[Scarlet Speedster]

So I'll admit that what sparked this thought was a recent column by Orson Scott Card: http://mormontimes.c...ogs.php?id=1586 .

Now Card's opinions have been no secret, but seeing something recent basically reinvigorated my "fuck you" stance to his works. I'm not saying that he's a bad writer, I wouldn't know since I've never read anything he's done. Considering how many books, movies, tv, etc. there is out there to discover, and how little time we have to devote to this, I'm just not willing to give people like this a chance. This isn't the same as just writing off anyone who I disagree with. I'm all for hearing different viewpoints, but I draw the line at the ridiculous extremists.

So anyone else have thoughts on this?

[Toreshi]

You know, at first I was going to answer "no", but after reading the article I've completely changed my answer. I can't imagine ever reading anything by this guy because I know that if I tried, all I'd be seeing are the words from the article.

I particularly liked: "Please remember that for the mildest of comments critical of the political agenda of homosexual activists, I have been called a "homophobe" for years."

Dude....you don't seem to understand the definition of the word "mild".

[Sable]

What? No, seriously, WHAT?

Marriage is for reproductive purposes only? Is that what he's saying?

Someone get this guy a Playboy and some tissues.

Coining new term - Hysterical Homophobia. This man has Hysterical Homophobia. He is hysterically homophobic.

How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.

Is he a terrorist now?

Biological imperatives trump laws.

So, laws should be made to stop masturbation?, cause that shit don't fly.

[Katesickle]

I couldn't get the part where he said that other definitions of marriage were 'unheard of' until recently. Ummm....what? Hate to burst his bubble, but throughout history the most common form of marriage has been polygomy. The one-man-one-woman thing was actually a pretty radical change.

[Maelgwyn]

Well....

Theres parts I agree with and parts I dont. But I wont read his work or fund his bigotry.

For instance, I am quite racist. This has been an environmental part of my life. I try not to be very public with that fact because I do believe that there is good in all and yada yada yada BUT

Did everyone look who published it?

Maelgwyn

This post has been edited by Maelgwyn: 29 July 2008 - 11:16 PM

[Scarlet Speedster]

Not to get all bitchy on derailment, but the content of the column isn't really what I was hoping would be discussed. I wanted to know if a writer's personal views on various issues play into weather you will read their works, or if you can overlook that and allow the work to speak for itself.

Another example could be Roman Polanski. Creepy fuck, but damn if Chinatown isn't a great movie.

Tom Cruise, crazy motherfucker, but he still delivers solid performances.

[Toreshi]

For the sake of being more specific for you, SS:

I like to think that in most cases the answer to your question is "no". For instance, your example of Tom Cruise. I think the guy is mentally unstable (i.e. an absolute loon) but I love a lot of his movies and I'll continue to enjoy his acting.

However, I think there's a line somewhere, which I realized by reading the article you posted. If I read something that bigoted from an author, I'm not likely to ever give any of his work the time of day ever again. If it were a simple disagreement of views (for instance, if he said that he just doesn't like homosexuals, as opposed to implying a full-scale war against them) then it wouldn't be an issue for me. I respect other people's opinions as long as they don't reduce my quality of life, and thus I'm not going to hold it against them by refusing to read their work/watch their movies/etc. However, if today my favorite author (Stephen King) went on record as saying something like, oh, let's say, women were put on this earth to serve man and he's going on a personal crusade to have all their rights taken away....then you're damn right I'm never going to read anything he writes ever again.

To sum up: it depends on the strength and intention of the author's views whether or not it will effect my reading habits.

[Useless Trivia Man]

Wow. Just...

I'm seriously contemplating throwing out all of the Card books on my shelves as soon as I get home from work. That viewpoint is so fucking infuriatingly wrong on so many levels that I'm actually angry about it, and I read it two hours ago.

I'm at work, so I'll skip the long, drawn-out rant about closed-minded, pig-headed ignorant bastards who have to push their beliefs on everyone else. Grrahh.

[Shluey]

The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to "gay marriage," is that it marks the end of democracy in America.

That's his opening sentence.

Because I don't read fiction, and rarely read anything for entertainment, I'll often dismiss any author that strikes me as an idiot. Regardless of his stance on gay marriage, which I couldn't give a rat's ass about, he obviously doesn't know how our government works or has ever worked. We've been a republic for a long time; the entire purpose of a republic over a traditional democracy is to prevent the majority from oppressing the minority. Looks to me like the government is working just fine.

These judges are making new law without any democratic process; in fact, their decisions are striking down laws enacted by majority vote.

The first comment is blatantly false; the court didn't make any laws. The second comment is exactly what the court was designed to do. It makes you appreciate the foresight of the men who framed our Constitution.

When he continues on to talking about the courts making it legal to kill full term babies "mid-birth" I stopped reading, and frankly I find it hard to believe he could've actually written a decent book because he's either really stupid or a shameless liar.

Oh, to answer the original question, yes I do consider the author's stance before I read anything. I would go so far as to say I wouldn't read any book by anybody who was published by "Mormon Times," because those fuckers are all out of their damn minds.

[Maelgwyn]

SS, since you asked so nicely...

Yes, I do think the views of an author comes into play - but it depends on what I know at the time and how strong their convictions are. For instance, using the demonstrated article, if he had put it as a 'this is my opinion but you may have your own' I would respect that and probably still read his work.

Tom Cruise is a loon but he is also not that vocal about certain topics (over here that is). Thats what I like though - they believe what they want but they also dont cram their opinion down your throat

Maelgwyn

[Katesickle]

The views of an author do have some affect on my reading habits. I tend to seek out authors whose views I agree with, and avoid authors I disagree with. At the same time, however, I can enjoy a book written by someone I disagree with (and vice versa). So ultimately the writing matters more than the authors views (although the two tend to reflect one another).

[Scarlet Speedster]

However, if today my favorite author (Stephen King) went on record as saying something like, oh, let's say, women were put on this earth to serve man and he's going on a personal crusade to have all their rights taken away....then you're damn right I'm never going to read anything he writes ever again.

Now this is an interesting situation to me. If I've never read something by a certain author (let's just continue to use Card as an example since I've never read his work), and I come across an article such as this, then I will totally write the person off and never read their work without very strong recommendation from key individuals. In that case I would end up making the assumption that this person's views and opinions are present in their work, and so I will of course not want anything to do with it.

However, if it's someone who I've already read / seen / listened to or whatever, that presents an entirely different situation. If I discovered that a favorite author of mine had a stance as detestable as Card's, as long as I didn't feel it "interfered" with the work they produce, I think I'd continue to be able to enjoy it. I may not want to financially support this individual, but I may still be willing to pick up their book from the library or something.

[Evil Pig]

What an idiot.

I wouldn't stop reading whatever he wrote, since... well we all just read this article right? and I guess I wouldn't necessarily stop enjoying them.

But it's true that whatever I read from him, I'll be thinking of his views while reading it, and I'd surely not pay for anything he's written. I would not want to fund him in any way.

this goes for any author who'd have such views.

[Scarlet Speedster]

But it's true that whatever I read from him, I'll be thinking of his views while reading it,

That brings up another thing, I hate learning personal information about writers' lives. Any writer who's even just a little honest in their writing creates stories from their own personal experiences. I don't want to be reading or watching something and having the thought in the back of my mind, "oh this isn't really happening to the characters, this is like that anecdote so-and-so mentioned in that interview."

It's a similar reason to why I hate celebrity gossip. Aside from the sheer stupidity of it all, it inarguably taints the performances because you can no longer only see the character, you will have the thought of the actor's public/personal life lingering in your mind.

[redtangerine]

And to think I actually thought that some Card's works were thought provoking. Of course, this actually makes sense, as there have been whole articles written about how there seems to be an underlying theme of racism in his later 'Ender' novels (I haven't read them for such a long time I couldn't say for sure), and I usually write those types of articles off as the author is grasping for straws to make a scene.
However, there can be no doubt when the author, such as Card, comes out and says something so...I can't even think of a good word for this, so we'll just go with stupid, and it does taint the work.
I don't normally even read interviews with celebrities or authors or whatnot, as it does leave a lingering impression and I wish to be unbiased towards an actor's performance. But this, this is actually worse than Scientology (I won't even go into how ludicrous that is) because it doesn't spread hate towards others. I think I'm done rambling and I will just answer the question with a yes, yes the author's views affect my reading habits. At least, they do now.

[dreamchaser]

I read Ender's Game and thoroughly enjoyed it. I have heard Card depicted as a homophobe many times. I'm pretty sure this article enforces that portrayal quite strongly - though, one should mention it also rambles and doesn't really make a concise point in the end. I expected better from such a writer.

In any case, he doesn't rail against homosexuality in the novels I've read. I find his viewpoint narrow-minded and inflexible. I find his novels enjoyable. It's a tough line to walk.

I loved Terry Goodkind's novels when they were purely satisfying fiction. I didn't need to embrace his political/philosophical views. Then his series turned into a soapbox. I still read them all, but didn't find myself having as much fun.

Then again, it works both ways. Melanie Rawn often includes pro-homosexual sub-plots in her novels. I enjoy them, but I'm sure some people are unfortunately offended. Two way street.

[Zenjael]

Having read that article I do soundly believe OSC is a completely backward religous conservative. I do not agree with his beliefs, not at all, but Ender's Game and Shadow of the Hegemon are two of my favorite books of all times. I've read Ender's Game so many times I've had to buy several copies since they'ev fallen apart. It's tragic to see an author of such great books acting likea complete tard, but it happens. This sort of stance of his isn't particular new to me, but the vehemance he put into writing it is. I wont stop reading the books, but im going to pretend now that he didn't write them.

-Zenjael

P.S. the oddest thing about this all, is that at least concerning the books of his ive read, he never lets his homophobia spill into it. Maybe in that there aren't any gay soldiers that are mentioned in the armies, but apart from that, which is really rather small, nothing.

[EASetser]

I've never cared much for Mormonism as a whole, though it does have some good aspects to it (such as the importance of family). But from what I've heard, most of the Mormon and LDS references is the Ender series are only really noticeable if you're well-versed in the religion. I don't mean you've read the Wikipedia article or even that you've read the Book of Mormon once. No, I mean you're a young adult, and you were raised as a Mormon since childhood.

That being said, that can typically be applied to any set of beliefs. As long as they keep the parallels metaphorical, you're typically not going to notice them. Typically, you're just going to catch the beliefs and ideals of the individual characters. And if the author can make you believe so strongly, through the words of a fictional person, that these are his views as well, then he's doing a damn good job. It's like when people get pissed off at an actor for what their character said.

So, in regards to works of fiction, I don't let the author's beliefs get in the way. I honestly don't care if Harry Turtledove thought The South should have won the American Civil War. It's entertainment through an alternate theoretical time line.

[Jive Doctor]

I've been a OSC fan since I was fairly young. Like some others here, Ender's Game will always be one of my all time favourite novels. Many of his other books, including the Alvin Maker series have themes that sometimes favour a non-religious, humanistic, often metaphysical point of view. His books are nothing if not thought provoking for me.

I also know next to nothing about his personal life, apart from the Mormonism, and have only read one book of his that is overtly "Mormon".

This article seems like an uneducated, bigoted, overdramatic piece of nonsense, and seems grossly out of character to the author that I am familiar with through his works. I honestly cannot see this as stopping me from enjoying reading his books. Therefore, SS, to answer your question, I guess I can read the works of an author while profoundly disagreeing with his views, as long as those views are not (to my eyes, anyway) expressed in said works. I'll admit, this does surprise me. I suppose I truly can enjoy a good work of fiction for itself.

Awesome.

This post has been edited by Jive Doctor: 25 September 2008 - 12:10 PM

[RDrac]

I try not to learn about authors for this reason. I'm sure that some artists/authors/etc can be real jerks in person, but that doesn't mean their work is any less enjoyable. And, yeah, it can taint it. Why do that when you might've enjoyed it if you knew nothing about the author?

I'm less likely to read things by "anonymous",t hough. It's really annoying to love a book/poem/etc and have no freaking clue who wrote it to find more things by that person.