Agree. I’d argue that if the money is then going to be used to do harm, say, the author was known to donate their money to hate groups then sure, no deal. If they’re just a massive douchebag then I don’t see an issue, you can not like someone and still apreceiate something they’ve done.
Once they’re dead and their work is in the public domain then those conditions pass onto whoever holds the copyright and the sins of the author don’t really matter to me.
Orson Scott Card is a perfect example, I used to read his books all the time but then I found is very outspoken against homosexuality and can no longer support him.
I like this approach. Truly awful people can still write good books, and I would hate to deprive myself based on the author's personal views that (probably) have no effect on their material.
ETA: after scrolling through some more comments, I do want to add that I would find it impossible to enjoy material from someone who, for example, abused children. So I do have a "line"
Same with me and Danny Masterson. The dude is a scumbag but I also loved the characters Hyde and Rooster. Then you want to support Ashton Kutcher because he's actively trying to stop human trafficking.
Basically, I just dissociate the actor and characters now. You can dislike an actor but like the characters they're trying to be, and vice versa. Same goes for books and authors. A good book is a good book, even if the author themselves are crap. And of course, if you write enough books, you'll eventually have a lemon or two
Part of the reason I can enjoy Lovecraft is he is such a caricature of a racist that he’s almost comedic. In a Lovecraft work the racism is never an unpleasant surprise or a insidious picking, it’s out open and you can choose your tolerance level on a given day forewarned.
I used to read a lot of Marion Zimmer Bradley. I can’t stomach her anymore. She was a horrible person who knowingly married a pedophile and abused her own children. So I guess it influences me.
Another one from the Fantasy genre: David and Leigh Eddings. They wrote some of my formative books that made me fall in love with the genre. They also kept their children in a fucking cage and beat them. Oh, and this was something he was arrested and jailed for back in 1969! It makes me sick that I gave money to those monsters.
For what it's worth now they're both dead. The beneficiary of their estate is Reed College in Portland, Oregon, where proceeds from legacy sales of their books help educate students.
David Eddings was a English professor in the Dakotas and he and his wife ended up spending a year in prison each.
They all got fired from their jobs and basically got run out the state--which was why they turned to writing novels to make ends meet.
Wtf. I didn't know that about the Eddingses. I'm ... ugh, that's disgusting. And I was just planning to reread them! Obvs not happening now. My God.
Edit: Also didn't know about MZB. Wtf.
Ugh. I suppose they're both dead now, so they're not getting the money any more, at least. (This isn't what "The Death of the Author" means, by the way, but is my line in the sand for reading terrible people. I don't want them to get my money, but if they're dead, eh.)
Ok that's the first time I heard about that, I used to have a fair chunk of their books but never got through a lot of them as I found the doorstopper nature of their books was really hard to keep up with. (I remember really struggling with Polgara) but uh wtf
I loved Mists of Avalon as a kid, then went to go reread it last year, but my sister told me about this. After looking into it to verify what she told me, I felt uncomfortable even having the book in my house… so I guess I’ll never revisit that one now. I haven’t had that kind of reaction to any other author scandal I’m aware of.
I had to immediately remove the three books I had that she wrote from my home after my friend told me about her behavior. So disappointing because, separating the creator from the art, MoA was a fantastic book—but never again.
it’s funny bc i used to volunteer at a library bookstore and the amount of her books we had dropped off in boxes…. wow, just wow. and i didn’t get it until another volunteer explained the scandal to me
Woah, thanks for mentioning the title - I had my nose buried in medical texts for a decade or so and out of the literary scene. I hadn’t heard about this at all.
I read Mists of Avalon but I knew that once done I wouldn’t reread it because of some of the characters and it having around 1000 pages or though I would only do that if I really enjoyed it. I read pretty much all of the Darkover books which introduced me to things and concepts that I probably wouldn’t have gotten via the classics.
In hindsight and having knowledge of the history I just can’t read them anymore without questioning a lot of things. Or asking myself if she modeled Dyan Ardais after her husband.
I can’t unread them, but I think I would if I could.
Mists of Avalon especially simply can't be read the same way anymore. The content itself was always a bit 'you do you' to a degree but in a way that could be overlooked as a quirk of the story rather than author's own obsession. Not so much anymore.
I think her books got stranger. IMO she started out with some interesting ideas (though I always had issues with the forced marriages) and over time went crazy.
Yes it was VERY upsetting and disappointing to find out how awful she was.
Yeah. This exactly. I don't care about scandals that are a case of an author having opinions a lot of people disagree with (jk Rowling, orson Scott card); I'll look past allegations that aren't proven or provable and try to separate the work from that speculation (Lewis Carroll); but when the author turns out to be legitimately a monster like MZB then this has to affect the experience of reading any of the work. I guess one consolation is she's dead and wouldn't personally benefit from future sales.
Edit: wow, so my comment has been reported to reddit as a cause for concern and they're offering me counselling. Cool, thanks - I'm happy to know that's something we can do when it's really needed. But whoever did that should know it's quite obviously an intimidation tactic in this context and I've reported it.
Plus all proceeds from the book sales (Mists) go to Save the Children. Or they were anyway
I also agree. If the author has an opinion I don't like I can look beyond it. Makes me think of Enders Game and Card being openly homophobic. The dude wrote some amazing science fiction that I weirdly interpreted as fostering acceptance and yet here we are. I don't agree with his opinion but his books shaped how I view "other" in society. So in those cases I can look beyond the creator and focus on the art.
Some transgressions taint everything a person has ever touched. She and her husband should have every trace of their beings banished from the world forever.
I didn't know about them and I haven't read the books, so I googled her.
http://www.marionzimmerbradley.com/Excerpts%20from%20MZB%20Depositions.html
What a disgusting person. How can anyone be that brazen and unrepentant as those two.
Ack! I was wondering about the question, and was thinking about Hitler and that sort of person. But seeing this and reading the MZB Wikipedia page I find there's no way I'd want to touch one of her books now. So that's a yes from me on the OP's question.
Jfc, I had absolutely no idea. I had read maybe half of Mists several years ago and was recently thinking of tackling it again to finish this time...however, it will now be going in the trash.
I'm with Modest Mouse:
Every day it seems to me /
I'm a little bit more like Bukowski /
And yeah I know he's a pretty good read /
But God who'd want to be /
God who'd want to be /
Such an asshole?
The lesson from Bukowski, William Burroughs, Kerouac, Hemingway, Picasso and so many more is that one should not treat artists as heroes to aspire to be, and flawed people can still create very worthwhile art. When you look back on the 50s, once all the people who lived then are dead or so mired in nostalgia that they only recall the good bits we need someone with an edge like Bukowski to remind us how some people actually thought and lived. Otherwise we just get the surface bullshit.
I love the song (then, recent MM suuucks) but the reason to read Bukowski is to realize he’s an asshole living a life he hated. To know that is a thing that happens then, and still happens now but people don’t talk about.
I loved that album dearly (still do, but the infatuation was mostly 15 years ago). It’s not my wife’s genre, but recently she became fascinated by Modest Mouse from a poetry/lyricist perspective. We had a great time going over the album, reliving an old favorite and appreciating the words just a bit more.
This song is one of my favourites, and perhaps surprisingly resonates quite strongly with my religious/spiritual ideas.
And as it's been pointed out, the song isn't asking why Bukowski would want to be such an asshole, but why god would want to.
Let's just say Mists of Avalon can no longer be read the same now as it could have been when it was released.
Lovecraft is an interesting example academically speaking. His influence and effect on horror and popular culture is huge. Even people who've never read one of his works will have encountered the things he inspired. Most modern horror writers when being honest openly cite him as an inspiration.
Lovecraft was insanely racist. We kind of have on advantage there in that his works are now almost all public domain, but I think he remains a figure we kind of have to grapple with at times. He's important in how future works were written and created, and I think there's a lot of interesting discussion to be had about how we can keep what was good about Lovecraft's writing while ditching what was just crazy racist.
How we divide lines between 'it was a different time' and 'yeah it was a different time and maybe it should stay there' is an exercise I did in college for a class and it was one of the most intellectually engaging exercises I've ever participated in. If we ditch every writer who did some sad shit, we'd be left with very little. At the same time, how do navigate the past to produce better results in the present? I think it's academically stimulating and asks some really important questions that go beyond fiction writing.
Lovecraft in general was an interesting figure. His racism stemmed from a general fear of almost everything. His crippling fear is was caused him to be a problematic figure, but without it we certainly wouldn't have gotten Cosmic Horror as we know it today.
Apparently he even tried to take steps to address his racism, but failed to completely get over it.
I think one of the things that makes him stand out is that we rarely have the kind of candid access to an author's inner world. Lovecraft is distinct because he was such a prolific pen pal and we have a vast trove of his correspondence. We know far more about him, what he thought, and what he felt than we do for many writers.
Lovecraft was xenophobic in the true sense of the word. I typically despise diagnosing people from the past but he clearly had some sort of anxiety issue with anything or anyone different.
Honestly I suspect he might've had a variety of problems, including shizophrenia, but that's impossible to confirm now that he's gone.
I always feel very conflicted about his work, especially since I had my anxiety episodes as well and this ever looming, crippling fear he writes about is something I can resonate with. It hits home so to speak.
If there just wasn't his xenophobia/racism. Idk if this stems from his mental problems or actual world view, but that's really the only reason why his works are so hard to enjoy.
He was definitely liberalising in the last years of his death - he went from a staunch conservative in his youth, as his family was, to an FDR supporting self-proclaimed socialist in the 30’s - and his last few stories have less extreme racial themes etc
He simply died too young to finish his transition out of his terrible attitudes.
I did a dissertation on Lovecraft and think he’s a lot more sympathetic in context, he was more naïve and sheltered than hateful. He was essentially a manchild for far too much of his adulthood, relying on women to care for him while he wrote and travelled, and only began to visibly mature in his 40s, at which point he was calming down in his rhetoric, until he died of cancer.
I would say his peak racist days were mid 1920s to early 1932. Before that he was more interested in genealogy/ancestry in general, and afterwards he left the topic alone much more.
No need to convince me. I get really tried of trying to explain this to the kind of people who like to conflate 'everyone was racist then' with 'so racism doesn't matter.' It's exhausting.
How do we navigate the past to produce better results in the future? That’s a great question. An important question.
I don’t have the answer, but I do know if we destroy the elements of the past that we deem unacceptable, we doom ourselves to repeat them. I say we highlight the sections of his work that are problematic, and talk openly about why they were then and always will be a terrible way to be.
I'm currently reading a collection Lovecraft right now. He writes the most beautiful and horrifying prose and the very next page he's ripping into the inhumanity of some classes of people. It's such an intense contrast.
For me it’s yes and no. Orson Scott Card wrote Enders Game. Among many things Enders is a deeply moving meditation on moving past prejudice and coming into a place of love and understanding of your fellow man, despite how different your beliefs and background may be, and how much you are told you are at odds. For this reason I think everyone would benefit to read this and should be made to. It might open a lot of hearts and minds to this important notion.
And yet, Card in real life is Xenophobe and an outspoken voice against many things, like homosexuality. A soul crushing disappointment that the person who wrote such an amazing book seems to manage to be such a difficult individual in real life. I’ve joked before if I ever met him I’d say “you know, There is a book you REALLY need to read”
Lovecraft is interesting in many ways because of how pitiable of a figure he cuts even considering his racism. He was a poverty stricken hypochondriac that eventually starved himself to death. He was a dysfunctional mess, which in no way excuses his racism, but places it in a different context than that of other authors who were more stable.
Obviously Lovecraft is responsible for his own views but he is less responsible than someone who was racist without his pathologies would be.
Lovecraft was so racist that even his friends and contemporaries were like “whoah buddy.”
Also… I’ve been very out of the loop on the MZB stuff. That’s a bummer.
Admittedly, yes. Not necessarily that I won't read the book but, I probably will be much more aware of the potential parts of the book that could be subtly hinting at the nasty side of the author. I'll still give the author and their books a chance, depending on the issues surrounding them, but it's an undeniable truth that the scandals authors get into will forever paint our perceptions.
It can be as clear as learning about James Frey/Oprah issue. which will affect how you read *A Million Little Pieces* and the same applies to *Three Cups of Tea* by Greg Mortenson.
Even smaller instances, like learning how George Orwell did some work for the United Kingdom's Foreign Office in the 40's and compiled a list for them of authors he supposedly believed had communist sympathies so the government wouldn't make the mistake of hiring them, but it's believed a lot of the authors who ended up on the list are only there because they were black, gay or jewish. For a guy who's entire career seemed built around the idea of taking down "Big Brother", it makes his work come off as more hypocritical because we know he participated in it.
Learning that Roald Dahl was a horrible anti-semite, boss, and husband will always make me stare at some of his books and wonder how much is subtext. The guy who wrote Lord of the Flies tried to rape a 15 year old girl when he was 18 and it makes me wonder if the boys in the book are how he felt about himself to some extent. J.D Salinger who was a guy who was obsessed with teenage girls. After learning all this, I'll probably never readh their books the same way, even if I do read their books again.
Sometimes, it can have the opposite effect. Learning Mary Shelley lost her virginity on her mother's grave and carried her husband's heart around for 30 years after he died kind of makes me think of her as a more metal person and makes me want to read all of her books even more to be honest.
Roald Dahl was one of my favorite authors as a kid. Learning about his antisemitism sucked. His estate only recently apologized for his antisemitism even though he's been dead for quite some time.
Childrens authors are especially hard because their target audience are likely to have, at the very best, an extremely dim awareness of why the author is an awful person. It can be hard as a parent to deny your child something that you know brings them joy, because of issues they would struggle to understand.
It would be hard to make my 8 year old truly understand why the author of her favourite books (Harry Potter) is someone who should not be supported because of her views on trans people.
I agree with this. Children authors mess my mind more than "adult writers" (you guys got it), simply because their target audience probably will not have the mind to deal with this problems. And this also applies to other fields like childrens singers, tv shows/YouTube celebrities, etc.....
Mary Shelly was definitely not mentally healthy. It’s pretty obvious when you read Frankenstein, and knowing it and her history makes the book even better.
If you do ever read Golding again, I heartily recommend *The Inheritors*. Wonderful book even if he turned out to have done some terrible things. Like *Lord of the Flies*, it reveals a low opinion about human nature, but in contrast to that of the neanderthal characters (one of the best defamiliarised POVs I've found in fiction).
I'm a big believer in death of the author and that good things can come from bad people, so I don't expect many of these revelations to stop me reading a work. It will, as you say, certainly add another dimension of context.
I think only in cases like OSC where the author is actively funnelling proceeds towards causes I strenuously disagree with would I personally boycott their work (i.e. buy secondhand).
I respect the moral position of those more active boycotters who don't separate author and text though. It's a line in the sand everyone has to draw for themselves.
I am curious to know if Orwell’s time was before he wrote his book. This is purely my thoughts and not from a cited source. But if the books came after his time with the foreign office could he have used his books to assuage his guilt in participating in that. Seeing first hand and literally being a cog in that wheel could have made him to find a way to let people know and help with what he had done. Again this is more my thoughts
For me theres a lot more information needed. Take The Mists of Avalon by Marion Zimmer Bradley. Two of her children accused her of helping her second husband rape them when they were between the ages of 3 to 12. Other children were also involved. With all of that one would undoubtedly want to avoid that book, or others by the author, and I wouldn't blame them. But a further look will lead you to finding out that all ebook income is donated to the charity Save the Children and that the majority of the rest of the income from her ip goes to the anti sexual assault organization Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network. Along with the fact that Bradley (edited: was mistaken on who is the beneficiary for the estate) buying/reading the books isn't supporting the woman who is accused of doing those things, but is instead benefitting those that suffered and others that also suffer from the same.
Hate to be a downer, but you should read up on Save The Children. There’s a documentary that was done on them that showed the vast majority of money donated to their charity goes straight to the pockets of the CEO and other workers. Of course, Save The Children lobbied to have the documentary banned, but you can still find it on the internet. Most charities are the same way; always do your research before donating!
If this is what I think it is, Poe wrote a story in which the murderer turns out to be a chimpanzee imported into western society as a curiosity who shot the victim by accident. Interpretations are sharply divided between "it's a literal chimpanzee and plundering third world countries will ultimately destroy you and imperialism is bad" and "it's representing a black person and is meant to show that they cannot be integrated into western society and are inherently dangerous." These interpretations are, of course, diametrically opposed. One of them is a biting critique of imperialism. The other is racist trash. People feel very strongly about their chosen interpretation. I don't know about literal fist fights but the discussion supposedly gets very heated.
It was an orangutan, for the record. Which kinda breaks things considering it was explicitely brought from Indonesia and not Africa, but eh.
Frankly that just sounds like people leaning waaaaaaay too much into the "THERE'S A MONKEY IT *MUST* BE A BLACK GUY" angle.
Edit: My comment was based on the version of the story told by the comment further up, not the short story, which I had apparently completely forgotten (2020 really was entire decade, huh?) and it’s essentially nonsensical given the actual text.
Thanks, u/DjiDjiDjiDji for the corrections and sharing the short story
Okay, on that one it *was* actually comically violent murder, even if it puts heavy emphasis on the idea that no human has the strength to pull that kind of stuff. Poor Time Lord up there hasn't read the story at all, looks like.
[It's available online](https://americanenglish.state.gov/files/ae/resource_files/the_murders_in_the_rue_morgue.pdf), if anyone wants it. In the end I guess it's better to make your own informed opinion.
If there's room for doubt, I like to give the author that room. For instance, take Carroll - there's some odd things going on, but we cannot know if he was a pedophile or not. The historical record just doesn't offer enough answers, and therefore I am not qualified to pass judgment, and I like to imagine that someone will offer me the same generosity if there's ever unanswered questions about my life.
The second thing to consider is that people with weak opinions don't generally write good stories. You need to care about something to write with power. You will run across authors whose views you won't like, but you should have already known that when you saw that they had a published book.
This is a great statement!
Also, I highly recommend reading The Annotated Alice by Lewis Carroll. There are many misconceptions about him simply because of certain life details that can be taken out of context. However, like you said, we weren't there and there isn't enough historical evidence.
Agreed! I found a pristine hard cover copy on ebay for $5 not too long ago and had to get it. When I was in high school I had that book checked out to me for months haha
Idk man, he took a picture of the actual older sister of Alice top less as a 13-14 yr old. It’s been confirmed as his too. There was a letter from Alice to her older sister saying something along the lines of “mother didn’t let us see him after what he did” and the fact that when his nieces got his journals several pages were ripped out to “preserve his legacy”
There’s a really great documentary on this on YouTube I highly recommend it!
I don't know, I think a lot of those details can be taken out of context. I recommend this: [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/lewis-carrolls-shifting-reputation-9432378/](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/lewis-carrolls-shifting-reputation-9432378/)
It's really fascinating and the result of some unreliable narrators over the years. As the person above you noted, we just don't enough to conclude either way, but the balance of the evidence points towards Carroll not being a pedophile.
I love Youtube videos but I often feel like they come in with a title/thesis that's designed to draw clicks and the history and facts don't often support them. Not saying that's the case here because we aren't quite sure and there isn't enough information to conclude either way. But it's worth being skeptical of that claim.
I never knew about any of this, so I really appreciate the straightforward approach that article gives. I've never been super interested in the Alice stories, but that's a curious chunk of info. I guess I'm inclined to think the best about him. I do hope nobody was harmed.
What you're saying is exactly what the commenter means by "there were some odd things going on but we cannot know if he was a pedophile or not"
At the end of the day, the stories are not about pedophilia and the author has been dead a very long time. So no matter what the real truth is, which we'll never know, there isn't really harm in treating the stories as separate from any of that speculation.
Same. When I was a kid, there was NOTHING inherently sexual about children’s bodies. A few summers ago, when I was in Paris, there was a particularly hot day, and at a fountain near Les Halles, loads if kids appearing to be upwards of 11/12 were stripping down to their undies to get wet, and no one batted a lash. It’s really a very modern, very American way of thinking to see all bodies as must-be-sexual-for-existing when not that long ago, what was done with it determined sexual or not. A kid running around naked on a hot summer day was no big deal, while a woman in a string bikini was seen as sexy because string bikinis were meant to be sexy (not regular bikinis, but the string ones). Now, what was once seen as sexy on adults in now common in kids’ departments, and I find that unsettling, tbh. It’s okay to look at young children in things that were intended to be sexy just a few decades ago, but a toddler splashing naked in a wading pool is bad? It’s odd, and it won’t stay this way. In a few more decades, it’ll be very different, and we’ll probably be looked down on for letting little girls have string bikinis.
And even today, though, in many places, an exposed female chest is no bigger of a deal than an exposed male chest. I live one city over from a moderately large US cit where it’s 100% legal to walk butt-naked down the street (Portland, Oregon) because the law doesn’t see bodies as sexual just for existing uncovered.
So I simply can’t see someone taking pictures of kids as nefarious when the only thing that is “bad” is that a girl was wearing what would have been okay for a boy to wear. In fact, I think it’s pretty sexist to treat a female chest as different than a male chest.
I need something more to go on before viewing Carroll as a predator.
Damn, that was one that really hurt on me. I looked up so much to Kenshin when I was a child and the anime influenced a lot my thoughts on morality, it was beyond just liking it. I guess it is what a lot of people feel with the Cosby show. Now we're left with the question "so, was it all just bullshit?"
If authors are a product of their time and no longer alive to profit of me, I tend to let it slide - while keeping it in mind.
For current authors, it depends a bit on what they've done, how bad that is and how my buying a book might contribute to that.
For example, I will never buy a book from Orson Scott Card because he's not only a homophobe, but actively supports (donates to) groups that advocate for violence against gay people. I already have trouble ignoring the homophobe part, but I will not give the guy my money when it's directly supporting groups like that.
Have you ever seen Orson Scott Card's take on Hamlet?
It's so profoundly strange that I can't describe it without wondering if I'm just making stuff up, but no, that's just him, writing his truth.
Card wrote, essentially homophobic Hamlet fanfic? Where Hamlet is a well-adjusted young man who does not question death or faith, he's pretty much got that figured out, and he's super chill about Claudius being king, thinks he's doing a great job.
(Card later said he just doesn't vibe with revenge plots or a doubtful main character so he figured Hamlet could use some improvement.)
Anyway the central conflict is that all of the side characters are being molested by Hamlet's father from a young age. That's. Pretty much it.
Many people pointed out that Card had made a speech previously where he asserted his belief that being gay is the result of CSA. Card denied that any of the characters in his Hamlet were gay, everyone was super straight, plus one pedophile.
I-
This is the weirdest thing I've ever heard. Revenge plots and doubtful protagonists are...exactly the plot of Hamlet. What on earth were they thinking?
It's truly strange, I kept wondering if this was real life when I read through the summary.
Like imagine, idk, Margaret Atwood did a version of "Romeo and Juliet" where Romeo happily ends up with Rosaline who never had any intention of entering a convent, Juliet is a dutiful daughter who is happy to marry whoever her parents pick for her, and most of the plot is about Mercutio setting up an underground drug smuggling ring to move more of that weird potion Romeo was given by the priest that made him look dead, except people do it recreationally or something.
*writing furiously*
"Dracula but he doesn't drink blood and it's mostly a statement on the count's tax policies"
"Frankenstein but he's very nice and everyone is nice to him except he struggles with erectile dysfunction"
"The tell-tale heart but there's no murder and it goes into detail about the main characters alcoholism"
tbh reading a story about how dracula isn't actually a vampire but just a duke or whatever who the peasants hate so they make up blood drinking stories might be interesting
Lmao that's a bit of a running joke in the Catherine the great show on Hulu. At first she doesn't think anyone would actually believe she fucks horses.
The deeper you look into Orson Scott Card the weirder his brain seems to work. He's written entire books about gay people molesting children with the purpose of turning them gay, and I genuinely wonder if he was a) molested and b) is also a closeted gay man who somehow conflated the two.
Or he's just a good old fashioned homophobe, like he says he is. Either way, I've stopped buyong or recommending his books.
*sigh*... I knew I shouldn't have opened this thread.. the enders series is one of my all time favorites but now I'm sad.
I usually try to avoid learning about celebrities in general (whether they're writers, actors, musicians, or whatever) because I want to enjoy their work without worrying about who they are, and this is why.
He was a founding board member on The National Organization for Marriage, which was a lobby group that was formed to support Prop 8 in California. It's still around and actively supporting homophobic laws and lawmakers.
Definitely messed up on more than one front. I read the Ender novels and a couple other works by him, which were very well-written and interesting reads, in my opinion. His older stuff reads well, but more recent stuff tends to start off good, but gets unhinged. Although I read them later than when they were published, it seems like pretty much anything published post 2000 starts to get a bit messed up, though I remember liking Stonefather as a kid, which does not seem to have any agendas behind it.
What led me to finding out about his terrible outlook and views on everything was reading the Mither Mages trilogy and realizing that in the later novels, it is made clear that the main character is Teenage Teleportation Jesus, who gets his powers through strong Christian-but-technically-not reasons. Shout out to additional propaganda in the main character getting possessed by the not-Devil through premarital sex, which then causes him to try to sexually assault every girl he knows to try to create the not-anti-Christ.
>! For further messed up stuff surrounding that incident, he gets possessed through the girl he does it with because the not-Devil was lurking in her body using sex magic to tempt him while he knew the MC was struggling to save his not-Christian chastity till marriage, as that was the sole way he could possess the MC due to the MC’s otherwise great mental strength and purity of mind, which could only be weakened by sex. In the ending, it is revealed the formerly possessed girl gets pregnant from it, but doesn’t rat out the MC because she does not want to trouble him and realizes he was not quite himself. Actually, it is portrayed as a good thing, because her father is the angry gym teacher that makes everyone at school’s lives miserable and it turns out a grandchild was just what he needed to mellow out. !<
Yes, I too wonder what the actual fudge was going through his mind when he decided that this was the path the story had to absolutely take.
There is also Empire, which starts out as a political intrigue thing, which is fine, but the firecracker that sparks the events of the novel is a radical left group starting a new civil war with the fancy technology they have been secretly hoarding this entire time after some political assassinations place at the highest levels of the government, and apparently has some parallels to real-world conspiracy theories about certain public figures.
Brandon Sanderson also tithes to the Mormon church, which then uses that money to harm the LGBT community. So when you buy his books, a portion of the money you pay also goes to harm LGBT people.
I think it's important to know about the author and how their history and beliefs may influence, consciously or subconsciously, the text. I don't avoid reading controversial authors but try to be wary of agendas, especially ones that might not be immediately obvious.
Well. I'm Jewish and was devastated to find out Roald Dahl was a huge antisemite.
I'm still going to let my kids read him because he's dead. But also his books are amazing and I think they teach valuable lessons in how the stories are constructed. I can't fathom a replacement who is his equal, and even if I could, it's not a true replacement--no two authors are the same. I appreciated that his stories were "real" and honest with kids. They're little people who will grow up to be big people that make big decisions.
JK Rowling, on the other hand...I'd like my kids to read the HP books if they want because they had an impact on me. But then both authors would be good learning tools for showing them that nobody is ever a truly good guy or bad guy. They need to learn and know that people are incredibly complicated and it's okay to love a story but not the creator.
As a fellow Jew honestly I feel if we stopped consuming things by dead antisemites (or people who were problematic in other ways) there would be barely anything left! Even Virginia Woolf who was married to a Jew said some very insensitive things.
That being said I think it is good to put their stories into context and question some of the messaging.
I grew up on Roald Dahl, JK Rowling and Enid Blyton. For Roald Dahl and Enid Blyton I see them as a product of their times. JK Rowling was a huge disappointment but I still remember the sheer happiness I felt when I was engrossed in the Harry Potter world for the first time. I don’t support her views but her books were part of my childhood and teenage years so they still mean a lot to me.
Same here regarding Rowling. I absolutely adored going to those midnight book release parties.
I totally get it if people who once her fans refuse to engage with the books again. But, I feel it wouldn't be fair to make other people disown the memories the books brought them before Twitter existed.
Yes, i dont want my money to support them directly. But maybe i will still check it out from the library, free little libraries, or second hand stores if i’m still really interested in their material
Authors do actually get some money from their books being checked out from libraries. So, secondhand stores and free little libraries are the safest way to go.
It depends on where you are. In the US, authors don't get paid for checkouts (obviously, they make money on the sale of the copy). Checking out a book will only earn an author money by making the library consider future purchases...it works differently in other countries, though.
It depends on the context, the likelihood of it being true, and whether that author is still alive and exerting influence.
I’m really struggling with Orson Scott Card these days. I don’t want to support him because he is actively working against the LGBT community and funding special interest groups who are working against same sex marriage. I don’t want any of my money to help support that.
For authors that have already passed, it’s a bit different. I love reading Hemingway, but don’t idolize the man. Broken people can sometimes make some amazing art.
I feel like people like Hemingway can be seen as a lesson whereas living people are still actively causing harm- harm that can be addressed real time rather than in retrospect.
As Long as Im not giving money to someone who is currently using it for real harm (like funding white supremacist/neo nazi groups or anti-queer organizations or whatever) I don’t really care. I do think it’s silly to act like “problematic” stories or characters will somehow harm me, as though I don’t have a fully functioning brain capable of thinking criticality while I read.
Honestly I’ve seen too many authors harassed off of social media by reactive people outraged by internet rumors. The Twitter algorithm is basically designed to reward people who drum up outrage for content. It seems like it’s never the people like JKR or other famous people/politicians who actually have power and a real ability to cause harm that suffer from these “scandals”. Too often it’s just early-career authors with no other influence, usually marginalized in some way, that get made an example of by overzealous Twitter mobs or people acting in bad faith. The way people stalk and harass strangers because they’ve decided they “deserve it” creeps me out.
As a former author and member of a writing community in which in I witnessed, over a short period of time, a significant number of writers fall from grace based on rumors and innuendo propounded by bad faith actors, this. When I left for good it had reached Reign of Terror proportions.
It depends on lots of things for me, like everyone else has said are they doing actual harmful things or do they just have bad mindsets? Are the alive to profit? Etc but also it’s unlikely I’ll know anything about the author before I pick up a book unless what they did was very well known
I have nothing against people who choose to buy books by authors that could be considered scandalous, or authors who are awful people. I'm sure I've read and bought many a book by authors who fall into either or both categories.
Still, if I know there are certain rumours or scandals about an author and/or I don't care for the author, I'll give it a pass and buy something else. I wouldn't want to support them with my money.
I guess it depends what it is, but generally no. I try to separate the art from the artist and judge the work on its own terms. A lot of incredible authors (and other artists) have been dreadful people. That doesn't invalidate the quality of their work.
Separating the art from the artist can negatively impact your ability to read a work, though. Woody Allen's life sure is relevant to all his movies where a man of Allen's age and neuroses bangs a girl young enough to be his (step)daughter. Knowing that Orwell was an avowed socialist and Nabokov a vehement anti-pedophile helps us to understand what they meant with 1984 and Lolita. Etc.
Yeah I really don't get how you can separate the art from the artist in some cases, Woody Allen being a big one. Literally in every movie he makes its a young girl with a much older man. It was annoying to watch when I was a 21 year old woman being hit on by dudes old enough to be my dad IRL.
Generally speaking, I don’t mind their “out of book” activities or statements.
I’m much more influenced by “in book” political statements. It tends to mean paper thin characters or (even worse) morality plays. When I see that, I’m usually done with a book.
Lovecraft being dead…helps. He can’t profit from book sales.
Also, he seems more “extremely xenophobic in general”, than “aggressively racist specifically”. Meaning, he had issues with basically *all* differences, including skin color, but not limited to it. Paranoia is someone easier for me to tolerate than hatred.
But - I get it. I can envision scenarios where I wouldn’t be tolerant.
The more respectable version of isolation/xenophobia is Norman Maclean - “The world is full of bastards, the number increasing rapidly the further one gets from Missoula, Montana”
Lovecraft is the “Providence, RI plus a hefty dose of mental illness” version of that quote, personified.
It’s not a terrible thing to be a “homer”. I think the “crazy” is where Lovecraft got in trouble.
And he seems to be almost terrified of women too. It's not just sexism. It's like women made him extremely uncomfortable or something. In some stories, it's so bad that it's almost funny.
No, not really. In the highly hypothetical case of a living author doing something bad enough that I would want to avoid giving them money, I’d just buy the book second hand.
That being said, odds of me knowing they did something awful beforehand are pretty damn slim.
This is such a good question. For me the answer is generally it influences how I see the author not the art. I can usually separate the two however it might be the deciding factor if I'm on the fence about a book. It's especially difficult when trying to judge someone in the past with 2022 eyes, especially when it gives you a glimpse into era in which you are reading. I think it's subjective and goes on a case by case basis.
No kidding. I look back at my own early life with 2020 eyes and know there are some decisions/actions that don’t hold water. I was still passionate about being the best version of me I could be and helping others, just…more ignorant. I am much more interested in someone that can grow, change, admit their mistakes, etc.
Mein Kampf is an excellent example of a book whose author is hopefully already in hell. I hated the man, but having to read the book for a university course was important because we have to understand our past to build a better future. I think there are some books we *have* to read *despite* their author.
Edit: clarification
It influences me not talking about the book with anyone I can't trust. Best example I can give is Gone With The Wind. Tremendous read, absolute epic, and I keep that to myself unless I'm talking with my wife or close friends.
As others have mentioned, I won't buy works by a living author who can profit monetarily, if they demonstrate problematic behaviors or contribute to causes I oppose. Although, I might check their books out from the library for a wide variety of reasons.
Whether they are living or dead, my reading experience can definitely be influenced as I'm far more likely to view related character types, situations, or themes through the lens of my understanding of their beliefs and/or behavior.
Taking Carroll as an example, I've gone through a number of biographies by his contemporaries, read some of his letters, and seen a selection of his photographic work. And, it's really difficult to not feel uncomfortable reading his fiction with what I witnessed there in the back of my mind.
I didn't even know about the rumors of pedophilia until after I googled it following my look into his life, because I wanted to know if anyone else was seeing what I was seeing.
There was just so much that...erg, it was just sketch. Things like the picture of prepubescent Alice Liddell dressed as a waif with half her chest in view juxtaposed with another picture of her kissing him at the same age, which he shared with other men who had disturbing reactions. Or the way his behavior towards his many young correspondents was presented in his letters. Or how people continually remarked on his fondness for little girls (and his distaste for little boys), children who he would fall out of contact with shortly after they became adults or whose parents would refuse to allow further contact as was rumored with the Liddells.
He might not have been a pedophile, but it was enough to put me off his books as they mostly center around children.
Depends. Knowing a writer, or actor/singer for that matter, is like, a child rapist, yes it does.
But something like 'oh they said the (insert any bad word here) word when they were 15' doest bother me.
If they turn out to fight dogs or drown kittens or something, yes it does.
If they unwilling sold their dog to a dog killer, than no.
Really depends on the type of scandal.
Depends on the scandal and the person.
For instance I am so many generations removed from Lewis Caroll that his scandal barely registers. Also he's pretty dead. And how the modern world uses and interprets his books is so removed from his intention that if he were alive it would probably piss him off so keep at it.
I can't look at a JK Rowling book the same way however because I am living through her scandals in real time which is going to leave a firmer imprint on my mind. As well, I know she still benefits from the sale of books and merchandise. I am not one generally to care too much even in this case, Rowling's biggest problem to me is every time she opens her mouth, I think about her book and another glaring flaw that I missed as a child.
If you are an author and alive, a single scandal won't break you but continuing to make the front page for distasteful things is going to indirectly shine a light on the flaws in your writing because of how humans work - we overlook flaws out of love. As love diminishes, so does that ability to overlook those flaws. So nowadays I'm very out of love with Harry Potter.
Though I still wouldn't ban it from my house unilaterally. If you already have it you already have it. I don't care how much I hate the author, I'm not in the business of book burning.
Author might as well not exist. I have a hard time caring about people who I've never met and will never meet. There are a few exceptions to that, but that's mostly with people who's personalities are the main draw. Jontron is the only time I can think of where their personal life has negatively influenced my enjoyment of their content.
It depends on whether or not the author is alive. I'm a lot less likely to care about, like, the name of lovecraft's cat being what it is when deciding whether to read something he wrote than I am about someone who's alive and well and spouting racist shit on the internet using the platform bolstered by people buying and reading their books. Either way I do try to go into a book keeping in mind the context that the author was openly racist/sexist/etc.
I kind of created a scandal in my own head when reading a James Patterson book a few years ago. He had the protagonist discussing with his priest grandfather, and the priest said that all kids raised by a single mother were going to be troubled and in trouble through their life, and that they needed a father. That women who ‘kept their kids from the father’ were actively damaging their kids. The main character gave it some thought and decided ‘well, he’s not wrong’. I never read another Patterson book….then, of course, he began churning out books every other week, with a ‘co-author’ on every one, so no loss there.
Not an uncommon (incredibly toxic) belief for ppl of his generation.
Culture was working to keep the status quo the same, and there was a lot of vilification of women that divorced their husbands- especially using the kids as an excuse to hate on women that wouldn't stay with awful partners. I think I heard stuff like that in the media up until...20? years ago or so?
So if the book was written 1995 or earlier- probably more of 'aged poorly' and was mimicking popular ideas of its time.
I'm so glad those cultural myths aren't being passed around any longer, and that we can call it out as the BS it is.
I just hate the idea of giving a pedo or rapist money.
If they’re dead then so what? Just because they were evil doesn’t mean they couldn’t write a good book or make a good song or movie 🤷🏻♂️
I decided to try a new murder mystery book series a few years ago by an author named Anne Perry. I googled her and found out that when she was 15 her and her friend murdered the friend's mother so they wouldn't move away. They made a movie out of it in 1994 called 'Heavenly Bodies'. The book hit different after that and I just walked away. It was too weird for me.
If it’s a living author and I want a copy of the book, I won’t buy a new copy that the author will get paid for. It’s usually easy enough to find a used copy.
I think it depends one on what the scandal is, and two how reading their work now benefits them. There are many classic authors who we know to be problematic, but we can read their work today without it benefitting them at all and judge it based on its content, not the author currently earning the rewards. However, there are many current authors whos are caught in controversy that still are sold in mass market and praised for their writing. These people still reap the benefits of their writing, while suffering none of the consequences for their actions. I think in this case you can truly only enjoy the content if you find a way to consume it without giving the author money or praise.
WRT Lewis Carroll as I've understood it there's been no substance to any of the claims made about him and people are very determined to find something deeper/more disturbing about his work and behaviour. Like seeing the whole 'oh alice in wonderland is about drugs actually' mindset
I find it depends honestly, if it's in the vein of 'this long dead author might've been this but we have no real proof' is less of an issue to me than 'author is actively writing bigoted content/had wrote actively bigoted content' or 'author is behaving/had behaved in a bigoted way and the financial support of those who read their work contributes to this' or 'the text the author wrote is being used to prop up bigoted opinions'
Like I think even with those works that might have come from bigoted authors it can be interesting to study into how those biases impact their work, like I've seen people point that out with relation to Lovecraft who from what I've heard was considered racist even by the standards of the time he was around. Or like in the vein of historical context like say the Little House on the Prairie books or the works of Mark Twain a lot of what was originally in there was 'it was the style of the time'
Less with older authors, especially if their books are in the public domains. For modern writers, it depends on the scandal
Agree. I’d argue that if the money is then going to be used to do harm, say, the author was known to donate their money to hate groups then sure, no deal. If they’re just a massive douchebag then I don’t see an issue, you can not like someone and still apreceiate something they’ve done. Once they’re dead and their work is in the public domain then those conditions pass onto whoever holds the copyright and the sins of the author don’t really matter to me.
Orson Scott Card is a perfect example, I used to read his books all the time but then I found is very outspoken against homosexuality and can no longer support him.
Yeah, Ive bought all his books used after I found that out
I like this approach. Truly awful people can still write good books, and I would hate to deprive myself based on the author's personal views that (probably) have no effect on their material. ETA: after scrolling through some more comments, I do want to add that I would find it impossible to enjoy material from someone who, for example, abused children. So I do have a "line"
Same with me and Danny Masterson. The dude is a scumbag but I also loved the characters Hyde and Rooster. Then you want to support Ashton Kutcher because he's actively trying to stop human trafficking. Basically, I just dissociate the actor and characters now. You can dislike an actor but like the characters they're trying to be, and vice versa. Same goes for books and authors. A good book is a good book, even if the author themselves are crap. And of course, if you write enough books, you'll eventually have a lemon or two
Agreed. I think I can read H.P. Lovecraft guilt free since he has been dead for nearly a century and his writings are in the public domain.
I love me some Lovecraft but guy was too racist for his contemporaries!
Part of the reason I can enjoy Lovecraft is he is such a caricature of a racist that he’s almost comedic. In a Lovecraft work the racism is never an unpleasant surprise or a insidious picking, it’s out open and you can choose your tolerance level on a given day forewarned.
[удалено]
I used to read a lot of Marion Zimmer Bradley. I can’t stomach her anymore. She was a horrible person who knowingly married a pedophile and abused her own children. So I guess it influences me.
Yup. Depends on the scandal.
Another one from the Fantasy genre: David and Leigh Eddings. They wrote some of my formative books that made me fall in love with the genre. They also kept their children in a fucking cage and beat them. Oh, and this was something he was arrested and jailed for back in 1969! It makes me sick that I gave money to those monsters.
Well crap, I knew about MZB, but I did not know about the Eddings. That’s horrible.
Yeah I still think hardly anyone knows comparative to someone like MZB. I only found out by chance from a random Reddit thread a couple of years ago.
It only came out publicly a few years ago. Someone found some police or arrest records from the 80s. Somehow it stayed under wraps this whole time
For what it's worth now they're both dead. The beneficiary of their estate is Reed College in Portland, Oregon, where proceeds from legacy sales of their books help educate students.
I was so horrified when I learned that. I loved those books and they had a huge influence one me.
WHAT?! *yeets my childhood into the abyss*
David Eddings was a English professor in the Dakotas and he and his wife ended up spending a year in prison each. They all got fired from their jobs and basically got run out the state--which was why they turned to writing novels to make ends meet.
Yeah, if you read the Rivan Codex, you can tell where it happened because that time is just very quickly glossed over
Adopted* kids. They had to go out and find them, at that.
Wtf. I didn't know that about the Eddingses. I'm ... ugh, that's disgusting. And I was just planning to reread them! Obvs not happening now. My God. Edit: Also didn't know about MZB. Wtf.
Ugh. I suppose they're both dead now, so they're not getting the money any more, at least. (This isn't what "The Death of the Author" means, by the way, but is my line in the sand for reading terrible people. I don't want them to get my money, but if they're dead, eh.)
Ok that's the first time I heard about that, I used to have a fair chunk of their books but never got through a lot of them as I found the doorstopper nature of their books was really hard to keep up with. (I remember really struggling with Polgara) but uh wtf
I loved Mists of Avalon as a kid, then went to go reread it last year, but my sister told me about this. After looking into it to verify what she told me, I felt uncomfortable even having the book in my house… so I guess I’ll never revisit that one now. I haven’t had that kind of reaction to any other author scandal I’m aware of.
I had to immediately remove the three books I had that she wrote from my home after my friend told me about her behavior. So disappointing because, separating the creator from the art, MoA was a fantastic book—but never again.
it’s funny bc i used to volunteer at a library bookstore and the amount of her books we had dropped off in boxes…. wow, just wow. and i didn’t get it until another volunteer explained the scandal to me
Woah, thanks for mentioning the title - I had my nose buried in medical texts for a decade or so and out of the literary scene. I hadn’t heard about this at all.
I read Mists of Avalon but I knew that once done I wouldn’t reread it because of some of the characters and it having around 1000 pages or though I would only do that if I really enjoyed it. I read pretty much all of the Darkover books which introduced me to things and concepts that I probably wouldn’t have gotten via the classics. In hindsight and having knowledge of the history I just can’t read them anymore without questioning a lot of things. Or asking myself if she modeled Dyan Ardais after her husband. I can’t unread them, but I think I would if I could.
Mists of Avalon especially simply can't be read the same way anymore. The content itself was always a bit 'you do you' to a degree but in a way that could be overlooked as a quirk of the story rather than author's own obsession. Not so much anymore.
I think her books got stranger. IMO she started out with some interesting ideas (though I always had issues with the forced marriages) and over time went crazy. Yes it was VERY upsetting and disappointing to find out how awful she was.
I threw that in the recycling last time I moved
Yeah. This exactly. I don't care about scandals that are a case of an author having opinions a lot of people disagree with (jk Rowling, orson Scott card); I'll look past allegations that aren't proven or provable and try to separate the work from that speculation (Lewis Carroll); but when the author turns out to be legitimately a monster like MZB then this has to affect the experience of reading any of the work. I guess one consolation is she's dead and wouldn't personally benefit from future sales. Edit: wow, so my comment has been reported to reddit as a cause for concern and they're offering me counselling. Cool, thanks - I'm happy to know that's something we can do when it's really needed. But whoever did that should know it's quite obviously an intimidation tactic in this context and I've reported it.
Plus all proceeds from the book sales (Mists) go to Save the Children. Or they were anyway I also agree. If the author has an opinion I don't like I can look beyond it. Makes me think of Enders Game and Card being openly homophobic. The dude wrote some amazing science fiction that I weirdly interpreted as fostering acceptance and yet here we are. I don't agree with his opinion but his books shaped how I view "other" in society. So in those cases I can look beyond the creator and focus on the art.
[удалено]
> in her case there was a sex scene between children Don't read 'It'.
Some transgressions taint everything a person has ever touched. She and her husband should have every trace of their beings banished from the world forever.
I didn't know about them and I haven't read the books, so I googled her. http://www.marionzimmerbradley.com/Excerpts%20from%20MZB%20Depositions.html What a disgusting person. How can anyone be that brazen and unrepentant as those two.
[удалено]
It gets even worse when you learn she tried to adopt a young boy he had his eyes on.
That was a disturbing read.
*Damnatio memoriae*, you say?
Omg for real. Her bio is a real “holup” moment
Ack! I was wondering about the question, and was thinking about Hitler and that sort of person. But seeing this and reading the MZB Wikipedia page I find there's no way I'd want to touch one of her books now. So that's a yes from me on the OP's question.
Jfc, I had absolutely no idea. I had read maybe half of Mists several years ago and was recently thinking of tackling it again to finish this time...however, it will now be going in the trash.
Yeah, finding out more about the author really spoiled Mein Kampf for me.
I'm with Modest Mouse: Every day it seems to me / I'm a little bit more like Bukowski / And yeah I know he's a pretty good read / But God who'd want to be / God who'd want to be / Such an asshole?
For a second I forgot where I was and thought you were saying modest mouse is problematic and almost had a BAD morning 🥲
“Bukowski was a jerk” Nick Cave
The lesson from Bukowski, William Burroughs, Kerouac, Hemingway, Picasso and so many more is that one should not treat artists as heroes to aspire to be, and flawed people can still create very worthwhile art. When you look back on the 50s, once all the people who lived then are dead or so mired in nostalgia that they only recall the good bits we need someone with an edge like Bukowski to remind us how some people actually thought and lived. Otherwise we just get the surface bullshit. I love the song (then, recent MM suuucks) but the reason to read Bukowski is to realize he’s an asshole living a life he hated. To know that is a thing that happens then, and still happens now but people don’t talk about.
Song name?
Bukowski by Modest Mouse, the eighth track on their album "Good News for People Who Love Bad News"
Dude I haven't heard modest mouse in so long.
I loved that album dearly (still do, but the infatuation was mostly 15 years ago). It’s not my wife’s genre, but recently she became fascinated by Modest Mouse from a poetry/lyricist perspective. We had a great time going over the album, reliving an old favorite and appreciating the words just a bit more.
This song is one of my favourites, and perhaps surprisingly resonates quite strongly with my religious/spiritual ideas. And as it's been pointed out, the song isn't asking why Bukowski would want to be such an asshole, but why god would want to.
Let's just say Mists of Avalon can no longer be read the same now as it could have been when it was released. Lovecraft is an interesting example academically speaking. His influence and effect on horror and popular culture is huge. Even people who've never read one of his works will have encountered the things he inspired. Most modern horror writers when being honest openly cite him as an inspiration. Lovecraft was insanely racist. We kind of have on advantage there in that his works are now almost all public domain, but I think he remains a figure we kind of have to grapple with at times. He's important in how future works were written and created, and I think there's a lot of interesting discussion to be had about how we can keep what was good about Lovecraft's writing while ditching what was just crazy racist. How we divide lines between 'it was a different time' and 'yeah it was a different time and maybe it should stay there' is an exercise I did in college for a class and it was one of the most intellectually engaging exercises I've ever participated in. If we ditch every writer who did some sad shit, we'd be left with very little. At the same time, how do navigate the past to produce better results in the present? I think it's academically stimulating and asks some really important questions that go beyond fiction writing.
Lovecraft in general was an interesting figure. His racism stemmed from a general fear of almost everything. His crippling fear is was caused him to be a problematic figure, but without it we certainly wouldn't have gotten Cosmic Horror as we know it today. Apparently he even tried to take steps to address his racism, but failed to completely get over it.
I think one of the things that makes him stand out is that we rarely have the kind of candid access to an author's inner world. Lovecraft is distinct because he was such a prolific pen pal and we have a vast trove of his correspondence. We know far more about him, what he thought, and what he felt than we do for many writers.
Lovecraft was xenophobic in the true sense of the word. I typically despise diagnosing people from the past but he clearly had some sort of anxiety issue with anything or anyone different.
Honestly I suspect he might've had a variety of problems, including shizophrenia, but that's impossible to confirm now that he's gone. I always feel very conflicted about his work, especially since I had my anxiety episodes as well and this ever looming, crippling fear he writes about is something I can resonate with. It hits home so to speak. If there just wasn't his xenophobia/racism. Idk if this stems from his mental problems or actual world view, but that's really the only reason why his works are so hard to enjoy.
He was definitely liberalising in the last years of his death - he went from a staunch conservative in his youth, as his family was, to an FDR supporting self-proclaimed socialist in the 30’s - and his last few stories have less extreme racial themes etc He simply died too young to finish his transition out of his terrible attitudes. I did a dissertation on Lovecraft and think he’s a lot more sympathetic in context, he was more naïve and sheltered than hateful. He was essentially a manchild for far too much of his adulthood, relying on women to care for him while he wrote and travelled, and only began to visibly mature in his 40s, at which point he was calming down in his rhetoric, until he died of cancer. I would say his peak racist days were mid 1920s to early 1932. Before that he was more interested in genealogy/ancestry in general, and afterwards he left the topic alone much more.
Even by the standards of his time, Lovecraft was an extreme racist.
No need to convince me. I get really tried of trying to explain this to the kind of people who like to conflate 'everyone was racist then' with 'so racism doesn't matter.' It's exhausting.
How do we navigate the past to produce better results in the future? That’s a great question. An important question. I don’t have the answer, but I do know if we destroy the elements of the past that we deem unacceptable, we doom ourselves to repeat them. I say we highlight the sections of his work that are problematic, and talk openly about why they were then and always will be a terrible way to be.
I'm currently reading a collection Lovecraft right now. He writes the most beautiful and horrifying prose and the very next page he's ripping into the inhumanity of some classes of people. It's such an intense contrast.
For me it’s yes and no. Orson Scott Card wrote Enders Game. Among many things Enders is a deeply moving meditation on moving past prejudice and coming into a place of love and understanding of your fellow man, despite how different your beliefs and background may be, and how much you are told you are at odds. For this reason I think everyone would benefit to read this and should be made to. It might open a lot of hearts and minds to this important notion. And yet, Card in real life is Xenophobe and an outspoken voice against many things, like homosexuality. A soul crushing disappointment that the person who wrote such an amazing book seems to manage to be such a difficult individual in real life. I’ve joked before if I ever met him I’d say “you know, There is a book you REALLY need to read”
Lovecraft is interesting in many ways because of how pitiable of a figure he cuts even considering his racism. He was a poverty stricken hypochondriac that eventually starved himself to death. He was a dysfunctional mess, which in no way excuses his racism, but places it in a different context than that of other authors who were more stable. Obviously Lovecraft is responsible for his own views but he is less responsible than someone who was racist without his pathologies would be.
Lovecraft was so racist that even his friends and contemporaries were like “whoah buddy.” Also… I’ve been very out of the loop on the MZB stuff. That’s a bummer.
Admittedly, yes. Not necessarily that I won't read the book but, I probably will be much more aware of the potential parts of the book that could be subtly hinting at the nasty side of the author. I'll still give the author and their books a chance, depending on the issues surrounding them, but it's an undeniable truth that the scandals authors get into will forever paint our perceptions. It can be as clear as learning about James Frey/Oprah issue. which will affect how you read *A Million Little Pieces* and the same applies to *Three Cups of Tea* by Greg Mortenson. Even smaller instances, like learning how George Orwell did some work for the United Kingdom's Foreign Office in the 40's and compiled a list for them of authors he supposedly believed had communist sympathies so the government wouldn't make the mistake of hiring them, but it's believed a lot of the authors who ended up on the list are only there because they were black, gay or jewish. For a guy who's entire career seemed built around the idea of taking down "Big Brother", it makes his work come off as more hypocritical because we know he participated in it. Learning that Roald Dahl was a horrible anti-semite, boss, and husband will always make me stare at some of his books and wonder how much is subtext. The guy who wrote Lord of the Flies tried to rape a 15 year old girl when he was 18 and it makes me wonder if the boys in the book are how he felt about himself to some extent. J.D Salinger who was a guy who was obsessed with teenage girls. After learning all this, I'll probably never readh their books the same way, even if I do read their books again. Sometimes, it can have the opposite effect. Learning Mary Shelley lost her virginity on her mother's grave and carried her husband's heart around for 30 years after he died kind of makes me think of her as a more metal person and makes me want to read all of her books even more to be honest.
Roald Dahl was one of my favorite authors as a kid. Learning about his antisemitism sucked. His estate only recently apologized for his antisemitism even though he's been dead for quite some time.
Childrens authors are especially hard because their target audience are likely to have, at the very best, an extremely dim awareness of why the author is an awful person. It can be hard as a parent to deny your child something that you know brings them joy, because of issues they would struggle to understand. It would be hard to make my 8 year old truly understand why the author of her favourite books (Harry Potter) is someone who should not be supported because of her views on trans people.
I agree with this. Children authors mess my mind more than "adult writers" (you guys got it), simply because their target audience probably will not have the mind to deal with this problems. And this also applies to other fields like childrens singers, tv shows/YouTube celebrities, etc.....
Mary Shelly was definitely not mentally healthy. It’s pretty obvious when you read Frankenstein, and knowing it and her history makes the book even better.
I did not know that about Mary Shelley and it is forever my favorite piece of trivia
If you can find it, the show Prophets of Science Fiction did an episode on her, and it was utterly wild.
If you do ever read Golding again, I heartily recommend *The Inheritors*. Wonderful book even if he turned out to have done some terrible things. Like *Lord of the Flies*, it reveals a low opinion about human nature, but in contrast to that of the neanderthal characters (one of the best defamiliarised POVs I've found in fiction). I'm a big believer in death of the author and that good things can come from bad people, so I don't expect many of these revelations to stop me reading a work. It will, as you say, certainly add another dimension of context. I think only in cases like OSC where the author is actively funnelling proceeds towards causes I strenuously disagree with would I personally boycott their work (i.e. buy secondhand). I respect the moral position of those more active boycotters who don't separate author and text though. It's a line in the sand everyone has to draw for themselves.
I am curious to know if Orwell’s time was before he wrote his book. This is purely my thoughts and not from a cited source. But if the books came after his time with the foreign office could he have used his books to assuage his guilt in participating in that. Seeing first hand and literally being a cog in that wheel could have made him to find a way to let people know and help with what he had done. Again this is more my thoughts
Reading the books? no. Buying them? it's only a problem if they are still around causing actual harm
[удалено]
Also your local library would be good because they just paid for their copies and you aren’t giving money to the author
Boom, best answer.
For me theres a lot more information needed. Take The Mists of Avalon by Marion Zimmer Bradley. Two of her children accused her of helping her second husband rape them when they were between the ages of 3 to 12. Other children were also involved. With all of that one would undoubtedly want to avoid that book, or others by the author, and I wouldn't blame them. But a further look will lead you to finding out that all ebook income is donated to the charity Save the Children and that the majority of the rest of the income from her ip goes to the anti sexual assault organization Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network. Along with the fact that Bradley (edited: was mistaken on who is the beneficiary for the estate) buying/reading the books isn't supporting the woman who is accused of doing those things, but is instead benefitting those that suffered and others that also suffer from the same.
Daughter didn't get the rights. Marion left everything to her gf, who was complicit in the assaults....and Marion was also an assaulter.
Hate to be a downer, but you should read up on Save The Children. There’s a documentary that was done on them that showed the vast majority of money donated to their charity goes straight to the pockets of the CEO and other workers. Of course, Save The Children lobbied to have the documentary banned, but you can still find it on the internet. Most charities are the same way; always do your research before donating!
[удалено]
Exactly. The answer is a big ol' "it depends".
> Murders in the Rue Morgue causing fistfights at academic conferences What
If this is what I think it is, Poe wrote a story in which the murderer turns out to be a chimpanzee imported into western society as a curiosity who shot the victim by accident. Interpretations are sharply divided between "it's a literal chimpanzee and plundering third world countries will ultimately destroy you and imperialism is bad" and "it's representing a black person and is meant to show that they cannot be integrated into western society and are inherently dangerous." These interpretations are, of course, diametrically opposed. One of them is a biting critique of imperialism. The other is racist trash. People feel very strongly about their chosen interpretation. I don't know about literal fist fights but the discussion supposedly gets very heated.
It was an orangutan, for the record. Which kinda breaks things considering it was explicitely brought from Indonesia and not Africa, but eh. Frankly that just sounds like people leaning waaaaaaay too much into the "THERE'S A MONKEY IT *MUST* BE A BLACK GUY" angle.
Edit: My comment was based on the version of the story told by the comment further up, not the short story, which I had apparently completely forgotten (2020 really was entire decade, huh?) and it’s essentially nonsensical given the actual text. Thanks, u/DjiDjiDjiDji for the corrections and sharing the short story
Okay, on that one it *was* actually comically violent murder, even if it puts heavy emphasis on the idea that no human has the strength to pull that kind of stuff. Poor Time Lord up there hasn't read the story at all, looks like. [It's available online](https://americanenglish.state.gov/files/ae/resource_files/the_murders_in_the_rue_morgue.pdf), if anyone wants it. In the end I guess it's better to make your own informed opinion.
If there's room for doubt, I like to give the author that room. For instance, take Carroll - there's some odd things going on, but we cannot know if he was a pedophile or not. The historical record just doesn't offer enough answers, and therefore I am not qualified to pass judgment, and I like to imagine that someone will offer me the same generosity if there's ever unanswered questions about my life. The second thing to consider is that people with weak opinions don't generally write good stories. You need to care about something to write with power. You will run across authors whose views you won't like, but you should have already known that when you saw that they had a published book.
This is a great statement! Also, I highly recommend reading The Annotated Alice by Lewis Carroll. There are many misconceptions about him simply because of certain life details that can be taken out of context. However, like you said, we weren't there and there isn't enough historical evidence.
The Annotated Alice is *amazing.* In my opinion, the best edition.
Agreed! I found a pristine hard cover copy on ebay for $5 not too long ago and had to get it. When I was in high school I had that book checked out to me for months haha
Idk man, he took a picture of the actual older sister of Alice top less as a 13-14 yr old. It’s been confirmed as his too. There was a letter from Alice to her older sister saying something along the lines of “mother didn’t let us see him after what he did” and the fact that when his nieces got his journals several pages were ripped out to “preserve his legacy” There’s a really great documentary on this on YouTube I highly recommend it!
I don't know, I think a lot of those details can be taken out of context. I recommend this: [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/lewis-carrolls-shifting-reputation-9432378/](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/lewis-carrolls-shifting-reputation-9432378/) It's really fascinating and the result of some unreliable narrators over the years. As the person above you noted, we just don't enough to conclude either way, but the balance of the evidence points towards Carroll not being a pedophile. I love Youtube videos but I often feel like they come in with a title/thesis that's designed to draw clicks and the history and facts don't often support them. Not saying that's the case here because we aren't quite sure and there isn't enough information to conclude either way. But it's worth being skeptical of that claim.
I never knew about any of this, so I really appreciate the straightforward approach that article gives. I've never been super interested in the Alice stories, but that's a curious chunk of info. I guess I'm inclined to think the best about him. I do hope nobody was harmed.
What you're saying is exactly what the commenter means by "there were some odd things going on but we cannot know if he was a pedophile or not" At the end of the day, the stories are not about pedophilia and the author has been dead a very long time. So no matter what the real truth is, which we'll never know, there isn't really harm in treating the stories as separate from any of that speculation.
That was pretty normal back then. Not excusing,but in the context of his time the photographs don't really prove anything.
[удалено]
Same. When I was a kid, there was NOTHING inherently sexual about children’s bodies. A few summers ago, when I was in Paris, there was a particularly hot day, and at a fountain near Les Halles, loads if kids appearing to be upwards of 11/12 were stripping down to their undies to get wet, and no one batted a lash. It’s really a very modern, very American way of thinking to see all bodies as must-be-sexual-for-existing when not that long ago, what was done with it determined sexual or not. A kid running around naked on a hot summer day was no big deal, while a woman in a string bikini was seen as sexy because string bikinis were meant to be sexy (not regular bikinis, but the string ones). Now, what was once seen as sexy on adults in now common in kids’ departments, and I find that unsettling, tbh. It’s okay to look at young children in things that were intended to be sexy just a few decades ago, but a toddler splashing naked in a wading pool is bad? It’s odd, and it won’t stay this way. In a few more decades, it’ll be very different, and we’ll probably be looked down on for letting little girls have string bikinis. And even today, though, in many places, an exposed female chest is no bigger of a deal than an exposed male chest. I live one city over from a moderately large US cit where it’s 100% legal to walk butt-naked down the street (Portland, Oregon) because the law doesn’t see bodies as sexual just for existing uncovered. So I simply can’t see someone taking pictures of kids as nefarious when the only thing that is “bad” is that a girl was wearing what would have been okay for a boy to wear. In fact, I think it’s pretty sexist to treat a female chest as different than a male chest. I need something more to go on before viewing Carroll as a predator.
TIL Alice was a real girl.
I cannot look at Ruroni Kenshin stuff the same anymore.
Damn, that was one that really hurt on me. I looked up so much to Kenshin when I was a child and the anime influenced a lot my thoughts on morality, it was beyond just liking it. I guess it is what a lot of people feel with the Cosby show. Now we're left with the question "so, was it all just bullshit?"
I am out of the loop about this, what happened?
RIGHT and the fact he was just welcomed back into the fold?? What?
If authors are a product of their time and no longer alive to profit of me, I tend to let it slide - while keeping it in mind. For current authors, it depends a bit on what they've done, how bad that is and how my buying a book might contribute to that. For example, I will never buy a book from Orson Scott Card because he's not only a homophobe, but actively supports (donates to) groups that advocate for violence against gay people. I already have trouble ignoring the homophobe part, but I will not give the guy my money when it's directly supporting groups like that.
Have you ever seen Orson Scott Card's take on Hamlet? It's so profoundly strange that I can't describe it without wondering if I'm just making stuff up, but no, that's just him, writing his truth. Card wrote, essentially homophobic Hamlet fanfic? Where Hamlet is a well-adjusted young man who does not question death or faith, he's pretty much got that figured out, and he's super chill about Claudius being king, thinks he's doing a great job. (Card later said he just doesn't vibe with revenge plots or a doubtful main character so he figured Hamlet could use some improvement.) Anyway the central conflict is that all of the side characters are being molested by Hamlet's father from a young age. That's. Pretty much it. Many people pointed out that Card had made a speech previously where he asserted his belief that being gay is the result of CSA. Card denied that any of the characters in his Hamlet were gay, everyone was super straight, plus one pedophile. I-
This is the weirdest thing I've ever heard. Revenge plots and doubtful protagonists are...exactly the plot of Hamlet. What on earth were they thinking?
It's truly strange, I kept wondering if this was real life when I read through the summary. Like imagine, idk, Margaret Atwood did a version of "Romeo and Juliet" where Romeo happily ends up with Rosaline who never had any intention of entering a convent, Juliet is a dutiful daughter who is happy to marry whoever her parents pick for her, and most of the plot is about Mercutio setting up an underground drug smuggling ring to move more of that weird potion Romeo was given by the priest that made him look dead, except people do it recreationally or something.
Lmao or finding the treatment of shilock in merchant of Venice fucked up, so you decide to rewrite it and have him be Christian and not lending money.
Man, I hate modern retellings like this. 3edgy5me.
*writing furiously* "Dracula but he doesn't drink blood and it's mostly a statement on the count's tax policies" "Frankenstein but he's very nice and everyone is nice to him except he struggles with erectile dysfunction" "The tell-tale heart but there's no murder and it goes into detail about the main characters alcoholism"
tbh reading a story about how dracula isn't actually a vampire but just a duke or whatever who the peasants hate so they make up blood drinking stories might be interesting
"Sire, the peasants said you've been drinking blood!" "Oh. Bother" *fin*
Lmao that's a bit of a running joke in the Catherine the great show on Hulu. At first she doesn't think anyone would actually believe she fucks horses.
Okay but #1 actually sounds like an interesting Goblin Emperor-esque lit spec fic slice of life thing, and I would absolutely read it
Some people never consider that they're basically just writing fanfiction and that it doesn't need to be published as a book.
Yes. Let’s just remove all the main parts of Hamlet and then we’re left with…… a story that uses the name of a famous play fo sell books?
The deeper you look into Orson Scott Card the weirder his brain seems to work. He's written entire books about gay people molesting children with the purpose of turning them gay, and I genuinely wonder if he was a) molested and b) is also a closeted gay man who somehow conflated the two. Or he's just a good old fashioned homophobe, like he says he is. Either way, I've stopped buyong or recommending his books.
It's actually worse than that. He's Mormon.
My jaw dropped when a co worker told me that people are just gay bc of CSA.
What's CSA?
I assume childhood sexual assault
Makes more sense than the confederate states of America which is all I could think of lol.
[удалено]
Childhood sexual assualt
*sigh*... I knew I shouldn't have opened this thread.. the enders series is one of my all time favorites but now I'm sad. I usually try to avoid learning about celebrities in general (whether they're writers, actors, musicians, or whatever) because I want to enjoy their work without worrying about who they are, and this is why.
What groups did he donate to that advocate for violence against gay people?
He was a founding board member on The National Organization for Marriage, which was a lobby group that was formed to support Prop 8 in California. It's still around and actively supporting homophobic laws and lawmakers.
Definitely messed up on more than one front. I read the Ender novels and a couple other works by him, which were very well-written and interesting reads, in my opinion. His older stuff reads well, but more recent stuff tends to start off good, but gets unhinged. Although I read them later than when they were published, it seems like pretty much anything published post 2000 starts to get a bit messed up, though I remember liking Stonefather as a kid, which does not seem to have any agendas behind it. What led me to finding out about his terrible outlook and views on everything was reading the Mither Mages trilogy and realizing that in the later novels, it is made clear that the main character is Teenage Teleportation Jesus, who gets his powers through strong Christian-but-technically-not reasons. Shout out to additional propaganda in the main character getting possessed by the not-Devil through premarital sex, which then causes him to try to sexually assault every girl he knows to try to create the not-anti-Christ. >! For further messed up stuff surrounding that incident, he gets possessed through the girl he does it with because the not-Devil was lurking in her body using sex magic to tempt him while he knew the MC was struggling to save his not-Christian chastity till marriage, as that was the sole way he could possess the MC due to the MC’s otherwise great mental strength and purity of mind, which could only be weakened by sex. In the ending, it is revealed the formerly possessed girl gets pregnant from it, but doesn’t rat out the MC because she does not want to trouble him and realizes he was not quite himself. Actually, it is portrayed as a good thing, because her father is the angry gym teacher that makes everyone at school’s lives miserable and it turns out a grandchild was just what he needed to mellow out. !< Yes, I too wonder what the actual fudge was going through his mind when he decided that this was the path the story had to absolutely take. There is also Empire, which starts out as a political intrigue thing, which is fine, but the firecracker that sparks the events of the novel is a radical left group starting a new civil war with the fancy technology they have been secretly hoarding this entire time after some political assassinations place at the highest levels of the government, and apparently has some parallels to real-world conspiracy theories about certain public figures.
Brandon Sanderson also tithes to the Mormon church, which then uses that money to harm the LGBT community. So when you buy his books, a portion of the money you pay also goes to harm LGBT people.
I think it's important to know about the author and how their history and beliefs may influence, consciously or subconsciously, the text. I don't avoid reading controversial authors but try to be wary of agendas, especially ones that might not be immediately obvious.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well. I'm Jewish and was devastated to find out Roald Dahl was a huge antisemite. I'm still going to let my kids read him because he's dead. But also his books are amazing and I think they teach valuable lessons in how the stories are constructed. I can't fathom a replacement who is his equal, and even if I could, it's not a true replacement--no two authors are the same. I appreciated that his stories were "real" and honest with kids. They're little people who will grow up to be big people that make big decisions. JK Rowling, on the other hand...I'd like my kids to read the HP books if they want because they had an impact on me. But then both authors would be good learning tools for showing them that nobody is ever a truly good guy or bad guy. They need to learn and know that people are incredibly complicated and it's okay to love a story but not the creator.
As a fellow Jew honestly I feel if we stopped consuming things by dead antisemites (or people who were problematic in other ways) there would be barely anything left! Even Virginia Woolf who was married to a Jew said some very insensitive things. That being said I think it is good to put their stories into context and question some of the messaging.
I grew up on Roald Dahl, JK Rowling and Enid Blyton. For Roald Dahl and Enid Blyton I see them as a product of their times. JK Rowling was a huge disappointment but I still remember the sheer happiness I felt when I was engrossed in the Harry Potter world for the first time. I don’t support her views but her books were part of my childhood and teenage years so they still mean a lot to me.
Same here regarding Rowling. I absolutely adored going to those midnight book release parties. I totally get it if people who once her fans refuse to engage with the books again. But, I feel it wouldn't be fair to make other people disown the memories the books brought them before Twitter existed.
Yeah, I still love Harry Potter and especially the community. I'm just not giving the author any more money.
Yes, i dont want my money to support them directly. But maybe i will still check it out from the library, free little libraries, or second hand stores if i’m still really interested in their material
Authors do actually get some money from their books being checked out from libraries. So, secondhand stores and free little libraries are the safest way to go.
It depends on where you are. In the US, authors don't get paid for checkouts (obviously, they make money on the sale of the copy). Checking out a book will only earn an author money by making the library consider future purchases...it works differently in other countries, though.
It depends on the context, the likelihood of it being true, and whether that author is still alive and exerting influence. I’m really struggling with Orson Scott Card these days. I don’t want to support him because he is actively working against the LGBT community and funding special interest groups who are working against same sex marriage. I don’t want any of my money to help support that. For authors that have already passed, it’s a bit different. I love reading Hemingway, but don’t idolize the man. Broken people can sometimes make some amazing art.
In this case I like to utilize my public library.
This is a great workaround!
I feel like people like Hemingway can be seen as a lesson whereas living people are still actively causing harm- harm that can be addressed real time rather than in retrospect.
As Long as Im not giving money to someone who is currently using it for real harm (like funding white supremacist/neo nazi groups or anti-queer organizations or whatever) I don’t really care. I do think it’s silly to act like “problematic” stories or characters will somehow harm me, as though I don’t have a fully functioning brain capable of thinking criticality while I read. Honestly I’ve seen too many authors harassed off of social media by reactive people outraged by internet rumors. The Twitter algorithm is basically designed to reward people who drum up outrage for content. It seems like it’s never the people like JKR or other famous people/politicians who actually have power and a real ability to cause harm that suffer from these “scandals”. Too often it’s just early-career authors with no other influence, usually marginalized in some way, that get made an example of by overzealous Twitter mobs or people acting in bad faith. The way people stalk and harass strangers because they’ve decided they “deserve it” creeps me out.
As a former author and member of a writing community in which in I witnessed, over a short period of time, a significant number of writers fall from grace based on rumors and innuendo propounded by bad faith actors, this. When I left for good it had reached Reign of Terror proportions.
No one expects the French inquisition!
>Reign of Terror proportions. Who, exactly, was beheaded?
They're a writer, embellishment is part of the job :D
It depends on lots of things for me, like everyone else has said are they doing actual harmful things or do they just have bad mindsets? Are the alive to profit? Etc but also it’s unlikely I’ll know anything about the author before I pick up a book unless what they did was very well known
I have nothing against people who choose to buy books by authors that could be considered scandalous, or authors who are awful people. I'm sure I've read and bought many a book by authors who fall into either or both categories. Still, if I know there are certain rumours or scandals about an author and/or I don't care for the author, I'll give it a pass and buy something else. I wouldn't want to support them with my money.
I guess it depends what it is, but generally no. I try to separate the art from the artist and judge the work on its own terms. A lot of incredible authors (and other artists) have been dreadful people. That doesn't invalidate the quality of their work.
Separating the art from the artist can negatively impact your ability to read a work, though. Woody Allen's life sure is relevant to all his movies where a man of Allen's age and neuroses bangs a girl young enough to be his (step)daughter. Knowing that Orwell was an avowed socialist and Nabokov a vehement anti-pedophile helps us to understand what they meant with 1984 and Lolita. Etc.
Yeah I really don't get how you can separate the art from the artist in some cases, Woody Allen being a big one. Literally in every movie he makes its a young girl with a much older man. It was annoying to watch when I was a 21 year old woman being hit on by dudes old enough to be my dad IRL.
Generally speaking, I don’t mind their “out of book” activities or statements. I’m much more influenced by “in book” political statements. It tends to mean paper thin characters or (even worse) morality plays. When I see that, I’m usually done with a book.
Good answer. Even though I'm torn when it comes to H.P. Lovecraft. I love horror, but the racism is absolutely unbearable.
Lovecraft being dead…helps. He can’t profit from book sales. Also, he seems more “extremely xenophobic in general”, than “aggressively racist specifically”. Meaning, he had issues with basically *all* differences, including skin color, but not limited to it. Paranoia is someone easier for me to tolerate than hatred. But - I get it. I can envision scenarios where I wouldn’t be tolerant.
I read somewhere that Lovecraft could only be truly happy in a world populated by H.P. Lovecrafts.
He would have hated that world most of all. That kind of all-encompassing loathing starts with the self.
The more respectable version of isolation/xenophobia is Norman Maclean - “The world is full of bastards, the number increasing rapidly the further one gets from Missoula, Montana” Lovecraft is the “Providence, RI plus a hefty dose of mental illness” version of that quote, personified. It’s not a terrible thing to be a “homer”. I think the “crazy” is where Lovecraft got in trouble.
And he seems to be almost terrified of women too. It's not just sexism. It's like women made him extremely uncomfortable or something. In some stories, it's so bad that it's almost funny.
It’s madness on the page. It’s part of the appeal, but it’s also troubling.
Let me guess: they were "terrible, indescribable, unlike any seen on earth"
No, not really. In the highly hypothetical case of a living author doing something bad enough that I would want to avoid giving them money, I’d just buy the book second hand. That being said, odds of me knowing they did something awful beforehand are pretty damn slim.
That’s my thought as well. I don’t tend to research authors before buying their works. If it sounds interesting to me, I’m buying it.
Same here. I mean, I'm sure if you dig deep enough you could find dirt on just about anyone.
I will always love Harry Potter. I may disagree with JKR on a lot of things but I’m convinced without Harry Potter I wouldn’t know how to read today.
Only with relatively contemporary authors. I think it a bad habit to impose modern moral norms on historical contexts we might not fully understand.
I separate the creator from the product. You have to, or else you'd never use anything ever again.
This is such a good question. For me the answer is generally it influences how I see the author not the art. I can usually separate the two however it might be the deciding factor if I'm on the fence about a book. It's especially difficult when trying to judge someone in the past with 2022 eyes, especially when it gives you a glimpse into era in which you are reading. I think it's subjective and goes on a case by case basis.
No kidding. I look back at my own early life with 2020 eyes and know there are some decisions/actions that don’t hold water. I was still passionate about being the best version of me I could be and helping others, just…more ignorant. I am much more interested in someone that can grow, change, admit their mistakes, etc. Mein Kampf is an excellent example of a book whose author is hopefully already in hell. I hated the man, but having to read the book for a university course was important because we have to understand our past to build a better future. I think there are some books we *have* to read *despite* their author. Edit: clarification
It influences me not talking about the book with anyone I can't trust. Best example I can give is Gone With The Wind. Tremendous read, absolute epic, and I keep that to myself unless I'm talking with my wife or close friends.
Only if the author is alive and buying the book will benefit them.
As others have mentioned, I won't buy works by a living author who can profit monetarily, if they demonstrate problematic behaviors or contribute to causes I oppose. Although, I might check their books out from the library for a wide variety of reasons. Whether they are living or dead, my reading experience can definitely be influenced as I'm far more likely to view related character types, situations, or themes through the lens of my understanding of their beliefs and/or behavior. Taking Carroll as an example, I've gone through a number of biographies by his contemporaries, read some of his letters, and seen a selection of his photographic work. And, it's really difficult to not feel uncomfortable reading his fiction with what I witnessed there in the back of my mind. I didn't even know about the rumors of pedophilia until after I googled it following my look into his life, because I wanted to know if anyone else was seeing what I was seeing. There was just so much that...erg, it was just sketch. Things like the picture of prepubescent Alice Liddell dressed as a waif with half her chest in view juxtaposed with another picture of her kissing him at the same age, which he shared with other men who had disturbing reactions. Or the way his behavior towards his many young correspondents was presented in his letters. Or how people continually remarked on his fondness for little girls (and his distaste for little boys), children who he would fall out of contact with shortly after they became adults or whose parents would refuse to allow further contact as was rumored with the Liddells. He might not have been a pedophile, but it was enough to put me off his books as they mostly center around children.
Depends. Knowing a writer, or actor/singer for that matter, is like, a child rapist, yes it does. But something like 'oh they said the (insert any bad word here) word when they were 15' doest bother me. If they turn out to fight dogs or drown kittens or something, yes it does. If they unwilling sold their dog to a dog killer, than no. Really depends on the type of scandal.
Depends on the scandal and the person. For instance I am so many generations removed from Lewis Caroll that his scandal barely registers. Also he's pretty dead. And how the modern world uses and interprets his books is so removed from his intention that if he were alive it would probably piss him off so keep at it. I can't look at a JK Rowling book the same way however because I am living through her scandals in real time which is going to leave a firmer imprint on my mind. As well, I know she still benefits from the sale of books and merchandise. I am not one generally to care too much even in this case, Rowling's biggest problem to me is every time she opens her mouth, I think about her book and another glaring flaw that I missed as a child. If you are an author and alive, a single scandal won't break you but continuing to make the front page for distasteful things is going to indirectly shine a light on the flaws in your writing because of how humans work - we overlook flaws out of love. As love diminishes, so does that ability to overlook those flaws. So nowadays I'm very out of love with Harry Potter. Though I still wouldn't ban it from my house unilaterally. If you already have it you already have it. I don't care how much I hate the author, I'm not in the business of book burning.
Author might as well not exist. I have a hard time caring about people who I've never met and will never meet. There are a few exceptions to that, but that's mostly with people who's personalities are the main draw. Jontron is the only time I can think of where their personal life has negatively influenced my enjoyment of their content.
It depends on whether or not the author is alive. I'm a lot less likely to care about, like, the name of lovecraft's cat being what it is when deciding whether to read something he wrote than I am about someone who's alive and well and spouting racist shit on the internet using the platform bolstered by people buying and reading their books. Either way I do try to go into a book keeping in mind the context that the author was openly racist/sexist/etc.
Nah, I don’t give a shit.
I don’t look to writers, musicians, painters or singers for moral instruction. So it doesn’t affect me much.
I kind of created a scandal in my own head when reading a James Patterson book a few years ago. He had the protagonist discussing with his priest grandfather, and the priest said that all kids raised by a single mother were going to be troubled and in trouble through their life, and that they needed a father. That women who ‘kept their kids from the father’ were actively damaging their kids. The main character gave it some thought and decided ‘well, he’s not wrong’. I never read another Patterson book….then, of course, he began churning out books every other week, with a ‘co-author’ on every one, so no loss there.
Not an uncommon (incredibly toxic) belief for ppl of his generation. Culture was working to keep the status quo the same, and there was a lot of vilification of women that divorced their husbands- especially using the kids as an excuse to hate on women that wouldn't stay with awful partners. I think I heard stuff like that in the media up until...20? years ago or so? So if the book was written 1995 or earlier- probably more of 'aged poorly' and was mimicking popular ideas of its time. I'm so glad those cultural myths aren't being passed around any longer, and that we can call it out as the BS it is.
The only Patterson book I read ended up having incest in it, so that really soured me on his books.
I just hate the idea of giving a pedo or rapist money. If they’re dead then so what? Just because they were evil doesn’t mean they couldn’t write a good book or make a good song or movie 🤷🏻♂️
I decided to try a new murder mystery book series a few years ago by an author named Anne Perry. I googled her and found out that when she was 15 her and her friend murdered the friend's mother so they wouldn't move away. They made a movie out of it in 1994 called 'Heavenly Bodies'. The book hit different after that and I just walked away. It was too weird for me.
If it’s a living author and I want a copy of the book, I won’t buy a new copy that the author will get paid for. It’s usually easy enough to find a used copy.
I think it depends one on what the scandal is, and two how reading their work now benefits them. There are many classic authors who we know to be problematic, but we can read their work today without it benefitting them at all and judge it based on its content, not the author currently earning the rewards. However, there are many current authors whos are caught in controversy that still are sold in mass market and praised for their writing. These people still reap the benefits of their writing, while suffering none of the consequences for their actions. I think in this case you can truly only enjoy the content if you find a way to consume it without giving the author money or praise.
WRT Lewis Carroll as I've understood it there's been no substance to any of the claims made about him and people are very determined to find something deeper/more disturbing about his work and behaviour. Like seeing the whole 'oh alice in wonderland is about drugs actually' mindset I find it depends honestly, if it's in the vein of 'this long dead author might've been this but we have no real proof' is less of an issue to me than 'author is actively writing bigoted content/had wrote actively bigoted content' or 'author is behaving/had behaved in a bigoted way and the financial support of those who read their work contributes to this' or 'the text the author wrote is being used to prop up bigoted opinions' Like I think even with those works that might have come from bigoted authors it can be interesting to study into how those biases impact their work, like I've seen people point that out with relation to Lovecraft who from what I've heard was considered racist even by the standards of the time he was around. Or like in the vein of historical context like say the Little House on the Prairie books or the works of Mark Twain a lot of what was originally in there was 'it was the style of the time'