SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

The only thing of Alex Jones I would keep is the Phrase "Info Wars" The power of devious propaganda at the speed of lights is A SERIOUS PROBLEM.

Don wrote: "The only thing of Alex Jones I would keep is the Phrase "Info Wars" The power of devious propaganda at the speed of lights is A SERIOUS PROBLEM."

I would keep Alex Jones' head. In a box.

Michele wrote: "I would keep Alex Jones' head. In a box."

Preferably a pine box, buried at least 2 meters underground.

... "Gasps !" Michele, you would please consider burying the box please ? You could bury it, near by.

Trike wrote: "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 feature..."



Gaaaah! She was one of my faves on that show. Luckily for me, I didn't care to watch the show as much as Hubby watches (ed?) it and I caught a lot of it that way.

And that whole situation is disgusting.

Trike wrote: "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..."

I used to LOVE Rosanne back in the day. LOVE. I just haven't been able to grab the remote and turn that channel. I'm terrified as to what it has become...and I can't support Rosanne right now as a person. It's one thing to disagree - its another to PizzaGate.

what did Rosanne have to do with "Pizzagate?".

Don wrote: "what did Rosanne have to do with "Pizzagate?"."

I was using it as a verb.

The conspiracy theory behind a curious Roseanne Barr tweet, explained -

She apparently tweeted, though the article doesn't have the tweet, just a quote, 'President Trump has freed so many children held in bondage to pimps all over this world. Hundreds each month. He has broken up trafficking rings in high places everywhere. notice that. I disagree on some things, but give him benefit of doubt-4 now.

— Roseanne Barr (@therealroseanne) March 31, 2018' Article says the tweet had the hashtags - #Pedogate and #Pizzagate

I give modern celebrities a three strike rule, unless they are expert in the topic they are talking about, which they almost never are.

Don wrote: "I give modern celebrities a three strike rule, unless they are expert in the topic they are talking about, which they almost never are."

Everyone is an expert in Not Being A Dick, as well as Having Some Empathy, not to mention Not Acively Harming Fellow Human Beings.

Allison Mack, Orson Scott Card and Roseanne are failing these very, very basic requirements.

Don wrote: "I give modern celebrities a three strike rule, unless they are expert in the topic they are talking about, which they almost never are."

It's not hard to be an expert in not passing rumors that could get people killed. No pass. It's a dick move.

Trike wrote: "Don wrote: "I give modern celebrities a three strike rule, unless they are expert in the topic they are talking about, which they almost never are."

Everyone is an expert in Not Being A Dick, as w..."

AGREED

I think Allison Mack is on trial for criminal activity. with Roseanne was there more than the one tweet ? Orson Scott Card wrote one great story, not enough for me to get to know the man.

I remember decades ago Roseanne reacted badly when she botched the national anthem and got boo'ed.

Don wrote: "I think Allison Mack is on trial for criminal activity. with Roseanne was there more than the one tweet ? Orson Scott Card wrote one great story, not enough for me to get to know the man."

Welp, it's your decision. You can support whomever you please.

I will refrain from supporting dicks, however.

I guess I go by the old saw "You never want to meet your heroes" and I'll extended that to include entertainers I've enjoyed.

raises a toast to MrsJoseph. "To your good health"

and I believe it's spelled whelp.

Don wrote: "and I believe it's spelled whelp."


"welp
welp/
exclamation US
nonstandard spelling of well, representing an informal pronunciation (typically used to convey resignation or disappointment)."


Whelp is a different word.

Don wrote: "and I believe it's spelled whelp."


https://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...

I was kidding.

"Support is a strong word", it is more that I'm am indifferent towards what I view as a person's private life.

Jumping in as this seems to be veering towards an immovable rock and an unstoppable force kind of situation.

Unless we have fruitful things to add besides "I can't support people I know to have actively hurt others/spread misinformation that's hurt others" and "people are entitled to their opinions," I think maybe we agree to disagree here and move the conversation along.

Allison wrote: "Jumping in as this seems to be veering towards an immovable rock and an unstoppable force kind of situation.

Unless we have fruitful things to add besides "I can't support people I know to have a..."

Sorry about that. Think we hit buttons at the same time. I'm totally willing to delete my post.

Allison wrote: "I'll leave you to do what you'd like. Don should be able to respond if you leave it, but then could we please find a way forward? While personally I agree that a lot of the actions of the people we've mentioned have direct impacts on wider groups, we're definitely not going to convince anyone via Goodread thread, much as I wish it were possible! "

Ok.

In the spirit of moving on, I will delete.

votes, Aye, to moving on with a quote "peace and love, peace and love" Ringo Starr.

:) Thanks, y'all! You are by far my favorite online bookclub.

J’accuse!

Necro-upping the thread under suggestion of Allison. Copy-paste from another one and then I plan to read it too :)

I think it is wrong to weight pluses and minuses of a book and an author on the same scale. Take Orson Scott Card, I've read just two of his books and they were interesting works, with new ideas for me. Later I heard that he is anti-gay, but I haven't seen a homosexuality theme in books at all, so I am not sure that his views (whether I agree with them or not) should affect my reading. A person can be very bad and write great stuff, quite a few poets were that way.

Oleksandr wrote: "Necro-upping the thread under suggestion of Allison. Copy-paste from another one and then I plan to read it too :)

I think it is wrong to weight pluses and minuses of a book and an author on the s..."

I totally understand your position as it relates to whether or not you would want to encounter the content of an author with whom you disagree on major issues. However, for me with regard to OSC it’s that I don’t want one cent of my money to go toward supporting his work, nor do I want to amplify his voice at all, given the fact that not only do I disagree with his views, but he actively campaigns in public forums to harm LGBTQIA folks. So that, to me, crosses a line that makes it very difficult for me to separate the man from the work.

Yeah, for me it's sort of a scale:

1. Is this something I don't like personally, something I think actively hurts a cause I believe in, or something I think combats basic human rights?

2. Is there anyone who can benefit directly from my consumption of this media? (i.e. OSC is still alive, when the library or I buy his books, he gets the money, vs. Plato, who is now all public domain).

3. If someone I cared about found out that I had this book in my home for something other than an academic paper about how awful this person is, would I cause them hurt?

Hannah Gadsby has a whole spiel about Picasso that I think really did a great job explaining why I so often can't separate the work from the artist. Art is, sort of by definition, political. Who is included in the work, in the intended audience, in the message, who will it speak to, what message will it convey...I can't pretend that the things I read are separate from the things we learn that then inform people's decisions. And sometimes it's easy to look at the topic and disagree and move on, no one really hurt. Sometimes it requires I do some soul-searching. And sometimes it's so transparent that I would be hurting someone by engaging with the artist on any level that it's not worth it for me. My family and friends are worth more than a book.

3. If someone I cared about found out that I had this book in my home for something other than an academic paper about how awful this person is, would I cause them hurt?

Could you elaborate on this? What if a devout Christian found a copy of The God Delusion in your house and was hurt or offended? By what standard do you alter your behavior in order to avoid harming others?

Awfulness of a person is in the eye of beholder. Usually we are homophilic beings i.e. we tend to maintain relationships with people who are similar to us, as characterized by age, race, gender, religion, or profession. This means that if I have books that a specific group doesn't like, it is unlikely that they will visit and be offended.

Again, Baelor, when discussing problems, I am usually considering power structures. Though Oleksandr is right, in terms of people who come to my home, we usually share views somewhat on the individuality of faith :)

So, I'm less concerned with the dominant aspects of my culture--white, cisgender, heteronormative, Christian, able-bodied folks whose families have been here a couple generations--and more concerned with every one of those that flips to a less dominant identity. I can't assume that I "read" as safe outside of the culture I've grown up in, and therefore have to be extra aware of others to foster a safe environment.

As a kind person and a good host, I do make sure the environment for my guests is welcoming, and am not likely to discuss things I know they'll find uncomfortable regardless of their identity, but for any marginalized identity, I take extra care, up to refusing to read certain authors. What my gay friends hear, for example, when I say I am reading an Orson Scott Card book for pleasure is that I can overlook the fact he'd like to see my friends tortured and just enjoy the story. Not thinking torture is a big deal would be a big red flag that suggests they are not safe around me. But they are safe around me, and I make sure I communicate that as best I am able.

This is of course just one aspect of how I reach my decisions, but that's more or less the thought process.

Got it. I have never had the luxury of being in an intellectual majority or being around predominantly like-minded individuals, so I guess I have just developed thick skin when it comes people disagreeing with me and holding beliefs I find abhorrent (and their finding my own abhorrent). That in turn has made me less willing to forgo reading something by authors I find abhorrent, up to and including the killing of people with my beliefs (or any beliefs, for that matter).


What my gay friends hear, for example, when I say I am reading an Orson Scott Card book for pleasure is that I can overlook the fact he'd like to see my friends tortured and just enjoy the story. Not thinking torture is a big deal would be a big red flag that suggests they are not safe around me. But they are safe around me, and I make sure I communicate that as best I am able.

I guess it is difficult for me to accept that train of thought as logical. Why is a greater dissociation between author and work possible? Or is it merely going beyond what is necessary to make your friends feel safe?

I think her point is that she could NOT actually dissociate a work by Card from the gay-torture issue and so could never read a book of his

Why is a greater dissociation between author and work possible?

I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean "isn't?" I don't mean to be pedantic, I want to make sure I understand the question.

I'm going to assume that's the case and let you correct me if I'm mistaken.

If so, Rachel's right, I first of all can't stop thinking about what I'd do if I found out that one of my friends was being shipped to gay conversion therapy. Also, it may be different in other cultures, and I'm not sure where you are, but where I am, "voting with your dollars" is a common practice. I don't want people trying to commit genocide or who try to normalize abuse to have funds from me to eat. I want them to feel the consequences of their words and actions. I want the marketplace of ideas to say "we listened and no one's buying it anymore."

An example from the flip side of the coin, after one of JK Rowling's very liberal tweets, someone replied "I'm burning your books and DVDs, I'm so disappointed in you" (I'm paraphrasing slightly, I'm sure) to which she replied "Go for it, I already got the money from the sale."

If that's how we value things, if that's what encourages or discourages public figures, I will use that influence.

In addition, I present in a way that affords me a lot of social protections, and that may suggest to people without those protections that I might ignorantly or arrogantly act in a way that will not be enjoyable for them, or even downright dangerous to their existence. I want people near to me to feel at ease, to be able to put down their shields and be themselves without fear of repercussion or difficulty. I can't do that with just words. I can't just say "you're my friend, you're safe." I have to put in work to educate myself on what they need from me, and then I have to actively do my best to provide it. So far, it's meant a lot of changes to the language I use, and what I spend my money on. Totally worth it to me.

Thanks for the clarification!

I didn't know anything about any of these authors' behaviors and now I wish I could go back in time, to the place where I was about to read my very first group discussion ... and not.

Kate wrote: "I didn't know anything about any of these authors' behaviors and now I wish I could go back in time, to the place where I was about to read my very first group discussion ... and not."

<3 I know the feeling. We can only do what we can with the knowledge we have, though!

yep - still gutted by Marion Zimmer Bradley

Me too

If you want to read a book by someone but you don't want the author to get any money from it, buy a used book. The author doesn't get anything from it. Lots of charities are in the used book business and the used dvd business. Better the money goes to a worthwhile purpose. Never buy a pirated book. If you take it to the publisher's level for authors they support that you don't, don't buy new releases from that publisher, just buy used books.

Robert wrote: "If you want to read a book by someone but you don't want the author to get any money from it, buy a used book. The author doesn't get anything from it. Lots of charities are in the used book busine..."

unfortunately there's no such thing as a used digital book - they're all bright, shiny and untouched by human hands (I don't suggest googling bugs in books or germs in books if you value your sanity).

Personally, I prefer that people (including authors) be honest about their beliefs/private aspirations. Attaching incentives to the profession of belief just produces better lies and more refined subterfuge. This I suppose is the point: when we discover unexpectedly offensive beliefs in an author, we feel a sense of personal betray, in reference to a relationship that wasn’t there.

I like Card’s Ender/Shadow series, mainly because the quality of writing seemed to improve with each novel. I don’t think you can ask for more than that from a series. I tried some of his other work, which I felt inferior, but I don’t ask for constancy, even from my favorite writers. If we only read the Righteous, we wouldn’t need bookshelves.

David wrote: "Personally, I prefer that people (including authors) be honest about their beliefs/private aspirations. Attaching incentives to the profession of belief just produces better lies and more refined s..."

A lot of this has already been said, but:

1) My dislike for OSC has zero to do with any "relationship" between reader and writer and 100% to do with the fact that money spent on his books is funding attempts to take rights away from my community. I'm not asking for Righteous, I am only asking that authors I spend money on not be actively trying to harm me.

2) I disagree completely with the idea that authors (or anyone else) should not have to face consequences for their publicly expressed beliefs, especially when those beliefs actually have real-life consequences for other people. Prioritizing the right of people to say nasty things over the right of other people to call them out for saying those things (including with their choices about how to spend money) only enables people to continue to say those nasty things. Frankly, I'm totally fine if people stop making those kinds of beliefs public.

Allison wrote: "I can't assume that I "read" as safe outside of the culture I've grown up in, and therefore have to be extra aware of others to foster a safe environment."

Setting aside the original context of what books a person owns/doesn't own, I love this statement just in general. The idea that we should be aware of how we might "read" to others is a great way of thinking about it.

Michele wrote: "Allison wrote: "I can't assume that I "read" as safe outside of the culture I've grown up in, and therefore have to be extra aware of others to foster a safe environment."

Setting aside the origin..."

Thank you! :)

Just to give you folk a flavor, what can be problematic on the other side of the globe so to speak. There is not a lot of race or gender or sexual preference problems in the modern post-Soviet literature for broad readership, and in the USSR times there were things, which can be viewed as un-PC today, but they were [mostly] unintentional.
What irks a lot of Ukrainian readers of SFF today [who to a large extent read in Russian as well] is that quite a few Russian writers [esp. of fantasy] have actively anti-Ukrainian position, which became especially clear after annexion of Crimea and proxy war in Eastern Ukraine. For example, Sergei Lukyanenko (to add insult to injury his surname is Ukrainian) in his public posts called for bombing Georgia (country, not the US state) to stone age, including annihilation of infrastructure, denied even an existence of Ukrainian language, denied existence of an independent Ukraine, even said that Euromaidan protesters are not human. This just one example.
With buying books and supporting even pro-Ukrainian [as well as pro-Eupean and diversity oriented] Writers from Russia, not only they get money for their books, but the Russian state [as taxes], thus many book lovers I know just stopped buying any books published in Russia