Books and Problematic Authors

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I believe people are free to believe anything (or any way) they like. They're also free to express those beliefs or opinions. But no one is entitled to immunity from criticism (organized or otherwise) that might stem from those beliefs or opinions (or the expression therof) should they become public knowledge.

And people are free to demand that other people stop freely expressing their opinions? Because that's what they do. They don't just criticize. They want authors and publishers not to publish those books they dislike so much.

Criticism is fine. Wanting to stop other people expressing opinions different from your own, that's something else.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

H. P. Lovecraft was an out and out racist. So I would guess you won't be reading any of his books and anyone else's books based in Lovecraft's work.

I know this was written an age ago in internet forum time, but I keep rolling it around in my head. Why on earth would I, knowing Lovecraft was a hideous racist, also avoid anyone else's books based in his work?

That would deprive me of some really amazing modern works like The City We Became by N.K. Jemisin, The Ballad of Black Tom by Victor LaValle, The Dream-Quest of Vellitt Boe by Kij Johnson.

And two I haven't read yet but am looking forward to, Lovecraft Country and In the Shadow of Spindrift House.

Heck, even the Night Vale universe could be considered to be based in Lovecraftia.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

And people are free to demand that other people stop freely expressing their opinions? Because that's what they do.

Of course. And the people to whom they make those sort of demands are free to tell them to go to hell. They're also free to reflect on whether or not they're thinking clearly RE the subject that got people angry at them in the first place. Free, free, free. No one's entitled to a silent and/or supportive sounding-board for the free speech they're guaranteed. No one's entitled to be liked, ignored, excused, or uncriticized for exercising their right to freely voice their opinions.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

It’s also not clear if another publisher won’t pick her up, or if she won’t go the self published route (she’s easily got the funds to).

Originally Posted by Paperbackstash

I doubt they'd take the risk due to outcry and not risking loss of rep/money.

Woody Allen's biography was picked up by Simon and Schuster. I'd think his reputation is worse than Linda Fairstein.

We all remember Milo Yiannopoulos was dropped due to outcry from Twitter and liberal media from his six-book deal

Do you really want Milo Yiannopoulos to be where you make your stand?

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Of course. And the people to whom they make those sort of demands are free to tell them to go to hell. They're also free to reflect on whether or not they're thinking clearly RE the subject that got people angry at them in the first place. Free, free, free.

Well, there we disagree. I don't believe anyone is free to try and curtail someone else's freedom, unless a real crime has been committed, and there is a due process for criminal activity. Demanding that books be burned (or the modern equivalent) is not freely expressing an opinion, it's an attempt to silence different opinions.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

No one's entitled to be liked, ignored, excused, or uncriticized for exercising their right to freely voice their opinions.

I agree with your list.

Now, if someone added "keep their job," or "not be shouted down," to the list of what they aren't entitled to, I would have a problem.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Paperbackstash

I doubt they'd take the risk due to outcry and not risking loss of rep/money

For the woman who lost her book contract due to Twitter anger/cancel culture when people were upset about her photo of the employee eating on the train, she tried to sue the publisher. She had to remove all her media off the internet and delete her profiles due to private messages and attacks. Not sure what ever happened to the lawsuit. Writer sues after losing book deal over transit worker flap

We all remember Milo Yiannopoulos was dropped due to outcry from Twitter and liberal media from his six-book deal

This is reverse racism. Just because someone is of color does not mean they cannot be reported for doing something wrong. I diasgree with "You're of color so you get a free pass". Anyone doing something wrong should be reported no matter what color/race you are.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by ema1982

I have another name for you. Kosoko Jackson was pressured into cancelling his debut novel “A Place for Wolves” before it was even published because some random claimed it was Islamophobic. Turns out she was wrong, but that didn’t stop the Twitter mob.

I mentioned Kosoko Jackson in post #81. I don't doubt that Kosoko (and Alexandra) took Twitter too seriously and decided for their own reasons not to publish.

But then there are counter examples Laurie Forest and Amélie Wen Zhao. They faced the same amount of pressure from the same people. Yet they went ahead with publication and both seem to have found success.

How do you explain those two?

Kosoko didn't publish. And I feel bad for him. But he could have persevered. He also could have gotten off Twitter.

Just last month, Alexandra Duncan was pressured into cancelling her book “Ember Days” because she, a white woman, dared to use Gullah culture as an inspiration.

Have you ever read I Been in Sorrow's Kitchen and Licked Out All the Pots? It's a book set in the Gullah culture of South Carolina written by a white woman. The book is nearly thirty years old and there's no outcry. Even now you go look at the reviews on Amazon and there's nothing like what you describe.

If the author decides to cancel their own book, that's on them. Perhaps we would all be much better off if Kosoko Jackson and Alexandra Duncan ignored the Twitter trolls and just proceeded with publication of their books.

Twitter seems like a big deal to people that spend a lot of time on Twitter. But if you stop checking, the world is a different place.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by meeera

I know this was written an age ago in internet forum time, but I keep rolling it around in my head. Why on earth would I, knowing Lovecraft was a hideous racist, also avoid anyone else's books based in his work?

That would deprive me of some really amazing modern works like The City We Became by N.K. Jemisin, The Ballad of Black Tom by Victor LaValle, The Dream-Quest of Vellitt Boe by Kij Johnson.

And two I haven't read yet but am looking forward to, Lovecraft Country and In the Shadow of Spindrift House.

Heck, even the Night Vale universe could be considered to be based in Lovecraftia.

Because these author's are basing their work off of the work of someone who is an out and out big time racist. They should get some better ideas that are no based on the work of such a person.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Now, if someone added "keep their job," or "not be shouted down," to the list of what they aren't entitled to, I would have a problem.

So point to where and how you think those particular entitlements are granted, then. I'm unaware of any inalienable right to not be shouted down, but it's possible I missed it. Same goes for the right to keep the job of your own choosing for as long as you want it regardless of the circumstances.

Look: entities have been forced to make difficult decisions about whether to cut ties with other entities (or individuals) because of external (and often unfair) pressure since entities, contracts and jobs have been around. Certainly long before the term "cancel culture" was ever invented. And they'll continue to have to make such unfortunate decisions long after the manufactured bugbear of "cancel culture" fades into obscurity.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

This is reverse racism. Just because someone is of color does not mean they cannot be reported for doing something wrong. I diasgree with "You're of color so you get a free pass". Anyone doing something wrong should be reported no matter what color/race you are.

There's no such thing as "reverse racism."

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Because these author's are basing their work off of the work of someone who is an out and out big time racist. They should get some better ideas that are no based on the work of such a person.

I’m curious as to where one draws the line with this line of thought. Orson Scott Card has issues mentioned earlier on in this thread but most of his work doesn’t strongly reflect those views, I’m sure if you dug and stretched you might find some connections but you’d be stretching in order to do so. Philip Pullman would have problematic views for certain religious groups. Stephen King was a rip roaring drunk who by his own confessions doesn’t remember writing some of his own books (note this isn’t claiming he didn’t write them just that he was that intoxicated). Nabokov‘s Lolita has been accused of romanticizing pedophelia. Leo Tolstoy sure was a crappy husband though his wife might have had her revenge on him. Theodor Geisel aka Dr. Seuss, wore blackface in college and has several books with racist depictions of PoCs.

Should no work reference their ideas or, where allowed legally, take place in the universes they created?

It’s one thing to condemn the work of a problematic author, it’s quite another to condemn the work of a non problematic author who uses that work to grow their own. Especially if in doing so they remove any problematic elements from transitioning into their own.

Most often you can’t even make the argument that buying a second authors work funds in any way the problematic author because that problematic author doesn’t get royalties for the sales of books they did not write.

[haertig]

There is no such thing as a universally problematic author. There are only authors who are problematic to the person who is calling them problematic. But when that person tries to push their viewpoint on others, that's where things get truly problematic.

Note that I am saying "push their viewpoint", which is quite different from "express their viewpoint". "push their viewpoint" = "cancel culture", "express their viewpoint" = "freedom of speech".

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm unaware of any inalienable right to not be shouted down, but it's possible I missed it.

Are you talking about a matter of law within one North American nation? Could be. I was just expressing my personal value system.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Same goes for the right to keep the job of your own choosing for as long as you want it regardless of the circumstances.

I said that? If so, I didn’t think it.

I do think that more freedom to read is good, and less is bad. I vote for reading books by good people, and reading books by allegedly bad people, and reading books by actually bad people.

If err we must, I prefer to err on the side of free expression.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by haertig

There is no such thing as a universally problematic author. There are only authors who are problematic to the person who is calling them problematic. But when that person tries to push their viewpoint on others, that's where things get truly problematic.

I don't know. I would hope we could all agree that William Luther Pierce (aka Andrew Macdonald) would be a universally problematic author.