweaks, that’s the movie that was released, which ended up winning the Best Picture Oscar, beating out a little film called Star Wars. (Which was also saved by its editor, Marcia Lucas.) Rian Johnson, director of Star Wars: The Last Jedi, credits Annie Hall as the movie that got him interested in filmmaking.

Allen later reworked the mystery part into Manhattan Murder Mystery which he wrote for his wife, Mia Farrow. When they broke up just before filming, Allen asked Diane Keaton to play the role.

Michael Keaton was a stage actor who was about to get his SAG card, but he couldn’t use his real name, which was Michael Douglas, because Issur Danielovitch changed his name to Kirk Douglas, so his son worked as Michael Douglas. He also couldn’t use Mike Douglas because that was used by the talk show host. He had just seen Annie Hall, so he changed his last name to Keaton. Michael Douglas and Katherine Zeta-Jones were going to name their son Sean until they realized that Michael Keaton’s son is named Sean Douglas, so they changed it to Dylan. The names of Michael Douglas’ mom and stepmom are Diana and Anne, bringing us full circle.

Kristin B. wrote: "Is there a difference to how you respond to actors or musicians when you find out they have done something objectionable, than there is to how you respond to authors? "
..."

I know I haven't watched Tom Cruise since his horrible comments about Brooke Shields use of anti-depressants. Honestly, I think the guy is off his rocker (in a non-clinical mentally ill sense, which I wouldn't actually use casually) and I hope he disappears off the face of the earth sometime soon.

So I believe that would be a no from me. There is no difference.

Trike wrote: "
Michael Keaton was a stage actor who was about to get his SAG card, but he couldn’t use his real name, which was Michael Douglas, because Issur Danielovitch changed his name to Kirk Douglas, so his son worked as Michael Douglas. He also couldn’t use Mike Douglas because that was used by the talk show host. He had just seen Annie Hall, so he changed his last name to Keaton. Michael Douglas and Katherine Zeta-Jones were going to name their son Sean until they realized that Michael Keaton’s son is named Sean Douglas, so they changed it to Dylan. The names of Michael Douglas’ mom and stepmom are Diana and Anne, bringing us full circle.

Another of those odd little trivia tidbits:
Michael Douglas, the actor, is noted to have had his 'first tv breakthrough' (and presumably his acting breakthrough) in 1969.
A book popped up in 1970 by a 'Michael Douglas'.
- which later became a film in 1972 starring Robert F. Lyons, John Lithgrow, and Barbara Hershey. (Oh, and Paul Sorvino. Who, the other day, apparently, threatened to kill Harvey Weinstein for sexually harassing Paul's daughter Mira - who won an academy award and Golden Globe for her role in Woody Allen's 'Mighty Aphrodite').

The author Michael Douglas actually is a pen name used by Michael Crichton and his brother Douglas Crichton.

Michael Crichton wrote the screenplay for, and directed the 1978 film titled Coma. Which starred Michael Douglas (the actor).

Amanda wrote: "And it's also okay to be repulsed by Allen's newest film which is inspired by his own horrible choices and acknowledge that there is no way to separate that film from its creator."

You say that it is "also okay," but is it merely "okay," or is it actually a moral imperative? In other words, is it also okay not to be repulsed by Allen's newest film and to consider it separate from the creator?

More broadly, does anyone in this thread believe that it is not a matter of personal choice but actually a moral necessity for everyone to boycott or not read something?

Every year I watch the movie White Christmas. And every year we lament how ill Vera-Ellen was, and cringe when Bing is talking to the kids.

It's tough. There's got to be some narrow path between realizing that essentially all of human history is built on shadows of human misery and the ability to sleep at night with the choices we've made.

I know I have personal lines that I don't cross, and most importantly, I think I consider the things that matter most to the people around me. I can't demonstrate my moral purity to the world, and I don't really want to. But if my spouse can't listen to a song because the artist did something that he can't reconcile, I'll likely also avoid that artist. If a community that isn't mine but that includes other loved ones condemns something, I will respect their take on it--it's so easy to say "it doesn't impact me" and to ignore it, but if it impacts people I love, it DOES impact me.

There are certain things that have become symbols of ideals I cannot tolerate, and for the time being at least it's more important to me to show solidarity against those ideas than it is to work through separating the idea and the person, as much as that's possible. I see it as possible (as with classic painters or writers from 100 years ago or movie stars from 50 years ago) that eventually the symbol will wear off of someone, and we can discuss them at a remove, but in the thick of it, it's too close and too real.

Michel wrote: "I have seen examples online of Christian fundamentalists (typically evangelicals) who will raise a stink and try to censure a book simply because it writes about a point of view that contradicts or rejects the religious views of those readers. Maybe that twist would be worth a thread of its own, or could it be integrated into this thread. Opinions? "

Is that really fundamentally different? There have been posts in this thread about how knowing an author's perspective can color the content of a book, which seems categorically similar to someone who knows that Philip Pullman is vehemently opposed to organized Christianity choosing not to read His Dark Materials, which reifies Pullman's explicit statements that God, at least as conceptualized in Christianity, deserves to be "put down." If someone finds Pullman's opinions immoral or reprehensible, is that not the same thing?

Baelor wrote: "More broadly, does anyone in this thread believe that it is not a matter of personal choice but actually a moral necessity for everyone to boycott or not read something? ."

I'm having a hard time with both the double negatives and the implications here.

Yes, there are people here who don't believe we all need to boycott X thing.

No, I personally think there are 100% things that should be boycotted. Nazis will not get my money or my page hits. Full stop, will not patron them in anyway. Just about everything else though I think we can argue for wiggle room, and I believe I have been.

Also, I've made it very clear that this is just a space for airing personal viewpoints and not changing minds. Sorry, I don't think most or any of us have the time, degrees or forum to really do that right and I'm not going to watch this very thoughtful conversation devolve into a war.

and I'm still conflicted - the Darkover series was so good. Mel Gibson was excellent in Mad Max, the Road Warrior, Braveheart, Lethal Weapon. Anne Perry writes some good books. Thomas Jefferson owned his mistress and fathered children by her. The list goes on and on and on

I think ultimately, the conclusion we're arriving at.. is that our reactions all vary pretty vastly.. in some cases, due to our personal investment in the creator of the media at hand.. and in others.. due to our personal moral compasses.. which is to be expected.

My opinion on a piece of work isn't more or less affected by which medium it happens to be (music, film, literature, etc.).. but like many of you.. by how important that speck of knowledge is to me. Some things I find I struggle to separate from the body of someone's work.. even if I genuinely wish to do so.. and as an extremely analytical.. typically objective person.. that can cause my thoughts on the matter to be tumultuous.

For example, a couple of my friends incidentally got me hooked on the tv show Glee.. much to my chagrin. I adored one of the actors, even before I knew he was on the show.. and when I discovered him there.. I really enjoyed watching him. Now, fast forward a few years.. and he's just plead guilty to having 35,000 images of child pornography on his computer. This is one of those things. It's absolutely irreconcilable for me. It doesn't change the fact he's a very talented performer, but it does make me cringe every time I happen to see him on episodes of the show. I actually dislike the fact that his music still sounds good to me.. but I can't change that.. and I'd never put money into anything he might gain from either.

Baelor wrote: "More broadly, does anyone in this thread believe that it is not a matter of personal choice but actually a moral necessity for everyone to boycott or not read something? "

I don’t. I will express my opinion and give reasons why I don’t read an author but I draw the line at banning books.

And living up to those last four words is fucking hard. I want to ban the hell out of people like Orson Scott Card, and I want him to be treated the way he wants o5ers to be treated: violently, without pause. However, that impulse makes me no better than him, so I refute it. But I won’t deny that I feel it.

I really like the podcast Writing Excuses hosted by Brandon Sanderson et al, and I cringe whenever they bring up fellow Mormon Card. I’m baffled that Mary Robinette Kowal tolerates mentions of him, especially considering her stance on things like inclusion and microaggressions. She seems to have successfully separated the art from the artist, which makes her a better person than me in that regard. The fact that one of their regular cohosts last year was a bisexual POC who is in a polyamorous relationship pretty definitively states that they do not hold with Card’s beliefs, at least in punblic. And that’s pretty much all one can ask.

CBRetriever wrote: "and I'm still conflicted - the Darkover series was so good. Mel Gibson was excellent in Mad Max, the Road Warrior, Braveheart, Lethal Weapon. Anne Perry writes some good books. Thomas Jefferson own..."

Everyone has their own personal line, like the one at amusement parks: measure up to this standard for me to enjoy your work.

For me, Mel Gibson crossed the line with his raging racism and threats to murder his girlfriend. Jodie Foster’s unwavering support of him means she’s also dead to me. (When she said all superhero movies are crap last month, that just reinforced it.)

Tom Cruise, though? He’s an idiot with wackadoo beliefs who has said some terrible things, such as the thing with Brooke Shields’ post-partum depression. However, he did apologize and he seemed sincere about it. When he fought with Matt Lauer, it just seemed like more of his nonsense parade, but now we know what a despicable monster Lauer is — the guy had a hidden button on his desk to lock women in his office so he could assault them! WTF?! — and the fact that many people in the business knew this about Lauer makes me reconsider what Cruise was actually angry about. The list of good deeds he’s done is impressive which for me more than balances out his ill-considered words that he repented.

But actors like Alec Baldwin, who verbally abused his daughter when she was a preteen? And continued to treat others terribly? Or Adam Baldwin (no relation), who has proven to be a raging asshole on a number of topics and has gone after family members of people he’s decided for no reason he wants to bully? Or Kevin Spacey, the gay version of Matt Lauer and Adam Baldwin? No, screw those guys. They have nothing in the plus column to counterbalance their constant misdeeds.

CBRetriever wrote: "Dj wrote: "So I have a question. MZB was accused of an act that would constitute a crime as well as a violation of trust. But is being accused the same things as having done?

The scene in Mists o..."


Okay then, that is a different kettle of fish. Thx.

Allison wrote: "Trike wrote: "Dj wrote: "Libraries and used book stores, don't funnel the money to the author or the publisher. ."

Libraries buy the books. If there is a demand for them, they will buy more. Not j..."

At least in regards to a Library that buys new books I would say that Trike has a point. I am more used to small town libraries that get most of their books through donations. One on the Oregon coast had one of the Best WWII sections since they had a military base there and people would donate their books at certain points. I still have a friend who still lives in that town get books for me from time to time, since the libraries in Portland don't have as good a selection.