If we didn't read authors with whom we disagreed, then no one would ever read Heinlein, and that would be unimaginable. :)
Lear - 15 years ago
As a conservative sci-fi reader I find it obnoxious when any author lets politics get in the way of the story. Unless The story is about politic your it's somehow integral to the plot it just comes across at heavy handed and preachy.
Most the time I just roll my eyes and keep reading, there have only be couple of times where I've said "I'm not reading this drek anymore"
L.Ron Hubbard got banned from my bookshelf, not for politics for for being so badly written.
Chris - 15 years ago
I guess if I did I probably wouldn't have read anything by Bob Heinliein, but then I would have missed all those wonderful books. I can't see how an authors personal views count when you're reading a novel. Does it relly matter?
Strong Thang - 15 years ago
Wow. More Orson Scott Card hate. *Yawn* Card’s a Mormon, and Mormons are mega, ultra conservative. I get it. I'm over it. I'd like to phrase this question differently: who should we support? Should all the stuff I read be written by Ghandi-esque, lovey-dovey humanitarians? Charles Bukowski was a less than admirable SOB but provided some great insights into human nature. Usually, when I read ppl poo-pooing Card it's b/c he's the only author they know who's conservative and not b/c his writing is weak. I encourage you to read things you enjoy or that challenge you. I read Mein Kampf and definitely don't consider it a statement of my personal beliefs. Censuring ppl does nothing but promote ignorance. If you don't want to give them money, use that magical place called the library. They'll lend you stuff for free.
Alex - 15 years ago
I clicked through to the comments with the specific intention of mentioning Orson Scott Card. Good to see that I wasn't alone.
Corvus makes a good point about the distinction between reading an author whose opinion you don't agree with and actually giving them some of your money - I do believe that it's important to read a wide range of opinions. I'm quite liberal, but if I only ever read Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky then I'd be doing myself a real disservice. There are intelligent, reasoned conservatives who are interesting to read, even if I don't agree with them. It's the hyperbolic, hateful creatures who need to be ignored. See: Uncle Orson.
g3k - 15 years ago
Not really politics, but I boycott L. Ron Hubbard's books for obvious reasons.
Mike - 15 years ago
What ImprobableJoe said.
Chris - 15 years ago
When their politics get in the way of the story, when I begin to think more about their politics than their story, then it's too much. Ayn Rand is a good example. I've tried to read her stuff, and can't. Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein is right on the edge. There are times when his long soap-box libertarian speeches pull me out of the story and put me into skim mode to get back to the book.
George - 15 years ago
Gotta go with Improbable Joe. OSC and his views are a big part of the reason that the LDS Church has to do most of its growing by offshore proselytizing.
One little poem from Pastor Martin Niemöller seems to put the lie to any number of pronouncements from The Quorum of the Twelve.
Erik Ordway - 15 years ago
What defines "Hateful".
An example
"That there is no god that those that believe that there is are fools and idiots that use their beliefs to rape and kill."
That is pretty hateful if you believe in God. If you are an Atheist you might find the above factual. One person hate is can be another persons truth and it is slippery slope trying to define the difference.
Corvus - 15 years ago
/Reading/ the work of an author and being influenced by external political information is one thing - that just requires objectivity and discipline as a reader. But /buying/ a book knowing some part of my money is going to be used to fund evil (Orson Scott Card) even if no direct political mention is made in the work itself is something else entirely. No matter how much I might like the author or the book, my conscience won't allow me to pretend that isn't wrong.
As far as I'm concerned he's not much better than a member of the KKK, thanks to his outspoken bigotry against homosexuals. I wouldn't give him a penny of my hard-earned money.
Some writers' stances are so well-known before I ever pick up a book that I don't; I know I am not going to like Ayn Rand or the Left-Behind series. Does explicitly political writing rise or fall on one's reader being able to stomach the characters? Is any writing free of some political slant; can I read swords-and-sorcery without condoning the divine right of kings? How about Kipling?
I find an author's politics and or morality (or lack of them) will sometimes ruin a character for me, particularly if the character comes across as facile (dumb and self-righteous about it). The baddies in some books were less annoying than some of the supposed good guys (in Pern, for instance... ). I know that agreeing with Kim Stanley Robinson's politics (as I perceive them) has added greatly to my enjoyment of his books (though Nadia and I disagree on capital punishment).
It depends on how blunt an instrument the author uses, and what the author is trying to say. If you write as well as Ursula K. LeGuin I think you'll find a lot more people will finish the book whether they agree with you or not.
BADUNN - 15 years ago
The only authors to avoid are ones who are completely disagreeable. One of my favorite authors is a staunch conservative and his views trickle into his stories in sometimes unpleasant places but it isn't nearly enough to make me stop reading his books. But if politics are the heart of the story and they are blindly going against my beliefs (or possibly even support them) then I would have to end that book.
If we didn't read authors with whom we disagreed, then no one would ever read Heinlein, and that would be unimaginable. :)
As a conservative sci-fi reader I find it obnoxious when any author lets politics get in the way of the story. Unless The story is about politic your it's somehow integral to the plot it just comes across at heavy handed and preachy.
Most the time I just roll my eyes and keep reading, there have only be couple of times where I've said "I'm not reading this drek anymore"
L.Ron Hubbard got banned from my bookshelf, not for politics for for being so badly written.
I guess if I did I probably wouldn't have read anything by Bob Heinliein, but then I would have missed all those wonderful books. I can't see how an authors personal views count when you're reading a novel. Does it relly matter?
Wow. More Orson Scott Card hate. *Yawn* Card’s a Mormon, and Mormons are mega, ultra conservative. I get it. I'm over it. I'd like to phrase this question differently: who should we support? Should all the stuff I read be written by Ghandi-esque, lovey-dovey humanitarians? Charles Bukowski was a less than admirable SOB but provided some great insights into human nature. Usually, when I read ppl poo-pooing Card it's b/c he's the only author they know who's conservative and not b/c his writing is weak. I encourage you to read things you enjoy or that challenge you. I read Mein Kampf and definitely don't consider it a statement of my personal beliefs. Censuring ppl does nothing but promote ignorance. If you don't want to give them money, use that magical place called the library. They'll lend you stuff for free.
I clicked through to the comments with the specific intention of mentioning Orson Scott Card. Good to see that I wasn't alone.
Corvus makes a good point about the distinction between reading an author whose opinion you don't agree with and actually giving them some of your money - I do believe that it's important to read a wide range of opinions. I'm quite liberal, but if I only ever read Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky then I'd be doing myself a real disservice. There are intelligent, reasoned conservatives who are interesting to read, even if I don't agree with them. It's the hyperbolic, hateful creatures who need to be ignored. See: Uncle Orson.
Not really politics, but I boycott L. Ron Hubbard's books for obvious reasons.
What ImprobableJoe said.
When their politics get in the way of the story, when I begin to think more about their politics than their story, then it's too much. Ayn Rand is a good example. I've tried to read her stuff, and can't. Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein is right on the edge. There are times when his long soap-box libertarian speeches pull me out of the story and put me into skim mode to get back to the book.
Gotta go with Improbable Joe. OSC and his views are a big part of the reason that the LDS Church has to do most of its growing by offshore proselytizing.
One little poem from Pastor Martin Niemöller seems to put the lie to any number of pronouncements from The Quorum of the Twelve.
What defines "Hateful".
An example
"That there is no god that those that believe that there is are fools and idiots that use their beliefs to rape and kill."
That is pretty hateful if you believe in God. If you are an Atheist you might find the above factual. One person hate is can be another persons truth and it is slippery slope trying to define the difference.
/Reading/ the work of an author and being influenced by external political information is one thing - that just requires objectivity and discipline as a reader. But /buying/ a book knowing some part of my money is going to be used to fund evil (Orson Scott Card) even if no direct political mention is made in the work itself is something else entirely. No matter how much I might like the author or the book, my conscience won't allow me to pretend that isn't wrong.
Three words: Orson Scott Card.
As far as I'm concerned he's not much better than a member of the KKK, thanks to his outspoken bigotry against homosexuals. I wouldn't give him a penny of my hard-earned money.
Some writers' stances are so well-known before I ever pick up a book that I don't; I know I am not going to like Ayn Rand or the Left-Behind series. Does explicitly political writing rise or fall on one's reader being able to stomach the characters? Is any writing free of some political slant; can I read swords-and-sorcery without condoning the divine right of kings? How about Kipling?
I find an author's politics and or morality (or lack of them) will sometimes ruin a character for me, particularly if the character comes across as facile (dumb and self-righteous about it). The baddies in some books were less annoying than some of the supposed good guys (in Pern, for instance... ). I know that agreeing with Kim Stanley Robinson's politics (as I perceive them) has added greatly to my enjoyment of his books (though Nadia and I disagree on capital punishment).
It depends on how blunt an instrument the author uses, and what the author is trying to say. If you write as well as Ursula K. LeGuin I think you'll find a lot more people will finish the book whether they agree with you or not.
The only authors to avoid are ones who are completely disagreeable. One of my favorite authors is a staunch conservative and his views trickle into his stories in sometimes unpleasant places but it isn't nearly enough to make me stop reading his books. But if politics are the heart of the story and they are blindly going against my beliefs (or possibly even support them) then I would have to end that book.