SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

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.

What is your process for determining when and how to reconcile artist and art?

IMPORTANT THREAD NOTES:

I'm a little hesitant to start this topic, and I will shut it down immediately if it gets too contentious.

1. We are not going to engage in any ad hominem attacks on our members. As always, no slurs, epithets or condemnations of groups of people will be tolerated.
2. We will be respectful of everyone's viewpoints and personal code of ethics.
3. We are here to share our views and perhaps seek guidance on how best to navigate a world that often conflates consumption with collaboration.
4. We are not here to change each other's minds or convince others to boycott the people/things we boycott.

If these are not things you think you can adhere to, please ignore this thread.

For me, I have to research the thing said or done. I believe that people can grow and change to a point. Violent crimes or repeat behaviors I find usually to follow people, but if someone said something dumb 10 years ago and has since shown through actions that that isn't a belief they hold anymore, I tend to forgive them as much as I am able.

For the rest, it's really hard for me to separate artist and art. And for any I retain, I have to make it clear that I understand how awful this is and don't want to justify why I'm consuming it still. For example, John Wayne wasn't really a nice person, but The Quiet Man is a family favorite (speaking of problematic media!) I have no excuse other than nostalgia. I don't recommend it to people anymore, but you'll find me watching it every year or so.

Books...this one often makes me sad, but I do try not to read books by problematic people. I definitely do not buy things by people I know to be toxic. I will occasionally read something (like Atlas Shrugged, or Heart of Darkness) that are known to be problematic, but I research first and I sit with the thoughts until I analyze what the lessons, values and the social worth of the piece are, and I try to figure out why it resonates with people and then respond to it through my own worldview.

In short, it's not something I personally can take lightly. I do think we need to be forgiving when possible (if I'd had social media at 12, my online profile would have skeletons too, I'm sure) but that there's so much hate out there that actively works to hurt real people that I'd like not to participate in that whenever possible.

How to reconcile artist and art? I'm still struggling to do so with Marion Zimmer Bradley. I loved her books, but now I'm torn. I bought all of the Darkover series before I found out about her actions and inactions, and I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to read them.

I'm torn and confused, especially with her support of some other causes.

For me I think the only author I have really avoided because of personal viewpoints is Orson Scott Card. I haven't come across any authors that I read personally that I disagree with on any topics. I also don't generally look too much into an author's personal life, so that may just be blissful ignorance.

I avoid his work for a few reasons. The main one being that I don't want to give him my money. I also don't want to contribute to his notoriety. I would prefer it if he would fade to obscurity so that there was not a platform for his hate. Finally, I don't think I could enjoy the books without the experience being colored by what I know of him as a person.

As an example in another context, I recently found out that a coworker and myself had opposite viewpoints on a political issue that I feel very strongly about. Because to me it's not just a political issue, but a moral issue. I now find it difficult to interact with this person. To me the issue is fundamental to their character and it makes it hard to think of anything else. I will avoid saying what the disagreement was about for obvious reasons ;) This is a person that I generally got along with. If this one thing colors my interactions with this person I have known for several years, I can only imagine how much of an impact it would have on me reading the story of an author where the only thing I know about him is his hate towards others.

CBRetriever wrote: "How to reconcile artist and art? I'm still struggling to do so with Marion Zimmer Bradley. I loved her books, but now I'm torn. I bought all of the Darkover series before I found out about her acti..."

You hit my nail on the head.

MZB is my biggest issue. I loved her works growing up. She is the one who introduced me to "feminist" fantasy and her S&S series got one my favorite writers started.

But her behavior disgusts me so much.

I'm sorry. But if you abuse a child, you deserve to be ridiculed and your name become synonymous with scum. I don't care what else you may have accomplish or what good you have done. That's the line that can never be crossed.

Brian wrote: "I'm sorry. But if you abuse a child, you deserve to be ridiculed and your name become synonymous with scum. I don't care what else you may have accomplish or what good you have done. That's the lin..."

I can't disagree.

MZB is also my biggest issue. I actively blocked any attempt to have one of her books on our bookshelf, hearing about what she did and where the money from her books goes.

OSC I am against as a person. I only learned about him after I'd read a couple of his books and never had any interest to read more.

Yeah, I think it's agreed that the author who does something like that is horrific and shouldn't be lauded. I think the question here is what we do with the art they made. Do you personally feel that you should get rid of their work if you have it? Can it no longer be something you reminisce about fondly? Do you change the radio if you hear their song? Are other artists tainted if they say that problematic artist's work influenced theirs?

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.

What is your pro..."

I am generally of the ignorance is bliss crowd. Reading history has taught me that my value judgments are not those of other people. Ozzy Osburne is a fairly reprehensible human being, in a who the heck would want to be his neighbor fashion, but his music is fantastic. It seems Mozart was not exactly a model that you would want your children to follow but his music is sublime.

As long as someone's belief system doesn't overwhelm the art, then I am willing to put the matter aside. I don't feel that my personal life has been so pure that I have the right to tell others how to live their lives.

In some cases, it is easier to set things aside than others. When someone accuses another of something wrong after the individual is dead and has no means to refute the claim, well then they had better have evidence to back it up, otherwise, it is merely an accusation. It might be true, but then again it might not.

When someone is on a pedestal, no matter what their career field it is to easy to forget that they are in fact merely human and when those facts come to light it is to easy to condemn them for not being perfect.

Having been raised Catholic, it was hard for me to learn the lesson of casting the first stone. So now I tend to try not to cast any if I can avoid it, and follow the path of not going out of my way to learn much about the authors I read.

I accept this as a choice, my choice and not one that I would expect others to follow or even be upset that they don't.

Well, in regards to MZB, I got rid of all the hard copies of her works that I owned. As I'd started collecting her, that was not an insignificant number.

I have not been able to re-read (or newly discover) any of her works since I found out. It makes me sick to my stomach.

It also makes me re-think some (previously) great reads I've had: especially The Mists of Avalon. There were some problematic scenes/situations that I was able to look over that I no longer can.

The way I see it, there are so many awesome books out there that aren’t written by douchebags, why would I want to read something that is written by a douchebag? I’d prefer to give my time/money to decent people where possible.

There will always be exceptions- eg things you loved before you found out the author was problematic and simply can’t stop loving now. But generally, I’ll avoid something if I find the author’s views and/or actions distasteful. I’ve read one book each by MZB and OSC, and I don’t intend to read any more. I also have no intention of reading any Terry Goodkind.

That said, I don’t do an exhaustive search of an author’s background before picking up their book, and I try not to let myself get too influenced by minor missteps or things they’ve said which they now repudiate. It’s possible to take things too far, and writers are only human.

Kristin B, I think you and I may have been separated at birth. LOL I have been having those kind of encounters for about 2 years now, and they are exhausting and so extremely disappointing.

I agree wholeheartedly about your comments about OSC and I avoid his work for the same reasons. I read one of his books before I really knew anything about him and... meh. I then tried reading Ender's Game AFTER learning about his repugnant standpoints, and I couldn't help but see all of his ugliness and hate dripping from the page, and I could barely get started with the book, let alone finish it or the series of them. I got, and presumably will get in the future a lot of shit for the review I posted - unfairly judging the book by the author, didn't give the book a chance, the usual - but I was honest, so... so be it.

For me, I do think that ignorance is bliss. If I know the work before the author, most of the time I will actively try to not taint the enjoyment I have by learning about them as a person. In most aspects, I want the work to speak for itself.

But there are times that I know about the author's views before the work, and they definitely direct me either toward or away from their books/media. If I know someone is sexist or homophobic or xenophobic or whatever, I don't want to even APPEAR to support them by consuming their work.

So... I'm torn on this, because on the one hand, I believe in making intelligent decisions on what to consume and supporting those worthy of our support/money... but on the other hand, I find that if you look hard enough, EVERYONE has a skeleton in their closet that SOMEONE would find problematic. So, I guess... if it's a pattern of behavior, a consistent worldview or attitude, rather that a lapse in judgement or a mistake, that makes a big difference.

I don't know. None of us are perfect, and we have to make the best decisions we can with the info we have...

That being said, authors (and any kind of person who exists and relies on public opinion/support for their livelihood) do make the choice by being that visible to have their actions and words and opinions scrutinized by the public. It's part of the deal. They can either choose to keep them to themselves (if possible), or suffer the consequences of potential alienation of audience if they don't.

I have a particular aversion to L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the Church of Scientology. He may be a good writer, but he is way too dogmatic to my taste. Also, any author who advocates or excuses racism, blatant pedophilia (put in context of historical period of the story written), religious extremism and mysogyny will not make a friend with me.

Kristin B. wrote: "For me I think the only author I have really avoided because of personal viewpoints is Orson Scott Card. I haven't come across any authors that I read personally that I disagree with on any topics...."

I find it much more likely I will have problems dealing with people face to face when situations come up where I find that they are doing or saying things that cut against my moral outlook.

I don't think I'll ever forget how I found out about OSC. I had read several of his books and actually bought almost all of them, and I was waiting for the next one to come out. I think this was one of the first times I did active research online about an author, and I did not like what I found. I'm not saying it straight up stopped me from reading anything else, but it's true I didn't read a single book for close to ten years after that. I still feel angry every time I see those books on my shelf.

Without going into too much personal detail, I found something in the later Ender books that was the first time I saw myself in a book, even if it wasn't a perfect match. Because of that emotional connection, I felt personally betrayed to find out that the author is a complete scumbag.

I've only read one book by MZB, but it was a childhood favorite, and I must've read it at least five times. I was thinking about reading some of her other books when I heard the news about her. I haven't researched that myself, but I'm honestly not thinking about reading her work anymore.

There's a third author who I feel conflicted about after researching them, but in that case it's not that they are a horrible person, just that our world views don't match, and it shows in their books. If it didn't, I'd probably read them without any problems. I still might read them from the library, but knowing what I know will have an impact on what I think about the books.

I've learned my lesson and I try not to read anything about any artist I enjoy. I may be accidentally supporting someone I wouldn't want to, but I'm able to enjoy the art as it is.

I've been sitting here thinking about what I'd do if I found out my favorite author had a viewpoint that I found morally repugnant.

He's been my favorite since I was 11, I've read every single one of his books including back in the day that I had to use a card catalog to find his pseudonyms, I've been buying his hardcovers for more than 15 years, and I always pre-order his books the moment I hear of them.

I would be absolutely devastated and sick if I found out something like that about him. But i would never again be able to read one of his books and I would get rid of the ones I own.

It's a horrible thought so I'm super glad I know that despite the fact that he's mostly libertarian or near so, he's also to the far left on civil rights issues. Phew. Although it down kind of big me that he's never had a gay character in a book. I don't recall even a secondary character.

On the other side of the argument, my opinion is that an author or other creator being a bad person doesn't mean that what they create is automatically bad, or somehow tainted, though it's certainly possible for an author's deplorable opinions to leak into their works. But what I enjoyed I will continue to enjoy, regardless of the flaws of the creator.

Mind you, I can certainly get behind refusing to support a living author whose actions or views you abominate. But once the person is dead, they're no longer benefitting from your buying and reading their book if you want to.

If I know an author is particularly problematic I tend to avoid them, but these days I get most of my books out of the local library. It's a small library, with a fairly limited selection, so I tend to (shame on me) judge which books to borrow based on their covers. It's only if I absolutely 5* love a book that I do any research into the author, and being quite picky I fortunately haven't found any of those to be horrendous yet. I don't know what I would do if I did.

However, I do listen to a lot of music, including by artists I know to be problematic. I wouldn't buy their music because I don't feel they deserve it, but I still listen on YouTube and Spotify because I enjoy the songs. Does that make me a bad person? Sometimes I feel like it does, because I'm sure there are many wonderful, lesser-known artists out there who I could be listening to instead. But I also recognise that bad people can produce good art, and if I really like a song, I want to be able to listen to it regardless of the actions or opinions of the artist.

Plus, of course, moral views change. I'm sure many authors 100 years ago participated in things that today we would find repugnant - and in 100 years, readers then will probably think the same of many current authors. It's a horrendously complicated issue.

Ruth, I love your eloquence and agree with your point of view. My TBR is like 1000 books+. I don’t need to be funding/supporting reprehensible people.

Inaction is consent. I feel strongly that you are aware of something, you should stop supporting that artist.

Kim I was one of those people you denied, and I thank you.

I'm pretty good at separating art and artist, even in cases where I know of some repugnant behaviour, e.g. Card or Hubbard being the primary ones that comes to mind that I've read a few of.

When it does make a difference is in their marginal works - I can still get caught up in a compelling story regardless of author but OSC's later books, for example, don't hold my attention as well and I find myself distracted by "why am I reading something by this person?" thoughts that sneak in. That's about when the book gets put down. I suspect if I read some MSB (having only read the Trillium books previously) it would be the same.

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 in only looking at paintings by morally perfect painters, or listening to music by morally perfect musicians. If I found out that the builder of my house had done something reprehensible, it would make me sad, but I wouldn't sell the house. The same thing applies to authors; they're just humans like the rest of us. Lord knows I'm not perfect, so I done expect them to be, either.

@Steve: what if an author's writing reflects or even glorifies what others find reprehensible or repulsive about the author? Will you still read his work, thus indirectly helping to support his point of view? One example I could use is Adolph Hitler and his book, 'Mein Kampf'. The man was evil and his book tried to justify his points of view, some of which ended causing unimaginable atrocities, like the Holocaust.

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 in only looki..."

What about their public actions?

Orson Scott Card hates gays, blacks and women, and has poured millions of dollars into groups that actively work to make their lives worse. He has advocated in the harassment, arrest and torture of LGBT simply for being gay. He thinks we should violently overthrow the American government because they legalized same-sex marriage.

These are all things he has said and done publicly. According to law enforcement, this rhetoric has resulted directly in attacks and deaths of the communities he has targeted.

It’s not pulling the trigger, but it’s tantamount to murder. I don’t see how anyone can approve of such behavior.

As a french, I already knew some artists weren't decent human beings but still are praised. So I am usually kind of tolerant for classics. And well, it seems too time-consuming to check if the author is nice or not.

It can be an issue if the work itself celebrates the terrible opinion of its creator. I also understand why some refuse to buy books of an author if he uses his money for a cause that can be found repulsive.

I don't think it is the same thing for 'Mein Kampf', this book has an historic value, a normal reader choose to read it to try to understand how it could have happened. Though I suppose there are also people that read it because they share his point of view. Since it's supposed to be not a really well-written book, I don't think it is the kind of book that can influence anyone, except the ones already on the same page.

Going the humor route - as in humor authors - I'd read a bunch of stuff by both Scott Adams and Bill Cosby when I was young, and as I aged. Then I found out about Cosby's actions, and Adams views (which he freely expresses on his blog), and I severed my connections to them.

As for fiction authors, specifically science fiction/fantasy - I've never been able to try anything by Hubbard after learning what he'd done. I've not been able to read anything by Card since I learned about him. And there were at least 4 or 5 works I'd read by him before I learned about him.

I've not been able to try Atwood since I read her strong opposition to being linked to Science Fiction. Nothing specifically she has or hasn't done, just her fight against Science Fiction and her labeling it 'talking squids in outer space' (I've a vague desire to read an actual 'talking squids in outer space' book now).

Trike wrote: "Orson Scott Card hates gays, blacks and women, and has poured millions of dollars into groups that actively work to make their lives worse...."

Of course this also means that any money were spend is going to these groups. Yuck.

This is something I struggle with too.

I'm willing to read authors whose political views are different from mine, knowing that knowledge may (and probably does) color my own opinion of their work. I'm willing to read works whose authors were horrible people but are also long dead.

But what does that mean for OSC? He not only has different political views, but advocates violence against others. Even if he isn't committing the violence, I can't see myself buying his works. But I haven't read Ender's Game which seems to be a touchstone work in the sci-fi genre. I wouldn't buy it, but if I check it out from the library, what does that say?

And MZB... I got several of her works while in high school and college. I haven't read them in years and just a few months ago was thinking that I needed to read them again. And then I saw something about the accusations against her. I was horrified. But should I let that knowledge keep me from rereading books bought and enjoyed before knowledge of her actions tainted my view?

I wonder if in a few decades, it would be less of a dilemma. If I would be better able to separate the author and work with distance from their life/creation. But right now, it's a difficult decision, and I'm not sure if there is a correct answer.

For me it depends on what kind of problematic and just how problematic. I'm utterly nauseated by MZB and can't bring myself to read anything by her anymore. To a lesser degree, OSC and authors who've done real damage to people, and a few who are vocal about supporting those who cause harm, inspire something similar in me. I personally just don't want any part of them or their written words/thoughts.

Historical figure, such as Lovecraft, are more difficult. His contributions are extremely important and his literary influences are still felt in contemporary genre fiction, and yet he was a fairly reprehensible person. I would like to think that we, as a society, have evolved to the point that we can appreciate literature of the past without condoning the racism or cruelty of the man. Honestly, though, I don't believe that we're there yet. It's tough to find where to draw that line and it really is something I feel very conflicted about.

There are also books that I can completely enjoy except for certain problematic elements that make me cringe when I get to those points. In those cases it depends on how big the cringe is to decide whether I can overlook it or recommend it to anyone else. Stephen King fits into this category. He has certain tropes that are fairly offensive to me and he uses (or has in the past used) them way too often. I still love many of his books but there are things that are detrimental and I make recommendations with a caveat.

I don't have a problem with non-fiction as much as I do with fiction- I've certainly read (and studied in school) books like Mein Kampf, and I've got an interest in true crime stories (fortunately Canada has a law where at least heinous criminals aren't allowed to profit from the books that they write).

I tried very hard last year to go back and re-read some of my favourite MZB books, and given the knowledge that we now have of her, I couldn't get through one of them. Maybe if she'd been writing about horses and rainbows, but way too many of her books normalize child sex, older/younger sex, and incest. Given what we know of her now it just made me ill, and I've gotten rid of her books that I owned, which was most of what she wrote.

And some authors I just plug my ears and don't listen- I remember being on Dan Simmons' forum on his webpage one night (it's closed now), and I signed out after a few minutes and have never researched anything about him again because some of our viewpoints and politics were obviously were worlds apart. Nothing at all like MZB, but enough that I don't want to know more.

There are so many good books out there I don't feel I will miss out by avoiding certain authors but if I was stuck on a desert island with only books by MZB I would read them.
Certain writers have morally offensive views but I am not offended by what they write. This is the case with OSC. I don't regret reading (and watching) Ender's Game but I doubt I will read anything else by him.
On the other hand Love in the Time of Cholera left me boiling with a moral rage. I might try another of his books to see if they are all offensive garbage but not if I have to contribute to his coffers.

However neither of these writers are faves.
If JK Rowling, Jasper Fforde or John Scalzi turned out to be morally degenerate I would be heart-broken. I do follow them on social media so unless they have gi-normous skeletons in their cupboards I think I am safe.

For me I accept that sometimes I'm a ginormous hypocrite. That I will buy from one author while I condone another for the same thing. I try to 'make it right' with buying secondhand books for the one and new ones for the other.

This 'system' works better when the author is already dead. For some reason then I can better separate the author from the art.

But I also acknowledge that an author can grow. And if somebody does something douchy now I will wait to see what their reaction will be in the future. Did they listen to the criticism? Do they own their mistakes? I don't want an apology, I want to see the reasoning behind choices and how they will try to improve.

If they don't... well being a hypocrite works for now...

I fully agree with Steve's comment, it generally don't matter to me, who the author is or what they do in their private life.

It's of course different if their opinions creeps into their works, but then it's probably not books i would like anyway.

I have read quite a few OSC and MZB and finds it extremely difficult to find anything offensive in Ender's Game or The Mists of Avalon it just brilliant books, which i have enjoyed and probably will reread at some time.

Lars wrote: "I have read quite a few OSC and MZB and finds it extremely difficult to find anything offensive in Ender's Game or The Mists of Avalon it just brilliant books, which i have enjoyed and probably will reread at some time. ."

This article might change your mind:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/a...

"Answers like these throw passages from “The Mists of Avalon” into a new and disturbing light. Take one passage about a Beltane ritual. Zimmer Bradley writes that “The little blue-painted girl who had borne the fertilizing blood was drawn down into the arms of a sinewy old hunter, and Morgaine saw her briefly struggle and cry out, go down under his body, her legs opening to the irresistible force of nature in them.”

Without the context of Zimmer Bradley’s personal history, it is possible to read this sentence as a description of an ancient religious practice that is unsettling both in its depiction of an altered state and behavior that contemporary readers would not find acceptable. In the context of her testimony, and an article she wrote about sensual relationships between older and much younger women in literature, we lose the reassurance that the author shares our moral and ethical presumptions."

Almost sorry I read this thread. The Mists of Avalon has been on my want to read list for a long time, even before Goodreads existed. Just never got around to reading it. I have now removed it after researching MZB. Don't think I could enjoy it knowing what I know now.

I'd like to thank everyone who's contributed so far for remaining polite and collected. It's a subject that elicits a lot of emotion and I'm very pleased at the thoughtful way you're all tackling it (though I can't say I'm surprised because I knew already how awesome you all are :D)

For me the crucial line is whether or not the problematic author in question is alive. If they are, then I'll probably buy their book used or even put off reading it altogether to avoid financially supporting them. If they're dead, then I'm really not worried about it. They're not going to personally benefit from my money, and I'm fully capable of dealing with views that I disagree with if any should be present in the text.

This thread caused me to do a search on authors and artists who were horrible people... that was, surprising. A few of the authors on the list still are taught in school, but a lot of them are dead.

So is that where we draw the line? When they can no longer profit from their work? Is it unethical or immoral to read, assess, or evaluate their work? Does the circumstances of their upbringing and culture at the time excuse them? Can a terrible person still contribute something positive to society?

Esther wrote: "On the other hand Love in the Time of Cholera left me boiling with a moral rage..."

Just want to ask for clarification: You are talking specifically about events in the book, not the author. right? I understand your moral outrage, just making sure it's not about the author in general.

Very interesting topic and discussion. I'm in the camp that once I find out about the author, I don't really want to support them. OSC, MZB etc. I have Enders Game and read when it first came out and liked it. I may read it again, but I won't spend another dime OSC and I probably won't pick up other books of his either (besides what I already own). I thought Scott Adams was amusing until he got "dubious" I've seen him on tv and in some op eds and I just can't support the crazy. The whole Larry Corriea Sad Puppies thing and the attempted manipulation of SciFi awards. Just no. I'm not trying to judge or base my reading choices on the character traits of authors, but if I have knowledge of something distasteful; I won't support them. Don't care how talented they are.

As far as reading them after they're dead, you don't know if they left the royalties to their books to a group you're at odds with either...

Some of the great men in American history owned slaves (Washington and Jefferson) and one even fathered children by his slave, so do we then downgrade every contribution he made to the history of the US?

MZB, on the other hand, is not a product of her times like the presidents were.

I have a very lax policy regarding such issues. I would never not read something because of the author, although I would consider trying to get a book second-hand or from the library if I knew for certain that the author was using profits to support a cause I found reprehensible. I am able to separate the work from the author, and I read authors I found morally repugnant all the time. It bothers me not at all: the books are books; the author is a person. Either the book is of a good quality or it is not; the author is an irrelevant factor, although not irrelevant in understanding the book or its context.

I will add that the word "problematic" is anathema to me. It seems to be a catch-all term that enables the speaker to condemn something/someone as a societal undesirable without actually having to adhere to any rigorous specificity about what the problem actual is. Just state the offense outright and skip a step. I hardly need state that the use of "problematic" in this thread is nowhere to be found in most dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster.

I'm in the "can't read them anymore" camp. True of both Card and MZB.

I'd definitely differentiate between a single incident of some bad thing that was apologized for and not repeated, and behavior or attitudes that are ongoing and which the author never questioned in themselves or felt remorse for.

My tack on paper books by these authors is dumpstering them. I don't revere books because they're books, so out they go. MZB was minorly influential in my early peeks into feminism, but one little corner of an increasingly large edifice of nostalgia being broken is not such a terrible thing.

Becky wrote: "...I then tried reading Ender's Game AFTER learning about his repugnant standpoints, and I couldn't help but see all of his ugliness and hate dripping from the page...."

This is the key for me. All of my experiences so far in life contribute to my enjoyment of media/art/music/etc, if an airplane falls out of the sky and crushes my house, I now no longer view flying the same way that I did and it probably gives me much less enjoyment.

DJ was right in that ignorance is bliss, I don't have a problem reading books by horrible people, if I don't know they are horrible. Once I know, my experience is irrevocably changed.

I used to love Piers Anthony, then I grew up (ok maybe only pretending).

I think the interesting part of the question for me is what do I do now? I loved Ender's Game, do I now down grade it because of my changed experience or just have that rating represent that small window of time in my life?

Baelor wrote: "I have a very lax policy regarding such issues. I would never not read something because of the author, although I would consider trying to get a book second-hand or from the library if I knew for ..."

Re the use of problematic:

The title of this thread pulls from a meme of the same name.

Also problematic means "constituting or presenting a problem or difficulty." That seems applicable--perhaps I misunderstood your complaint? It is also a euphemism, often for behavior that is socially awkward rather than malicious, or that flirts with an -ism or -phobia but is difficult to say if it's poor thinking or just poor phrasing. Compare being told "this is a little problematic" with "this is a little racist." I agree direct speech would be preferable, but in the US at least people tend to completely shut down when you suggest their speech might cause people to think they harbor prejudice against millions of people.

Questions I've really enjoyed and had to think about:

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

-What's our duty to "correct" our present views or at least presentation once we learn of the hurtful actions?

-How do we engage with pivotal works by people we find morally repugnant?

-What does it suggest about us if we continue to find enjoyment in works found problematic?

-How does the upbringing or the times surrounding the author's work impact our assessment of whether or not it's truly problematic?

What do you think?

Also problematic means "constituting or presenting a problem or difficulty." That seems applicable--perhaps I misunderstood your complaint?

My complaint is that that definition does not apply. When we say that someone is problematic, 99% of the time we are actually saying that that person has done something with which we disagree. That does not per se constitute a "problem" to be solved.

It is also a euphemism, often for behavior that is socially awkward rather than malicious, or that flirts with an -ism or -phobia but is difficult to say if it's poor thinking or just poor phrasing.

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."

My comparison is that the first is vacuous while the second is substantial.

- 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 Communist Manifesto indicate agreement with it? Is buying a Dawkins book tantamount to espousing his hateful vitriol?

-What's our duty to "correct" our present views or at least presentation once we learn of the hurtful actions?

I am still unclear on why views of an author necessarily change assessments of the quality of their books. If someone told me that he enjoyed OSC's books, I would not infer anything about that person's view of OSC himself.

-How do we engage with pivotal works by people we find morally repugnant?

If the book is not, in fact or in essence, an apology or justification for the morally repugnant, is there a need to connect author to book at all?

-What does it suggest about us if we continue to find enjoyment in works found problematic?

I would say it suggests nothing beyond enjoyment of a book. I have enjoyed plenty of books whose messages I find repelling to one degree or another.

Melanie wrote: "Ruth, I love your eloquence and agree with your point of view. My TBR is like 1000 books+. I don’t need to be funding/supporting reprehensible people.

Inaction is consent. I feel strongly that you..."

Now I will agree with you on the supporting aspect. With the ability to get books from the Library or second hand, there is no need to allow someone who has upsetting viewpoints from you to make money off of you.

Going back to the original premise, I do make an effort to not allow any of my spending to go to areas that I can't morally support. I'm not always great at reseaching them out, but once I'm made aware of an issue, I have a pretty good memory.

I'm hoping that people who have read some of these authors go back and mention the issue in their reviews (it can affect your perception of the book so I think it's legit). Many of us are not aware of the issues and would spend accordingly. With MZB she's gone and would the abused daughter be the recipient of funds from books she's written? I don't know her will, but would hate for the abused daughter to be punished for her mother's actions.

Generally, if it's political and relatively recent, I'll let myself assume the estate of the deceased may be donating to political causes I can't support and I'll avoid them.

Sometimes I find authors that I think are not-so-subtly trying to influence their readers from the book itself - I make an assumption and drop that author. I recall one so vehemently against any kind of welfare that I made strong assumptions about the beliefs of that author and dropped the series.

At the same time, it's easy to go overboard. I saw a review of one trilogy faulting the choice of an Indian man as the villain. The trilogy had a white female villain (book 1), a white male villain (book 2) and that Indian villain (book 3) - and all were equally as nasty. I expect and see reference to good looks in Romance/Urban Fantasy (and see reviews faulting this) and often see sexism with the plucky female lead working against it. I don't get concerned here but am amazed at some of the minor political points that can set folks off in their reviews.

For the "when it was written" if the book promotes morals that are not something you can support today, I'd at least mention it in a review and give points off.

In this vein, I try not to pick up any author that is here on Goodreads and gives 3, 2 or 1 star reviews. Seems pissy. Charlaine Harris on her blog determined she'd only review books she could say something good about and not review any others. For authors, I personally think that's the way to go as otherwise it feels like trying to put yourself above another author, sour grapes or competition. One I saw rate a well known author as 3 and my first thought was would they not give this person a book blurb (didn't for once believe the author thought the book was a 3). Mentioning it as fits with the whole ethics bent of this thread.

Michel wrote: "@Steve: what if an author's writing reflects or even glorifies what others find reprehensible or repulsive about the author? Will you still read his work, thus indirectly helping to support his poi..."

I would point out that reading something for its historical value and its ability to teach a lesson is a tad different from reading something for the entertainment value... Having read the opening third of Mein Kampf, I can say there is almost nothing entertaining about the book.