SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

Trike wrote: "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 b..."

Okay I am going to show my less than stellar abbreviation intellect again. What is an SJW? The only thing I could come up with and I kind of hope I am wrong is Single Jewish Woman. Which sounds to much like a dating acronym for my comfort.

Dj wrote: "Trike wrote: "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 r..."

"social justice warrior." It's a term used by certain groups meant to disparage people who aggressively pursue civil rights.

I actually think it sounds badass though, so I'm not sure how that works out for them.

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..."

Outside Censorship can be a truly frightening thing in that regard.

Someone asked if I would feel the same about Mein Kampf as about other books. In response, I'll say that this is the Science Fiction and Fantasy discussion group, and therefore I would have thought it obvious that my remarks were referring to works of fiction, but apparently it wasn't.

That being said, even for works of nonfiction, I don't think anyone should only read books that contain only ideas that they agree with, or by authors whom they 100% admire. Such a thing is patently impossible, anyway.

My real point is this: if I admired a book before knowing anything about the author, why would my opinion *about the book* change just because I found out something I don't like about the author. Certainly my opinion about the author will change, but the book is still the book. Or to put it another way, for those who only support authors who haven't acted badly in public, I can assure you that you are kidding yourselves. Your favorite author is just better at hiding their actions and/or thoughts from you than the others. If you could see their thoughts, you'd be appalled - just as they would be about yours.

Lexxi Kitty wrote: "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 ..."

If I was Weinstein I would take that threat from Papa Sorvino seriously.

Baelor wrote: "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."

..."

So for me, I read too much WWII history to believe that it is a moral imperative to boycott things en masse. Personal choice but en masse smacks too much of book burning. I find it a slippery slope, once you start boycotting in large groups where does it end. Are the real-life actions of MZB that far different from the written actions of the characters in Lolita? Do they both get boycotted?
Personally, I have no need or desire to read Lolita, but I don't turn into a rabid Weasel when I hear someone saying that they did.

Trike wrote: "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. ..."

So you might not be able to hear it but I am clapping for this post. Take a bow. (No really, take a bow.)

Trike wrote: "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. ..."

I can't hate Mel Gibson for being a raving racist, it would mean I would have to hate my father. Both did me a great service, by teaching me how not to behave. So I will give them kudos for that. I hope other people get that lesson from their behavior as well.

Steve wrote: "My real point is this: if I admired a book before knowing anything about the author, why would my opinion *about the book* change just because I found out something I don't like about the author. Certainly my opinion about the author will change, but the book is still the book. Or to put it another way, for those who only support authors who haven't acted badly in public, I can assure you that you are kidding yourselves. Your favorite author is just better at hiding their actions and/or thoughts from you than the others. If you could see their thoughts, you'd be appalled - just as they would be about yours. "

I don't see how I could NOT think about the book differently after learning about an author. If I were to learn that an author hated children, for instance, it would make me question every decision they made when writing about them. Or not including them at all. Or creating a child-free fantasy world.

In other words, that would make me think of the book differently than had I not known it. And depending on how differently the knowledge makes me feel, maybe it would fundamentally change my opinion of the book.

I change my mind and opinions all the time based on new knowledge and experience... I see things in books and other media now that I didn't used to see, or think about anyway, when I was younger, and if knowing something about an author will make something about their book stand out, positively or negatively, then I will use that info to form my opinion.

Ps. The 'acting badly in public' bit is key for me. If they are that adept at hiding their shittiness and don't put it on blast for the world to see, I'm ok with it. They aren't harming me. But if they do, I choose not to support them.

Dj wrote: "I can't hate Mel Gibson for being a raving racist, it would mean I would have to hate my father. Both did me a great service, by teaching me how not to behave. So I will give them kudos for that. I hope other people get that lesson from their behavior as well. ."

Some Mel Gibson context:

I am a lapsed Catholic. Mostly because I simply don’t believe the things the Church teaches. Among Catholics there is an extremist wing which rejects every Pope since Pius XII (who died in the 1950s) and deny the reforms of Vatican II. They are known as sedevacantists, “sedes” for short.

For those unfamiliar with the minutiae of Catholic dogma, Vatican II (properly known as the Second Vatican Council) essentially modernized the Catholic Church. Masses were no longer celebrated entirely in Latin but were to be performed in the common language of the native people. (Eg. English in the US, Spanish in Mexico, Portuguese in Brazil, Italian in Italy, French in France, etc.) Vatican II also instituted the general Novus Ordo, the “new order”, which treats other religions with respect rather than enmity, embraces minorities, relaxes some of the strictures surrounding divorce and suchlike. Women are still second-class citizens, but hey, you can’t have it all.

Regular Catholics think the sedevacantists are heretics, while the sedevacantists believe mainstream Catholics are being duped by heretical anti-Popes. So far, this is typical of religion and its inanity.

The problem is not just one of disagreeing about policy, but how you treat other people. Some sedevacantists engage in behavior that is indistinguishable from the KKK. They are Holocaust deniers. They believe Jews run the world and have been responsible for every war mankind has ever fought. They think blacks are subhuman primates who are damned to hell merely for being black. These people have perpetuated violence against innocent people merely because they are black or gay or Jewish or mainstream Catholic. They funnel money to hate groups and terrorist organizations, such as the IRA.

Mel Gibson is one of these extremists.

His dad literally wrote a book about this stuff and I’ve never heard Mel repudiate any of it, not once. Just the opposite, in fact. Mel funds a private church that is open only to his family and similar believers. The one report about what goes on there makes the preachings of the Westboro Baptist Church and Scientology seem like ice cream socials.

While there is no direct evidence that Gibson himself does these things, I can tell you from my experience with both the KKK and sedevacantists that he has said and done *all* the things that group believes. Every time he gets in trouble, it’s because he is repeating the sede party line. All of the vile things he has said come straight from the sede playbook. When I heard his tirade against the cop who pulled him over, I had a flashback to the guys I knew back in the day. If it quacks like a duck....

While I won’t say with certainty that Gibson supports violence against the people he considers “lesser than”, because I can’t know for sure, all the evidence I’ve seen from him leads me to that conclusion. If asked to bet money he’s supported terrorism, I wouldn’t hesitate to bet on Yes.

For me, it comes down to suspension of disbelief. If the author/actor/director/whoever's behavior overshadows my ability to immerse myself in the art, then I won't bother with it. MZB broke my heart - not only did I grow up reading her work, but I made my first professional short story sale to her magazine. I can't imagine ever getting lost in her books again.

Another name I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is Jack L. Chalker. I loved his books as well - Midnight at the Well of Souls was one of my very favorites. The man had a spectacular imagination and mad world-building skills. I started powering my way through his catalog, and the more I read, the more obvious it became that this man hates women. I remember the moment I had enough. Three chapters from the end, I bounced my paperback copy of one of the Soul Rider books against the far wall. Why would I read books written by someone who hates me?

Peggy wrote: "Another name I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is Jack L. Chalker. I loved his books as well - Midnight at the Well of Souls was one of my very favorites. The man had a spectacular imagination and mad world-building skills. I started powering my way through his catalog, and the more I read, the more obvious it became that this man hates women. I remember the moment I had enough. Three chapters from the end, I bounced my paperback copy of one of the Soul Rider books against the far wall. Why would I read books written by someone who hates me?
."

I don’t think you can make the case for Chalker being a misogynist, especially if you take his work as a whole. His best-known novels are the Well World series, which feature kickass female protagonists throughout. Wu Julee in the first book is certainly a primary character, and she rises above her unfortunate circumstances to become an authentic heroine.

Mavra Chang is arguably the main character of the next four books, and the stuff she endures at the hands of terrible men is crippling. (Literally. She is among a group of people captured by evil cultists who use body-altering machinery to change people into donkey-like animals. I suspect Chalker was riffing on Disney’s Pinocchio. Mavra’s transformation is interrupted, resulting in her being a bizarre half-human, half-equine hybrid with none of the benefits of either.) Despite this handicap she perseveres for decades and eventually joins Nathan Brazil on his quest to save the universe. (view spoiler)[She then ascends into godhood, equal in every way to Brazil. When they restart the universe and she recreates herself, she chooses to reset back into her original body... with slight modifications such as poison glands under her fingernails so no one can ever do something like that to her again, for her entire immortal life. (hide spoiler)]

Not only that, but the actual misogynist of the books, who turns himself into a sexual superman like the creepy douchenozzle he is, gets his comeuppance to such a degree that all of his male descendants for generations become the very thing he had in store for all women: himbo sex slaves. (view spoiler)[A situation later corrected by Obie and Mavra, who change that planet so everyone is equal, as they recognize that punishing the dude’s umpteen-times removed grandsons is morally wrong. (hide spoiler)]

All really good stuff, folks. Lovely context and back and forth. But please remember a lot of this is very personal to each reader, so it really is important that we not try to tell them that what they've felt, read, or seen is untrue. As most of us are aware, it is possible to think ourselves unbiased,bu as that isn't native to our programming, it can come out to those used to the prejudice even if it seems "normal" to us.

I think questions will serve us better if we disagree with what someone is saying. As we've seen a lot of in this thread (and which makes me so happy!!!) often simply more information tends to dispel disagreement.

My personal conflict with MZB has more to do with the fact that I own her Darkover series in paperback and in kindle version. I am going to get rid of the paperbacks since I have digital versions, but will I ever reread them in the kindle versions and do I want to do so or do I delete the files from my Amazon account. The money is already spent and they were purchased after she died.

I liked them originally because she had strong female characters, had homosexual characters and the stories were always interesting.

Trike wrote: "Dj wrote: "I can't hate Mel Gibson for being a raving racist, it would mean I would have to hate my father. Both did me a great service, by teaching me how not to behave. So I will give them kudos ..."

Well that makes sense, my old man was old school catholic as well. We didn't even give gifts on x-mas, had to wait for 6 Jan, three kings day. Man that sucked.

Francisca wrote: "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 id..."

I would have to say that boycotting books without reading them is just being closed-minded. If a writer has political beliefs that contradict yours, that doesn't mean they can't write good stories. If, on the other hand, they can't write a story without dragging their politics into it and spoiling the experience, then that's just bad writing.

Not everything has to be political. I strongly disagree with most actors in Hollywood, but I still like some of their movies. I can watch the characters they portray without seeing them as themselves. The same applies to writing. I don't see why every celebrity has to be a politician anyway.

Paul wrote: "just being closed-minded...."

We're respecting all points of view on here. People have equally strong opinions against what you have just said and it's important that this remain a discussion rather than descending into an argument over whose values are correct.

Sarah Anne wrote: "Paul wrote: "just being closed-minded...."

We're respecting all points of view on here. People have equally strong opinions against what you have just said and it's important that this remain a di..."

So . . . you are saying that refusing to read a book because somebody told you that the author was bad in some way . . . without reading the book or doing your own investigation . . . Isn't that kind of like the book burning done in the 30s in Germany?

No, I'm actually not making a value judgment, but to deliberately not expose ones self to a book based on per-concieved notions does not seem to me like an open minded thing to do. Don't get me wrong. Sometimes it's good to be closed minded. On the other hand I also deliberately read books I don't agree with so that I can better understand the points of view of others. You can't argue about literature you haven't actually read, at least not effectively.

Also, on another note, the best way to get book sales is to have your book banned. There is no such thing as bad publicity.

Paul wrote: "So . . . you are saying that refusing to read a book because somebody told you that the author was bad in some way . . . without reading the book or doing your own investigation . . . Isn't that kind of like the book burning done in the 30s in Germany?"

That's not what you posted, you were calling for reading without considering beliefs at all - "I would have to say that boycotting books without reading them is just being closed-minded."

There's plenty of opinions that I don't want to lend money to, which can include buying or reading particular tracts. I'm not going to send money to Scientology by buying their books for example, but unless I read their books I'm closed-minded? Doesn't that defeat the point?

We're talking about fiction books that most of us read for enjoyment. Part of that enjoyment can be detracted from by the knowledge that one is implicitly supporting a purveyor of race-hate or homophobic attacks or paedophilia. As a result there is no need to read a book that one doesn't like.

Sure, the book itself might stand on its merits - we're not discussing the quality of the books in question, and in general people have spoken quite favourably of many of the books in question. That's why there's a dilemma. But claiming that not reading a novel in question is a matter of open/closed mindedness is pretty silly. Novels are tangential to the actual world we live in.

BTW nice work on jumping straight comparisons to Nazism. That's always a sign of an open mind.

There is a lot of food for thought here. I don't know if it's necessary for me, personally, to give 100% moral approval to an author before enjoying his/her works. - On the other hand, would I ever support someone consciously on the side of causes I consider evil? - Of course not...
And yet it has been said (I paraphrase) only stone someone if you are completely innocent yourself - at which point the stone-throwers went home...
When I do find moral uplift in works of art, though, I find it cheering, elevating - wonderful.

I don't know if I can claim that any author gets "100% moral approval" from me... Or any person, for that matter. We are all human and fallible and none of us are perfect.

Yes! Not reading an author's book isn't a request that their books be banned or they be stoned to death. Good gracious, if that's the confusion please put it to rest. I don't think OSC should be forced to stop publishing or be harmed himself! I hope, in the future, we get to a point where all people are allowed to have the same level of protection and acceptance, at which time we can consider the implications of a book that condemns the separation of genders for purity reasons and the violence inherent in "othering" people written by a man who advocated/s for violence against others.

Just, right this very second, we're not there, and I can't read his works without reading some parts differently due to my knowledge of his views.

It'd be like having a character in a book describe an attractive person as being "yummy," and then finding out the author was Hannibal Lector. That line would forever change and then I'd start wondering what other parts of the book were actually a metaphor for eating people.

Paul wrote: "So . . . you are saying that refusing to read a book because somebody told you that the author was bad in some way . . . without reading the book or doing your own investigation ...."

In the era of google who doesn't "do their own investigation?" I look things up. If the issues make me want to vomit I don't read the author again.

I also don't burn the book, ban it, tell other people they shouldn't read it, or tell them they're stupid/worthless/immoral for making a different decision from my own.

And did you read the thread at all? Because we aren't talking about political opinions.

I noticed that many comments about why not to read a certain book or author said 'different political views' was a reason to do so. I believe that to be a very negative and exclusive reason and not a valid one. Why? Because political partisanship is presently tearing Americans apart and creating a huge divide in the nation, resulting in an ineffective government and social hatred. The reasons an author or book would be avoided by individual readers should have to do with author's personal traits and beliefs that are widely considered repelling or reprehensible, like racism, slavery, pedophilia and violent homophobia, not political views. By equating a different political view (left vs right for example, or pro-choice vs pro-life) with 'evil' would only result in closing oneself to the views of others who may legitimately think differently than you. The USA is already too divided in the political arena, let's not carry on that division into books.

Well, to be fair, the concern over OSC is largely to do with his political beliefs and actions. I think political issues are totally valid, though. Who has time to read every book out there? In light of the fact that I'll never get around to reading all the books I'd like to, am I really obligated to read Ender's Game if I find Card's philosophies abhorrent? Don't get me wrong, I read it and enjoyed it. I just don't think it's fair to say that someone is closed-minded for passing on a book for political reasons. We all have to make our own choices with regards to prioritizing the limited time we have.

Myself, I really don't care about the author's politics, it's their life-style views that might cause me not to read their books (homophobia, racism, religious zealotry, etc). I don't totally agree with the politics of most people, including my husband, so their political beliefs don't bother me. I still watch Charlton Heston (ex president of the NRA) and Tom Selleck (very conservative) movies and I don't agree with their political stance. I can read Terry Goodkind (Ayn Rand follower) without any problems.

I also would not stop reading an author because of political differences. I used my favorite author as an example up-thread. He's libertarian, or near so, and his characters always head for the guns first, including the one who's afraid of them. I still read and love his books. If, however, I found out he wad a pedophile or his millions were going to white supremacists rather than dog rescue I would not be able to read him.

"I noticed that many comments about why not to read a certain book or author said 'different political views' was a reason to do so."

My comments are generic with reference to "political views". I don't think "politics" means what you think it means.

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Definition of politics
1 a : the art or science of government
b : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy
c : the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government

It seems like the definition of "political views" is a euphemism for "I don't agree with your rationale". To casually categorize homophobia, child abuse, racism, religious bigotry, morality etc as "political" bugs me. It's a form of deflection from actually considering the question. And BTW it's fine in my view to dismiss an author based on their politics if that's what someone want to do. If people choose not to do that, it's perfectly fine as well. What's not fair (in my view) is to characterize other views (in this thread) for choosing not read certain authors as mostly based on "political views" unless expressly stated. That in most cases is a simplistic, dismissive and somewhat disrespectful. It's been my experience that most people that read deserve a lot more consideration and latitude than that. The world doesn't exist in absolutes.

We were doing so well. Michel, do you want to rephrase that in a way that does not attack someone please?

Excuse me, Allison, but I was simply correcting what was a distorted view of what I said in my comment #124. I was being told in rather condescending terms and fashion that I didn't know the difference between political views and personal traits that are reprehensible. I understand the need to be polite as much as possible, but I am not ready to simply let someone completely deform and mischaracterize my words. How about Monica rewrite her own comments to reflect what I really said? I am simply asking for intellectual honesty here.

I appreciate you're asking questions. asking Monica to clarify what she meant as it seemed to contradict your point is valid and, I think, really your intent. I believe she will infer that she has (inadvertently, I hope) hurt your feelings or made you feel attacked.

As you have argued passionately for trying to see another's side, I hope we can start there and see how it goes?

Paul wrote: ". . . you are saying that refusing to read a book because somebody told you that the author was bad in some way . . . without reading the book or doing your own investigation . . . Isn't that kind of like the book burning done in the 30s in Germany?

No, I'm actually not making a value judgment, but to deliberately not expose ones self to a book based on per-concieved notions does not seem to me like an open minded thing to do."


Donald wrote: "But claiming that not reading a novel in question is a matter of open/closed mindedness is pretty silly. Novels are tangential to the actual world we live in.

BTW nice work on jumping straight comparisons to Nazism. That's always a sign of an open mind."


Sarah Anne wrote: "And did you read the thread at all? Because we aren't talking about political opinions."

Michel wrote: "I believe that to be a very negative and exclusive reason and not a valid one."

Monica wrote: "I don't think "politics" means what you think it means."


As you can tell by the above quotes, people are getting very invested in the topic, which I think is good.. but it's devolved into a stream of value judgement.. and rather than enlightening information or the simple sharing of different ideas and perspectives.. it's become a very tense.. confrontational pseudo-argument. Maybe everyone take a breath and re-read your posts before making them. I know I'm trying to do the same.. because it's easy to become passionate about what you're trying to say.. and lose the validity of your points to what appears to be anger.. condescension.. and dismissive judgement/categorization of another's views.

Michel, I don't believe Monica's comment was aimed specifically at you. There are others here saying the same things you are.

Well, I am certainly still open to hearing other opinions that are presented in a fair and accurate fashion. Could we all agree that we are really concerned here about reprehensible personal traits in certain authors, rather than about their political views?

Thanks, Anghell, good points. And I agree. We're getting to the point that it is becoming less about personal thoughts or questions for others. I'm monitoring closely so that if it doesn't return towards that soon, we can close the thread before anything is said that we would regret.

I would again like to say how pleased I am that this incredibly contentious topic has remained (by and large) more congenial than I've ever seen it handled before. I'm very much in awe of the standard of discourse I this group, even if it becomes advisable to cut this one short.

Michel wrote: "Could we all agree that we are really concerned here about reprehensible personal traits in certain authors, rather than about their political views? .."

That would be great. The wording in the OP was something we "morally oppose".

Thanks, Michel.

Michel wrote: "How about Monica rewrite her own comments to reflect what I really said? I am simply asking for intellectual honesty here. "

Michel there was no intent to attack you personally. My comments were generic. Yours was the last post I saw that used the phrase. I was razing against the use of that particular phrase because its one of those pet peeves of mine. I absolutely apologize for any misunderstandings.

Thank you, Monica. No harm done.

Michel wrote: "Thank you, Monica. No harm done."

Thank Michel!! I hope I don't inherit the nickname "thread killer" over this ;-)

Monica wrote: "Michel wrote: "Thank you, Monica. No harm done."

Thank Michel!! I hope I don't inherit the nickname "thread killer" over this ;-)"

And lo, did Monica become M'nica, Dragonrider of Goodreads, scourger of threads.

;-)

On the subject of politics, let’s just GO THERE, shall we?

Hitler.

Bear with me.

I think most of us can agree he’s a bad guy, yes? Obviously some people don’t. The alt-right, neo-Nazis, a significant portion of the Sad Puppies, the current US President, etc. But most of us.

I have been a volunteer in animal rescue for 37 years. It is a cause near and dear to me. I’m not a vegetarian, but I want my food animals to be treated as humanely as possible (see the work of Dr. Temple Grandin, for instance). I have had meetings with politicians of all stripes, including several governors of my state in order to pass legislation in favor of animal protections.

You’ve seen my photos of my dogs. At this point I don’t even know how many rescue dogs have come through my house, either as fosters or adoptees. More than 50, certainly. I have devoted a significant portion of my life and income to this cause.

Imagine how stunned I was to discover that the focus of evil in the modern world, the Nazis of WWII Germany, shared my beliefs and passion. The very first thing they did was pass legislation ensuring the rights of animals. Hitter himself was an ardent dog lover, and one of his beloved German Shepherds looked nearly identical to the dog I spent my youth with. How to reconcile the atrocities the Nazis committed with the fact that they share my core beliefs?

Easy: it doesn’t fucking save them.

I don’t care if someone is only “mostly bad”, or that the Venn diagrams of our lives overlap in the most important aspects of my belief. If all the other stuff they do outweighs our common cause and the smidgen of good in their souls, then to hell with them.

Trike, I think you just defined the term "completely off topic." Your post has nothing to do with the discussion.

Here is what I got out of Trike's post... Doesn't matter how good the book is or what else the author does, some things you can't atone for, some actions can't be balanced. He just used an extreme bad guy example which I like (the example, not the bad guy).

My final take on this great discussion is that for all of us individually, there are actions that offend us enough to ban an author for ourselves. The real question is, which actions do we then think are heinous enough to try to get the community at large to ostrasize them as well?

MZB seems a clear crossing of the threshold for most of us, OSC maybe, maybe not.

I have no problem with anyone making an individual ban decision based on politics, car color, favorite NFL team or anything else, they just won't get much traction convincing me to do the same without an "this is universally bad" argument

Well, advocating or excusing the followings in one's own writing would definitely be considered 'bad' to 'repugnant and unacceptable' for me:
A. Physical/sexual abuse of other persons, especially children.
B. Public calls for violence or deprivation of basic rights against certain categories of persons (LGBT, other races, other religious groups, other nationalities, the opposite sex, invalids or victims of mental health problems).
C. Calls to impose by force or by law certain sets or rigid religious beliefs from one's own religion on followers of another faith or sect.
D. Gratuitous and repeated descriptions of torture/rape/mutilations meant to make those things appear 'normal' or 'acceptable', unless the author is using the setting of some evil group or historical entity (like when describing the 'work' of the German Gestapo or the Catholic Inquisition) and is not advocating for such horrors to become acceptable.

If you are an author and you use either of those four categories to either 'spice up' your book or to advocate them, then you definitely won't be a friend of mine.

Sarah Anne wrote: "Because we aren't talking about political opinions. "

There's been a number of posters who have listed political opinions as the reason they won't read someone. We (as in you and I) might not be but it has been raised in the thread.

Michel wrote: "I noticed that many comments about why not to read a certain book or author said 'different political views' was a reason to do so. I believe that to be a very negative and exclusive reason and not a valid one. Why? Because political partisanship is presently tearing Americans apart and creating a huge divide in the nation, resulting in an ineffective government and social hatred. The reasons an author or book would be avoided by individual readers should have to do with author's personal traits and beliefs that are widely considered repelling or reprehensible, like racism, slavery, pedophilia and violent homophobia, not political views. By equating a different political view (left vs right for example, or pro-choice vs pro-life) with 'evil' would only result in closing oneself to the views of others who may legitimately think differently than you. The USA is already too divided in the political arena, let's not carry on that division into books."

Is this where I point out again that we're talking about voluntarily reading books? If someone is reading books for enjoyment and the politics of the author is reducing the potential enjoyment of reading a particular book, I don't see the point in claiming they're wrong for doing so.

I don't read many horror books, I don't read any romance novels, I don't read any political tracts, all because I'm pretty sure I won't enjoy them. I don't see "author with a differing political view" as any different to any genre classification.

I'm fine at reading authors with differing political views to me (as mentioned before, I'm pretty good at separating art and artist) but I don't see other people's choices as less valid just because of my own reading habits.

Michel wrote: "Well, advocating or excusing the followings in one's own writing would definitely be considered 'bad' to 'repugnant and unacceptable' for me:
A. Physical/sexual abuse of other persons, especially ..."

This is an interesting point, Michel. Personally, as far as the fiction goes, these things would not necessarily stop me from reading a book. (As long as it matches the story. I don't like outrageous things in my novels just for shock value.) However, a lot of these things come up in dystopian novels as an example. Dystopia is one of my favorite sub-genres. They help shed a light on human failings and in the fictional context, can really make a story compelling and emotional. They can also act as warnings and help us see things in reality a bit more clearly.

If, however, one of these things was committed in reality by the author. Or if I knew the author condoned/supported them, but they did not appear in their works, I would still skip reading them.

Just to clarify what I said in comment #144 and empasized in its point 'D', describing horrors and abuses as part of a fictitious dystopian society or world is acceptable to me. It is when the description is utterly gratuitous that I would object.

Hank: The real question is, which actions do we then think are heinous enough to try to get the community at large to ostrasize them as well?

None, really, in my opinion. I mean, if you are referring to this group specifically, then the leadership and members can do whatever they want, but my general issue always is with transparency and having clear protocol. As far as I am aware, nothing in the group information or rules specifically mentions any criteria for excluding authors.

If you are talking about the general populace, you would first need to convince everyone that some texts should simply never be read, and there are plenty of opponents to that idea, including several in this thread (among which I am one), and the apparent rules of the thread prohibit any actual hashing out of differences. Even if you managed to accomplish that, then you would also basically need everyone to agree to particular norms, which seems impossible.

I think he's asking which ones are heinous enough for us to try.

Baelor wrote: "Hank: The real question is, which actions do we then think are heinous enough to try to get the community at large to ostrasize them as well?

None, really, in my opinion. I mean, if you are referr..."

How about an author advocating pedophilia and the abuse of preteen children? I sure wouldn't want such a person on Goodreads.com.