Books and Problematic Authors

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by Thasaidon

Thank you for that information. That changes my view of the situation.

I was not aware of this and perhaps I am a little too sensitive about the "cancel culture" that is so prevalent at the moment.

I too am sensitive about the cancel culture, especially initiated on Twitter, and am hesitant to jump on the banning bandwagon in general with this. Reminds me of bored people doing modern day witch hunts in SOME situations.

However, sometimes atrocious things come to light that just taint your image of the author to a destroying degree. MZB I never read, and don't plan to now, just about of what I now know and find it uncomfortable. Also not my genre.

The JK Rowling stuff going on does not make me want to "cancel" the author. I will not agree with every author politically, religiously, or socially. We are all different with our views so I do not "cancel" over this. Stephen King is very liberal, as an example, and I don't agree with everything he and his son Joe Hill tweet either, but I still like them as people as authors. I'm not threatened by different views and try to learn from them. An exception is hate filled messages or purposeful attacks/damage, which I don't think JKR is doing, despite a lot of Twitter disagreeing with me.

I cannot recall the name, but I remember years ago when it came out a published children's author was a pediophile imprisoned. I get not wanting to buy more children's books for this author and give him money for writing children's books considering he was a repeat offending of molesting children. It's just wrong on multiple levels. So, I get some of this.

I do think the cancel culture can go too far in other directions. When the Netflix show came out on the prosecutor for the show, When They See Us, the prosecutor, police, and several people associated with the case said the show was exaggerated and downright false in many aspects. I'm very against injustice and find false imprisonment one of the worst things imaginable. I think everyone this happens to should receive buckets of money to at least help, although it couldn't come close to making up for missing out on their life. That said, I also know that in a profession mistakes may be made, the show is likely not fully accurate, there are things the DA and police cannot tell us to explain decisions due to legal issues tying their hands, and I was against destroying the former chief of sexual crimes unit's current career of being a writer and wanting her removal from charity boards. It'd be different if she were still in the legal system and found to be making mistakes (with proof), then I can get her removed from that position, but she was retired from that position for quite awhile and her writing had nothing to do with making money off any former cases, whether errors were made or not in that career field.

There have been others I've felt bad for as well, especially when it was a bad day or small mistake. It really differs based on the crimes and intent of the author.

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I'm finding it harder to separate the author from their works as time goes on.

I don't see that I should spend money on someone I'd despise when there are so many alternatives.

Of course, the fact that there seem to be so many people who do and say things that I have never even dreamed of doing or saying is sad and, to me, surprising.

But then, I'm a white, cis, straight, middle class, well-off married man. I essentially never have people behaving badly towards me.

True. As some have said, cultural and societal views we disagree with can be understood to a point if they lived decades ago with ignorance, but when it comes to certain things like absolute cruelty, child abuse, etc., that's a different story.

I have heard that about Lovecraft with racism, and I know many mention John Wayne lately with his views. I read Agatha Christie's biography and the views they had during the Victorian times are certainly what we'd view as racism in today's time, but they did not in her time. She's always going to be one of my favorite authors, I get she was born in a completely different time period.

[Paperbackstash]

I am happy that publishers updated the Audiobook for Flowers in the Attic by V.C. Andrews. The original was a male, and while I'm not usually against males narrating books told through teenage girl's points of view in general, for Flowers in the Attic a female voice makes the most sense.

The original narrator, Ed Kemper, was recording hundreds of audiobooks from California Medical Facility. He was a serial killer who said it gave him a good feeling to narrate classic audiobooks to help people after all the horrors he had done. Most of the prisoners now work on braille books and not much audio, but the history is interesting on this. I doubt many who listened to a lot of these classic audiobooks realized who was reading to them, especially considering the subject matter of Flowers in the Attic. Ed Kemper killed his mother and grandmother too, so him reading about a mother/grandmother killing their children is almost ironic.

"Kemper remains among the general population in prison and is considered a model prisoner. He was in charge of scheduling other inmates' appointments with psychiatrists and was an accomplished craftsman of ceramic cups.[57] He was also a prolific reader of books on tape for the blind; a 1987 Los Angeles Times article stated that he was the coordinator of the prison's program and had personally spent over 5,000 hours narrating books with several hundred completed recordings to his name.[61] He was retired from these positions in 2015, after he experienced a stroke and was declared medically disabled. He received his first rules violation report in 2016, for failing to provide a urine sample.[62]" - Wikipedia

I didn't listen to audio back then and do not read braille. The history with this and the program at the prison is interesting. I know some wouldn't be comfortable with the narration, while others may not care of the narrator's history.

[haertig]

I don't choose what to read based on what someone else tells me I should or should not read. I do ask for suggestions of good books, but I'm not looking for suggestions based on ideology, politics, agendas, wokeness, or anything like that. I may read a book that is offensive to someone, but not to me. And I may set aside a book that is offensive to me, but not to someone else.

The problem with cancel culture is that it creeps. There was just an article in todays newspaper about someone of a certain ethnic group having the audacity to actually speak to a different person not of that ethnic group. There were calls to boycott his companys products because of that conversation. I can't go into more detail than that, because someone here would probably be offended if I mentioned a name, since one of the parties is indeed a well known politician, and this post would be deleted for anti-wokeness or some other such silly thing. But the whole affair was cancel culture run amok, as it is obviously doing these days.

So while someone may yell in your face today, "How could you possibly read a book written by a pedophile?!", in not too long that will have crept to "How could you possibly read a book written by someone who spoke to another who had a different political view?" I don't believe in cancel culture for books. Wokeness had its beginnings in being better informed and less ignorant. But then it morphed. And then it morphed again into cancel culture. Now, being demonstrably woke is the butt of many jokes (not from the woke themselves, of course). Wokeness crept and morphed from something good to something bad. When it gets to the point of shaming you based on what books you choose to read, that's bad.

[DiapDealer]

I don't believe in "cancel culture." It's a phrase only used by people who are just as bull-headed and unwilling to listen to others' opinions as the people they choose to slap the label on.

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by haertig

So while someone may yell in your face today, "How could you possibly read a book written by a pedophile?!", in not too long that will have crept to "How could you possibly read a book written by someone who spoke to another who had a different political view?" I don't believe in cancel culture for books. Wokeness had its beginnings in being better informed and less ignorant. But then it morphed. And then it morphed again into cancel culture. Now, being demonstrably woke is the butt of many jokes (not from the woke themselves, of course). Wokeness crept and morphed from something good to something bad. When it gets to the point of shaming you based on what books you choose to read, that's bad.

I agree with you. Some cases seem to me people getting bored and wanting to start up drama, or the bloodlust our society has always had transforming itself in a new way. As an example with your last line, some of the book friends I followed on Twitter were putting out calls that they were surprised some of their friends/followers were still following certain people, and that they would start blocking them and removing them from their lists. I'm like fine, I've moved past Junior High School. I saw a few other people state the same, they're like I'm in my 40's and have moved past others telling me who I can follow and be friends with.

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I don't believe in "cancel culture." It's a phrase only used by people who are just as bull-headed and unwilling to listen to others' opinions as the people they choose to slap the label on.

The danger in this is publishers drop author contracts based off the cancel culture trends on Twitter as well. It can become uncomfortably close to the old days of book censorship and book burning. People argue with me it is not, but I point out books were banned by parent groups in schools in the days of old for their thoughts at the time on what was wrong or inappropriate. If a book is boycotted by some readers by personal choice, fine, but for the books to be dropped or pulled until we keep getting them out of the mainstream availability line or circulation, we'll eventually we left with only some views to buy/read. That really is censorship and speaks of virtual book burning. Books used to be burned to get them out of circulation and the public availability, we just do it different ways now.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by shalym

This all started with DNSB trying to shame me for posting the picture of a page from a book...unfortunately, I refuse to feel shame.

You may have seen it as shaming. I asked if you were comfortable which is not quite the same thing. Your response suggested that you were aware of the issues around MZB.

And, yes, for me, child abuse is red flag. What consenting adults do to each other is their business. A quote I remember hearing from Pierre Elliott Trudeau: "there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation" and "what's done in private between adults doesn't concern the Criminal Code."

[pdurrant]

This is not aimed at anyone in particular, but I think a repeat of the warning every so often in what could become a rancorous thread is a good idea:

Members are reminded that party politics should be avoided outside of P&R, and that this thread is in the General Discussions forum.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Paperbackstash

The danger in this is publishers drop author contracts based off the cancel culture trends on Twitter as well. It can become uncomfortably close to the old days of book censorship and book burning. People argue with me it is not, but I point out books were banned by parent groups in schools in the days of old for their thoughts at the time on what was wrong or inappropriate. If a book is boycotted by some readers by personal choice, fine, but for the books to be dropped or pulled until we keep getting them out of the mainstream availability line or circulation, we'll eventually we left with only some views to buy/read. That really is censorship and speaks of virtual book burning. Books used to be burned to get them out of circulation and the public availability, we just do it different ways now.

Comparing what you choose to see as "cancel culture" to book burning/banning is quite laughable to me. Which authors have been cancelled? Which culture can no longer be read about by anyone who wants to?

[haertig]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Comparing what you choose to see as "cancel culture" to book burning/banning is quite laughable to me.

What happens, is you end up with posts like the following, which can be damaging to people, without being a "book burning/banning":

OTOH, do you feel comfortable posting the image of a page and reading books by an author accused by her children and others of child sexual abuse and rape? Who knew of and did not report her husband's sexual abuse of children?

This is clearly an attempt to publicly shame someone. Despite the fact that a followup post said it wasn't shaming, it surely was. What other possible point would there be to say something like that, if it wasn't to disparage someone? If you have to defend the innocence of a question, it probably wasn't so innocent in the first place.

This is evident by it being an impossible question to answer without alluding to having done something wrong. Similar to "Do you enjoy beating your wife?" Yes means you enjoy beating your wife, no means you beat your wife, but do not enjoy it. You are being entrapped, and not given a reasonable exit without implying you have done something wrong. I do consider this a form of shaming, because the desire is to hold a club over someones head, even if that objective is thinly veiled.

All that being said, this particular example of "shaming" is very minor IMHO, and falls more or less into the definition of reasonable discussion. For normal people, something like this would just bounce right off and cause no issues or hard feelings. It was just a slightly cutting bite in a conversation. We all do it all the time. But with today's triggered snowflakes, it might become front page news, get the shamed party fired from their job, and result in protesters chanting outside their house. I am only being half-satirical in that comment. This is what cancel culture is. Taking something to a ridiculous extreme in an attempt to denigrate someone else while elevating the shamer's own status.

Should people be shamed for reading Mein Kampf? Should it be banned? I would emphatically say "no", but I realize there are people who would just as emphatically say "yes". I do not agree with them, but wish them no harm for their differing viewpoint. I may personally have zero desire to read it, and that is my choice. But it shouldn't be for others to choose for me. Or to denigrate me if I did choose to read it.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Comparing what you choose to see as "cancel culture" to book burning/banning is quite laughable to me. Which authors have been cancelled? Which culture can no longer be read about by anyone who wants to?

JK Rowling would be a prime example of this, despite the ongoing statements from her about the trans community and the backlash she's gotten for it. Mind that she doubled (or tripled, or quadrupled etc I've really lost count) down on these views this year during Pride. In the highly charged atmosphere of this year.

But the Harry Potter books will continue to be published because despite the outrage over the author the books are purchased. Same goes for her mystery books.

Though a counter example would be Amelie Wen Zhao who in early 2019 cancelled her book "Blood Heir" due to, somewhat questionable, backlash over the topics within. Though she would later rework the novel for a late 2019 release, it's still heavily criticized based on the ARCs of the original work.

Both of these are YA authors primarily (as noted Rowling has some adult novels), and if one examines Rowling's work with a more critical eye they can pull all sorts of things from it which would be objectionable. The easiest example would be the slavery of the house elves who are happy to work for free serving the witches and wizards (Dobby being the exception, though he's shunned by other house elves over this).

In the original version of "Blood Heir" by Zhao, a black girl who was a slave died in the arms of a white girl (I'm not sure if the white girl was also a slave). This was removed from the final version, the dying girls skin tone is never mentioned.

It's also important to point out that Rowling's work is very much meant to happen in an alternate Earth, presumably non-magical events from this world have happened in that world. Zhao's work however is in an entirely fictional setting.

While neither is cancelled, it's rather hard to say that cancel culture did not deny us a version of a book. As to which version would be better I can't say, I've read neither the early version (which afaik was only released to reviewers and such) nor the released work.

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Comparing what you choose to see as "cancel culture" to book burning/banning is quite laughable to me. Which authors have been cancelled? Which culture can no longer be read about by anyone who wants to?

Some of the authors who have been cancelled on twitter had their books pulled before publications and contracts dropped. I saw some trying to boycott stores if they were still going to carry the books that were already published with other authors after their lost their publishing contracts. This is similar enough to trying to get rid of all the books available from authors people do not like to bring it up as a comparison

[issybird]

Originally Posted by haertig

Should people be shamed for reading Mein Kampf? Should it be banned? I would emphatically say "no", but I realize there are people who would just as emphatically say "yes". I do not agree with them, but wish them no harm for their differing viewpoint. I may personally have zero desire to read it, and that is my choice. But it shouldn't be for others to choose for me. Or to denigrate me if I did choose to read it.

I’m invoking Godwin’s Law here. You lose.

[Rbneader]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I don't believe in "cancel culture." It's a phrase only used by people who are just as bull-headed and unwilling to listen to others' opinions as the people they choose to slap the label on.

Same. People who complain about 'cancel culture' are just using it to push their views on others. You can see it happening in this very thread.

It's perfectly reasonable for someone to not want to give money or time to someone who has done horrible things. It's also reasonable for people to separate the art from the artist.

Although, I have found that frequently people who go on and on about 'the art is not the artist' & etc either agree with the artist or at the least think their actions aren't a big deal - I have had some incredibly unpleasant encounters with Tom Kratman and Larry Correia fans, for example - so I do side-eye people who bang on about it.

ETA: YA is its own toxic hellstew at the moment. AFAICT it's due to the intersection of young fans who don't have the experience to have a sense of proportion, young authors ditto, and incredibly nasty people taking advantage of both groups for popularity without giving a thought to the people they're stepping on. It's astonishingly similar to when a huge fandom breaks into factions, right down to the death threats and doxxing.