DON'T Read Recommendations

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Dazrin

I agree with that in general, but in the specific instance where it is a book that you have a moral problem with, it hardly seems right to pass it along to another person. On the other hand, maybe that is the best way to read some of these books - used. Encourage people who want to read them to get them used so as not to support the author that you find detestable. While someone may have an objectionable past (or present), they can still put out interesting tales and buying used and encouraging that might satisfy your own principles.

I hear what you're saying, but I honestly don't think I've ever had "a moral problem with a book."

Authors; yes.

I may even choose to not spend my money on books by those authors any more. But if I had books of theirs that I decided to be rid of, I'd have no problem passing them along for others to read and make their own decisions about.

[AlexBell]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I hear what you're saying, but I honestly don't think I've ever had "a moral problem with a book."

Authors; yes.

It seems that the main intention is to avoid providing money to authors (or their immediate heirs) whose behaviour one does not approve, even if the behaviour is not mentioned in the plot. That makes things a bit clearer to me.

I'm still a bit puzzled on how behaviour is rated, or found reprehensible, and unlike DiapDealer I have had 'a moral problem with a book.' Some years ago I had collected all the 'Belisarius' series from Baen Books, and had enjoyed them. But the in the last one I read (as I remember) the two protagonists had deliberately destroyed a town with all its inhabitants because some people from the town had killed messengers sent by the protagonists. That to me was just as vile (though in a different way) as anything MZB did. So I deleted all the books from my reader and library, and have never bought anything from those authors again. I don't think I've bought anything from Baen again either, though that's probably going too far.

[Dazrin]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I hear what you're saying, but I honestly don't think I've ever had "a moral problem with a book."

Authors; yes.

For me it would be books that encourage or promote something I find morally reprehensible. The root would really still be the author(s), but I would have a problem with the book as well and wouldn't want to contribute to someone else finding something that I think is wrong.

It would take a lot to do that though. There are many books that feature things I find morally reprehensible that I really enjoy, it is the encouragement or promotion of those things that I have an issue with. If someone wrote a (serious) book on the joys of cannibalism, I would have a problem with it. If a book has contains information about or characters that are cannibals in it but does not actively encourage the reader to participate in cannibalism, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by Dazrin

I agree with that in general, but in the specific instance where it is a book that you have a moral problem with, it hardly seems right to pass it along to another person. On the other hand, maybe that is the best way to read some of these books - used. Encourage people who want to read them to get them used so as not to support the author that you find detestable. While someone may have an objectionable past (or present), they can still put out interesting tales and buying used and encouraging that might satisfy your own principles.

I faced that issue once with a series of books I won't glorify by naming. A few books into the series there was a brutal, sadistic torture-rape way above and beyond any violence that had appeared up to that point, and I felt traumatized for having read it. I finished the following chapter in a numb state, considered how to proceed, and despite my general (and generally unconditional) reverence for books, sent the lot of them to the landfill. They were unclean things, and I could not in good conscience allow them to pass from my hands into anyone else's.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by AlexBell

I'm still a bit puzzled on how behaviour is rated, or found reprehensible

Most people consider raping children to be unacceptable. After that it gets a bit fuzzy. Feel free to apply your own criteria.

Originally Posted by AlexBell

But the in the last one I read (as I remember) the two protagonists had deliberately destroyed a town with all its inhabitants because some people from the town had killed messengers sent by the protagonists. That to me was just as vile (though in a different way) as anything MZB did. So I deleted all the books from my reader and library, and have never bought anything from those authors again. I don't think I've bought anything from Baen again either, though that's probably going too far.

I've read those books and I don't remember that specific incidence. My conclusion is that fictional war crimes don't make as much impression on me as real-life rape of children.

[mbovenka]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I've read those books and I don't remember that specific incidence. My conclusion is that fictional war crimes don't make as much impression on me as real-life rape of children.

Yeah, same here. I've read them too, and I don't remember the incident either.

[mgbino]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Most people consider raping children to be unacceptable. After that it gets a bit fuzzy. Feel free to apply your own criteria.

Yeah, I don't think there is too much about a woman that raped her own daughter, repeatedly, until she was 12 that is acceptable. Beyond that, feel free to make your own call.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by Kasper Hviid

There's also the serial rapist Assange, whose insane defence is accepted by his fans.

Except that he's not a serial rapist. In Sweden, there is a law against not using a condom without the consent of the other party. That is what he's been accused of, and not convicted of. [political comment removed] So get your facts rights.

Edit: Apologies to mods if this comment belongs in the politics and religion section. Feel free to remove it. But please, remove the post I quoted as well.

[Kasper Hviid]

Originally Posted by Rizla

Except that he's not a serial rapist. In Sweden, there is a law against not using a condom without the consent of the other party. That is what he's been accused of, and not convicted of. [political comment removed] So get your facts rights.

Edit: Apologies to mods if this comment belongs in the politics and religion section. Feel free to remove it. But please, remove the post I quoted as well.

I'm sorry, but I think you might be misinformed. Here's what Assange is accused of:

Miss W phoned Assange and arranged to meet him late in the evening, according to her statement. The pair went back to her flat in Enkoping, near Stockholm. Miss W told police that though they started to have sex, Assange had not wanted to wear a condom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected sex. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when "he agreed unwillingly to use a condom".

Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."

(source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010...assange-sweden )

So, what Assange is accused of is not sexual intercourse without a rubber - rather, it is sexual intercourse with a sleeping woman, without a rubber, with him being fully aware that this is without her consent.

But, she did have consensual sex with him previous to that. This is not what he is being accused of, but it did happen. With extreme cynicism, one of Assanges lawyers informed the public that »The consent of both women to sex with Assange has been confirmed by prosecutors,«. In itself, this is quite true - but the lawyer fails to mention that that what his client has been accused of isn't the consensual sex, but the rape that took place afterwards.

Another of Assanges lawyers, Mark Stephen, claimed that »Assange is wanted not for allegations of rape, as previously reported, but for something called ‘sex by surprise.’« And what does that mean, exactly? It turns out that this is a translation of the Swedish s överraskningssex, which is slang for ... rape!

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Rizla

Edit: Apologies to mods if this comment belongs in the politics and religion section. Feel free to remove it. But please, remove the post I quoted as well.

I have removed the political part of your comment.

I do recommend that posters should consider that British libel laws might apply to posts made on MobileRead, since any on-line comments may be considered to have been published in the UK.

[Namekuseijin]

that's preposterous: there's been all kind of great talented people who've been real douchebags as human beings. Wagner, Michael Jackson, Newton, you name it. It doesn't bring a single spot to the genius in their work.

Not meaning that Marion is a genius, but come on... that's overreacting. And by that I mean not reading their books, not not punishing them for their crimes.

[Kasper Hviid]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

there's been all kind of great talented people who've been real douchebags as human beings. Wagner, Michael Jackson, Newton, you name it. It doesn't bring a single spot to the genius in their work.

I don't agree, but I can follow your logic: The specific sci-fi story is the same, no matter if the author is a saint or a monster. But the existence of this very thread proves that things don't work quite like that nowadays.

I think I have read somewhere that the earliest storytellers where anonymous craftsmen who didn't create stories to express their individuality. Rather, they were following tradition, and whatever stories they produced was not seen as 'their' stories. They had no intellectual ownership. It was a bit like jokes, which are shared freely, naturally being part of the public domain.

Nowadays, any published book has the name of the author clearly visible on the cover. Most often, the book writes a few flattering words about the author, and there might be a photograph too. When we pick up a book, we judge the book by the author. Even if we don't know the author, we have noticed if it is a man or a woman. But this somewhat intimate relation to the author becomes cucumbersome when she turns out to be a child molester.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Kasper Hviid

Nowadays, any published book has the name of the author clearly visible on the cover. Most often, the book writes a few flattering words about the author, and there might be a photograph too. When we pick up a book, we judge the book by the author. Even if we don't know the author, we have noticed if it is a man or a woman. But this somewhat intimate relation to the author becomes cucumbersome when she turns out to be a child molester.

Unless I know the author personally... no. The author name is a reference point that equates to a certain set of books -- a lookup name -- as well as a certain writing style. Personal life need not apply.

According to that logic, MZB/Wagner/Michael Jackson/Newton/others should not be read or heard of or touched with your ten-foot pole, under any circumstances. Whereas I got the impression that most people on this thread seem to object merely to allowing any monetary benefits to accrue to horrible people. Once the author dies, that is no longer a factor -- which would explain how people can live with themselves when they boycott MZB yet still listen to Wagner.

[varlog]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

...
According to that logic, MZB/Wagner/Michael Jackson/Newton/others should not be read or heard of or touched with your ten-foot pole, under any circumstances. ...

Is this Isaac Newton? I went through Wikipedia and haven't found anything there... virgin? male friend? religion? Nothing evil really. Perhaps his South Sea Company business? Could you elaborate?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by varlog

Is this Isaac Newton? I went through Wikipedia and haven't found anything there... virgin? male friend? religion? Nothing evil really. Perhaps his South Sea Company business? Could you elaborate?

Ask him :

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

that's preposterous: there's been all kind of great talented people who've been real douchebags as human beings. Wagner, Michael Jackson, Newton, you name it. It doesn't bring a single spot to the genius in their work.

Not meaning that Marion is a genius, but come on... that's overreacting. And by that I mean not reading their books, not not punishing them for their crimes.