[darryl]

Originally Posted by issybird

“Great” is a judgment that’s arrived at over time. It’s really hard to apply it in the present.

My comment here was simply an observation, and an accurate one. It's application to the present is merely the obvious one that the more authors you exclude on this basis the greater your risk of missing out a great work, whether judged great by others in the future or whether you would have judged it as great now had you read it.

Originally Posted by issybird

Again, “great”? It’s an individual and situational call, but I’ll just note there are a lot of good, entertaining books out there. It’s hard for me to imagine something uniquely good or important. Generally, we’re not talking Shakespeare. And I really don’t buy it when people say they’re clueless about an author’s race, etc.

I have no interest in investigating an author's life to determine if they are worthy of having me read their books. Nor do I wish to take the word of some censorious social media denizens. I am interested in the work. In the case of non-fiction, my interest may extend to the author's academic qualifications or experience relevant to the work.

So far as race etc. is concerned, far too often I am not clueless. What I said was essentially that I would prefer to be.

Originally Posted by issybird

Alrighty then, by the same logic, there’s no point in voting.

Very different situations. A politicians views and prejudices, unlike an authors, are very relevant to how suitable they are for the offices they seek.

Originally Posted by issybird

Ugh. Far better to keep these two concepts entirely separate. The one can’t possibly compensate for the other. Moreover, they are, or should be, entirely unrelated anyway. Unless you’re saying that a molester who uses his experience as the font of his literature helps level the scales for what he did. “It’s true, he raped me at the age of 12, but a book came out of it, so it’s all good."

Some projection here, perhaps?

In Orson Scott Card's "Speaker for the Dead" Ender says, in response to a comment by Novinha:

“No human being, when you understand his desires, is worthless. No one’s life is nothing. Even the most evil of men and women, if you understand their hearts, had some generous act that redeems them, at least a little, from their sins.”

Even child molesters have the capacity to do some good, which cannot of course erase their crimes. I agree the two concepts should be separate. A work should be judged on its own merits, not the author's character. Your comment about projection is unfounded, insulting and unworthy of you. I'm not going to bother complaining but will treat it with the contempt it so richly deserves.

Originally Posted by issybird

Eh. Not my thing in any case. And as I said about, there’s no dearth of good books out there. But why would you think that your individual imprimatur carries any weight at all? This fuddles all your previous arguments, both about the individual having no weight (in regard to author’s profits) and the individual not being in a position to pass judgment.

But, whatever.

My imprimatur no doubt carries little if any weight to all but a few. I never thought otherwise. My man point was that I would buy a great book despite the author's crimes, real or imagined. This secondary aspect was simply pointing out that my individual contribution to the author was insignificant. Of course, in the case of large numbers buying such a book, the author may get a substantial benefit. Which is at least in my view not a sufficient reason to deprive myself of reading a great work.