SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

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

Goodreads as a corporation can set (almost) any restrictions on membership it wants. I personally would be completely opposed to any restrictions on members that involve the substance of ideas, because I do not want corporations to be arbiters of which views are socially acceptable and which are not. Who even gets to make that decision? Is everything put to a vote? If the majority of Goodreads members oppose same-sex marriage, should the company then consider that opinion non grata? Is advocating for illegal behavior the standard? What if a fundamentalist Christian considers abortion murder, and therefore of the same severity of advocating for violence against marginalized groups (which category, such a person would likely argue, certainly includes the "defenseless unborn")? That line of thinking would make banning OSC but not Hillary Clinton hypocritical. The philosopher Peter Singer (a Princeton professor, no less) argues for the moral permissibility of non-voluntary euthenasia of children in certain cases. On what side of the boundary does that position lie?

The entire idea is a can of worms. There seems to be a sense in this thread that there are commonly-accepted thresholds, up to and including literally who is worthy of life, but people around the world really disagree about basic aspects of humanity and human life, and Goodreads is not currently equipped in its rules to take on such a fraught topic. Moreover, it seems like the desired implementation would essentially be an espousal of the mainstream moderate/progressive liberal worldview and whatever positions are most antithetical to it, rather than any consensus-based determination (judging by the views and priorities expressed in this thread).

Hard subject to broach. As I've mentioned, for me it's an entirely personal determination. Speaking for myself, I find those seeking genocide to be so abhorrent that I can't imagine myself ever "getting over it" so to speak. I'm not equipped by inclination or education to benefit from the work as a matter of study and it certainly isn't enjoyable.

On that note, I mention the author's actions to others as a caution, like I would if someone was about to engage in anything else I knew to contain hidden dangers.

Baelor, I think you would find the study of "moral universality" or "moral objectivity" interesting and/or frustrating. It seeks to define those "commonly-accepted thresholds" you mention.

If I may say, you are beginning to give both the contention and its counterpoint in a way that is hard to follow--I don't see what you're responding to, and the arguments you set up are not indicative of actual things I can track in the thread. I think you're discussing censorship while we're discussing groupthink, if I had to term it more specifically. I'd direct censorship discussions back to the Banned Books thread.

And corporations are, if you'll forgive the cynicism, already very much in charge of what and how we consume. I'm not terribly happy with it, but it's a vicious, tangled web. All I can do is navigate it as best I can, and help those seeking help.

@Baelor. I am sorry, but everyone has some day to stand up for or against something in life. We don't need to make a group stand, or even to be of the same opinion: you just need to stand for what YOU believe in. This thread is about individual readers choosing or not to refuse to support certain authors with abhorrent views by not reading their books. It's your choice.

I think you're discussing censorship while we're discussing groupthink, if I had to term it more specifically.

That is probably the case, but the censorship element was directed specifically to Michel's last comment, which seemed to presuppose that certain persons would not be allowed on GR.

Michel wrote: "@Baelor. I am sorry, but everyone has some day to stand up for or against something in life. We don't need to make a group stand, or even to be of the same opinion: you just need to stand for what ..."

One post on the last page literally was asking what would justify attempting to get the "community" as a whole to ostracize someone, so the scope has shifted from purely individual decisions. I am happy to rein the conversation in, given that that line of thinking seems to be outside the scope established in the first post.

Baelor wrote: "I think you're discussing censorship while we're discussing groupthink, if I had to term it more specifically.

That is probably the case, but the censorship element was directed specifically to Mi..."

Fair enough! I read what he said differently, but I'll let him clarify.

@ Baelor. Again, I don't believe that you got my point right. I am not talking about actual censorship of some authors on GR, but rather of our individual, PERSONAL choice to read or not the works of those said authors. That's called 'free will' and 'personal choice', not censorship.

Baelor wrote: "One post on the last page literally was asking what would justify attempting to get the "community" as a whole to ostracize someone ..."

No, he was asking what could be so vile that we as individuals would try to get people to not read something. When would we try to recruit people to our point of view instead of it being a personal decision.

What would make us personally cross that line?

Forgive me if I misunderstood. Here is Michel's comment:

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

It is difficult for me to understand how that could be a matter of personal choice not to read an author because the only way someone could be forced not to be on GR is if GR bans that person, which action would seem the desired choice of someone who does "not want such a person on GR." Again, I apologize if I misunderstood.


Sarah Anne: No, he was asking what could be so vile that we as individuals would try to get people to not read something. When would we try to recruit people to our point of view instead of it being a personal decision.

Forgive me, but that is what I said, and I used the original language as well. The point is that once that question is raised, then addressing issues related to convincing others or acting in a group seem fair game. It seems counter-productive and stifling to raise that question and then prevent any discussion of the underlying assumptions.

While I am not suggesting a Ban per se, but a reclassification of a number of his books would be in order.

That would be Bill O'Reilly.

While I am sure that there is any number of people who might want to ban his works due to the fact that he is a reprehensible human being. That isn't what I am suggesting. I don't think he is any better or worse in his political writing than Ann Coulter or Micheal Moore. No, it is the bilge he puts out under the category of actual history that should be reclassified as fiction.
His Research is lazy, sloppy and easily shown to be false.
His over the top writing style makes it seem as if he is teaching a factual course, instead of presenting his opinion.
His smary style introduces his political leanings in every presentation.
Lastly, much of what he is presenting as a fact is just plain wrong and provably so.
Yep, should be moved to fiction since it is very wide of the mark of history.

Just sayin, qualifications for being in a certain section should be held to.

For me the most important difference is between personally avoiding certain authors or trying to get a book banned.

Although I don't believe in banning books I cannot honestly say that there may not be some book out there so heinous I would not support a ban. But in general I think that trying to impose your values on the general public is narcissistic, controlling and often bigoted.
On the other hand I believe reading is for pleasure and if you don't want to read about conflicting political views or social behaviour that is your choice.

Banning a book ENCOURAGES people to read it (#FireAndFury). Your (refusal to spend) MONEY is a better deterrent.

I like to live by "As long as it harms none."

MZB and OSC actively HARM. Though I stopped reading OSC long before I learned he was a terrible person. (He committed the crime of being boring.)

MZB not only KNEW her husband (who was convicted and died in jail) was abusing young boys - she put the onus on the boys!

MZB also abused her kids - and when her daughter told her Personal Assistant, the assistant told MZB. - This transcript is also available. Her personal assistant turned out to be her lover as well. MZB cut her children out of her will and her personal assistant/lover/complicit child abuser is the beneficiary of all MZB sales.

So. THIS is the point where I personally advocate and advertise for the boycotting of MZB and all purchases of MZBs works. The child abuser is STILL benefiting.

My TBR list is massive. If I find out that an author as a person does/advocates things that I find problematic then I am dropping them off my list. Homophobia, rascism, sexism, etc. all get an author dropped instantly for me. There are too many other books out there by authors that are (as far as I know) decent people that I am not going to waste my time with authors that are not great people. As a librarian I also become extremely unlikely to promote these authors as well.

If I found out that one of my favorites was problematic I would be sad and angry but I would drop them in a second. I read Ender's Game and liked it before I knew about OSC. After learning about him I didn't pick up his books any more with one exception. I read Speaker for the Dead as part of my Hugo awards challenge (using a pirated ebook because I was not giving him money) but I just ended up feeling angry the entire time I read it. Similarly with MZB I read her Renunciates saga and really enjoyed them but haven't read anything else by her since finding out about her.

on this note: Marko Kloos has been coming up a lot in advertising at me, lately.

I don't know anything about him, but I'm hesitant to start on a series without checking to see if the author was one of Correia's sad puppy-types.

Anyone know?

Lowell wrote: "on this note: Marko Kloos has been coming up a lot in advertising at me, lately.

I don't know anything about him, but I'm hesitant to start on a series without checking to see if ..."

google is a good resource for that kind of information - I found it quite easily by googling Marko Kloos sad puppy which returned a bunch of articles

and the short answer is that he (Kloos) withdrew his nomination for the Hugo after being included on the puppies slate. Which means to me, that he doesn't support them which is great because I enjoy his books.

Hank wrote: "and the short answer is that he (Kloos) withdrew his nomination for the Hugo after being included on the puppies slate. Which means to me, that he doesn't support them which is great because I enjo..."

Thanks Hank. I appreciate the non-snarky answer.

Lowell wrote: "Hank wrote: "and the short answer is that he (Kloos) withdrew his nomination for the Hugo after being included on the puppies slate. Which means to me, that he doesn't support them which is great b..."

sorry, it wasn't meant as snark - I found some of the articles so interesting that I thought you might like the experience of reading them yourself. They were very informative.

I started following Marko Kloos after that debacle and I've found him to be a splendid person, ethical and intelligent and humble.

not to make light of the more egregious choices some authors have done .

making a choice to not read an author because they dis agreed with how a certain awards program choose winners. Is high school/Grade school all over again (this is just pointing Out not an attack on anyone)

CBRetriever wrote: "sorry, it wasn't meant as snark - I found some of the articles so interesting that I thought you might like the experience of reading them yourself. They were very informative. ."

apology accepted. in the future, "hey just google it" almost always gets taken badly.

Arch wrote: "not to make light of the more egregious choices some authors have done .

making a choice to not read an author because they dis agreed with how a certain awards program choose winners. Is high sc..."

Arch, the puppygate debacle was about a lot more than disagreement with how the awards were given out. It was, at it's core, about Theodore Beale and the Alt-Right testing out tactics on how to disrupt preexisting communities. The same people who founded the puppies are those who went on to threaten journalists and women with gamergate, then elect the current president of the US, then attended the Nazi march in Virginia.

Choosing not to support any part of that crap is, to me, the whole point of talking about "your favorite is problematic."

CBRetriever wrote: "sorry, it wasn't meant as snark..."

It didn't come across this way to me. I read it as intended, although I started to panic thinking he might have been part of that problem :)

Lowell wrote: "Arch wrote: "not to make light of the more egregious choices some authors have done .

making a choice to not read an author because they dis agreed with how a certain awards program choose winner..."


that would be your agenda /opinion/ belief and welcome to it.
mine is your making irrational giant leaping assumptions and accusations.

Favorite author of mine actually was disappointed the current president was elected. and yes was part of the puppy gate.

there is no reason to reply unless you want the last word. because i will no longer. I regret i did already.

Arch wrote: "not to make light of the more egregious choices some authors have done .

making a choice to not read an author because they dis agreed with how a certain awards program choose winners. Is high sc..."

People like the puppies do stir up conflicts in high school and grade school. They're commonly perceived to be bullies and very often face consequences for their negative behavior. I personally don't feel that it's petty or juvenile to not want to support bullies.

To me it's the same as saying that I don't want to spend time with a person who persists in those behaviors.

I'm one of those people who tries to separate the "art" from the "individual", whether it's books, movies, music, what have you, but perhaps only to a point. I don't deny talent and creativity, and people like Orson Scott Card and Varg Vikernes (not really two comparable people, but that's beyond my point) are two very talented and creative individuals who have made some of the most well-respected art in their given fields, and I can honestly say that I love some of what Varg has done (haven't read Card yet, although I do have two Ender books), but my way of getting around my consciousness is pretty much not giving them my money, so I'll buy used, look for things in the free bin at my local book shop (how I got those Card book), or if I'm feeling particularly nasty, pirate.

That's basically it for my personal views on this, lol

Liz wrote: "Arch wrote: "not to make light of the more egregious choices some authors have done .

making a choice to not read an author because they dis agreed with how a certain awards program choose winner..."

bullies come in many disguises. even in the disguise of for the greater good.

Arch wrote: "Liz wrote: "Arch wrote: "not to make light of the more egregious choices some authors have done .

making a choice to not read an author because they dis agreed with how a certain awards program c..."

I'm not sure I understand, Arch, could you please tell us a little more about how your favorite author was a sad puppy for the greater good?

I'm pretty sure that terrorists think they're acting for the greater good too. It doesn't make them right, and it most definitely doesn't make me willing to support them.

And yes, I know that's an extreme comparison, but the rabid puppies have some pretty extreme ideas about what constitutes acceptable behavior including doxxing, harassment, and rape and death threats against the people who disagree with them and their families.

I thought the sad puppies had some thought provoking ideas until they aligned themselves with Beale (who is also a virulent bigot) and his followers. They lost all credibility with me and any respect that I had for them.

If they'd used all that effort to create a new award that was more to their liking and under their control, I would've had no issue with them at all whether I agreed with them or not.

Trike, I love your passion and insight, but we do maintain the same rules as always.

Sarah Anne wrote: "CBRetriever wrote: "sorry, it wasn't meant as snark..."

It didn't come across this way to me. I read it as intended, although I started to panic thinking he might have been part of that problem :)"

Me neither, after reading my response, I felt mine was a bit snarky. I love the encouragement to everyone to inform themselves I was worried myself that Kloos did something wrong and was relieved and then shared my relief with those who might not have had time to google it on their own

I think a small reminder that this is a group of people who come together to love and discuss books is good. I can't imagine anyone here would be able to harbor ill will to others based on the discussions we've had in the past, and now, over something as personal as determining what it means to be moral, doesn't seem like a good time to start. I would urge you to read each other's posts charitably and ask for clarification if something seems harsher than it has a right to be.

This is book club! We're full of smart, passionate people used to debating minute details. I have every faith you all can dig a little deeper if something isn't sitting right. And I have every hope it can be done kindly.

Allison wrote: "Trike, I love your passion and insight, but we do maintain the same rules as always."

No. Veto. Please restore my post.

I will not tolerate defense of Nazis who want to rape and murder people like you because you’re not a man. I am not engaging in hyperbole: go look at what those scum said.

That’s bullshit. If you defend people on that team, you need to go. Full stop. There’s being wrongheaded and there’s being evil. Evil has no place.

My friend was raped, tortured and murdered by someone who espouses things like Arch did above. If I have a mission in life, then it is to oppose that bullshit with every breath I take.

I will not tolerate the intolerant.

We are very explicit about name calling. Please feel free to contact me or Sarah if there's information about a member that we may not have that might shine their comments in a new light. We care more than I think you realize about all of you and spend an inordinate amount of time checking up on things. Trike, I've heard you. We have considered the information and we have taken the actions we deem appropriate. Hopefully those actions will be to the benefit of all of us.

Allison wrote: "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 fo..."

I wasn't advocating stoning people to death - any more than the source of that allusion was...

Allison Mack.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/20/entert...

Smallville is a show I had no particular interest in but I would watch on occasion. One episode featured Allison Mack’s character and I was blown away by her performance. It was one of those times where I really took notice of an actor. After that I watched the show more often if not consistently (it didn’t hurt it was paired with Supernatural for a while), and I was always impressed by Mack’s acting.

For months now there have been rumors of her association with a known cult leader. Today she was indicted and arrested for her involvement in a sex cult ring that not only ripped people off but also has connections to sex trafficking. Apparently she wasn’t a victim but actively running the thing.

It’s so disappointing. And yet another example of not judging a book by its cover, because she always came across as wholesome and nice. If the charges are true — including branding (!) young women in their pubic area — I hope she goes to prison for the rest of her life.

Two days after Superman’s 80th birthday, too.

Yeah, I was somewhere in the middle of the third or fourth season - watching it I mean on Hulu - when the news broke about Keith Raniere being arrested. Which didn't mean anything to me until I noticed two Smallville actresses involved. Kristin Kreuk, she says, left before 'the evil stuff' started, but Allison Mack was deeply involved (according to the articles I read March 31st).

I'm now up to season 7, but it's been tough going to continue to watch the show, and I've found myself avoiding any episode where Mack was the focus of the show (and skipping scenes she's in - not always, but a lot of the time). By the way, when I say that I was around season 3 or 4, and now in season 7 - part of that was because I skipped a ton of episodes; part of my ability to continue was because I noticed Supergirl was going to appear in either season 6 or 7 and was curious.

Oddly enough, I started watching the series because Welling, Clark Kent on the show, guest stars as Cain on Lucifer (Cain - the original murderer); and that jump started my desire to actually watch the series. For whatever reason, I just hadn't watched it when it first appeared - barring a few episodes here and there (rewatching I saw why I kind of stopped, the first season really was 'monster/mutant' of the week - which might have been 'okay-ish' if the mutant didn't end up always turning evil).

But, more on point, one of the highlights, for me, was the work of both Mack and Kreuk on the show.

Wow, this is a complicated and thought provoking argument. I know that I went through this with the revelations about Kevin Spacey's behavior (The Usual Suspects is among my favorite movies of all time).

In my experience, I've found that my opinion of the artist rarely effects my opinion of the work. The Usual Suspects is still brilliant. Ender's Game is (IMO) well written and thought provoking, no matter what the author might think of my marriage or lifestyle. Larry Correia's Grimnoire Chronicles are a fun romp even though I disapprove of some of the puppies who benefited from his celebrity without censure. And, yeah, MZB's The Mists of Avalon is still a decent read.

My opinion of the artist does, however, effect my choices about how I spend my money. Larry and OSC? They still get my money, because I don't mind disagreeing with people. Kevin Spacey, MZB, and (sadly) many others? Not another cent. And while I'm hardly a social media superstar with thousands of loyal followers...I explain my reasoning to others in the hope that they make the same moral choice.

(I can understand those who simply pulled MZB off their shelves, though!)

David wrote: "In my experience, I've found that my opinion of the artist rarely effects my opinion of the work...My opinion of the artist does, however, effect my choices about how I spend my money."

That's me as well. I had an Econ 101 professor years ago who said that the only vote that counts in the end is the vote you cast with your dollars. Never forgot it.

Right now I'm having a hard time with Roseanne -- both the show and the performer. I grew up with the Connors, and catching up with them is scratching an itch I didn't know I had. But the real Roseanne is problematic as hell. It's not so much her politics as the way she has embraced and helped spread some of the more harmful and outlandish propaganda.

Peggy wrote: "Right now I'm having a hard time with Roseanne -- both the show and the performer. I grew up with the Connors, and catching up with them is scratching an itch I didn't know I had. But the real Roseanne is problematic as hell...."

Her show is now problematic as hell. It’s a polemic screed against liberals and other races, coded as jokes. It makes me sad that it’s so popular.

MZB out, John Wayne In

Orson Scott Card In

This topic is fraught!

generally I do not police other folk morality as long as you don't abuse animals or children.

the opposite analogs of Orson Scott Card and John Wayne also in

Rosanne and Modern Family IN

Peggy wrote: "It's not so much her politics as the way she has embraced and helped spread some of the more harmful and outlandish propaganda. "

Exactly. I'm all for different points of view, but let's keep it rational. When you start spreading conspiracy theories that have the potential to get innocent people hurt, that's a no go for me.

Don wrote: "generally I do not police other folk morality as long as you don't abuse animals or children."

Or encourage attacks on innocent people (*koff*pizzagate*koff*)