Books and Problematic Authors

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I would hope we could all agree that William Luther Pierce (aka Andrew Macdonald) would be a universally problematic author.

Based on your link, I’m not interested in reading his books. But if I wanted to learn a lot about his ideology, I probably would at least start one.

They wouldn’t give me cooties.

Now, I wouldn’t buy one because of concern that I would be funding people who want to kill my family. But I think some of the larger research libraries should. Failure to do so would impede research concerning his ideology.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by haertig

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".

Got it. It's "cancel culture" (pushing their viewpoint) when you disagree with the viewpoint, and it's "freedom of speech" (expressing their viewpoint) when you DO agree with it. Seems simple enough. Thanks for clearing that up.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Based on your link, I’m not interested in reading his books. But if I wanted to learn a lot about his ideology, I probably would at least start one.

They wouldn’t give me cooties.

Now, I wouldn’t buy one because of concern that I would be funding people who want to kill my family. But I think some of the larger research libraries should. Failure to do so would impede research concerning his ideology.

To be clear: Books shouldn't be banned. To be honest, I don't really like the term 'problematic author.'

But man, if there is such a thing as a universally problematic author, that guy fits the bill.

Having acknowledged that, I'm not saying his books should be legally forbidden from being sold. They have directly or indirectly inspired terrorist attacks. But then supposedly, so has Catcher in the Rye.

This is America. He doesn't have a right to be published by the Big Five or to have his books shelved at B&N. But he does have the right to publish his abominable beliefs and to try to peddle them in whatever way he is able to.

[SteveEisenberg]

I just came across a pure example of cancel culture. Dozens of Princeton University faculty members last week advocated creation of a committee that would stop publications, by fellow faculty members, they deem beyond the pale:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1F...CkyIA/viewform

Constitute a committee composed entirely of faculty that would oversee the investigation and discipline of racist behaviors, incidents, research, and publication on the part of faculty, following a protocol for grievance and appeal to be spelled out in Rules and Procedures of the Faculty. Guidelines on what counts as racist behavior, incidents, research, and publication will be authored by a faculty committee for incorporation into the same set of rules and procedures.

I personally, from time to time, read publications -- specifically, books -- written by Princeton faculty members, so this is a threat to my freedom to read (just as the excuse for shouting down, made in #100, is a threat to my freedom to listen).

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I just came across a pure example of cancel culture. Dozens of Princeton University faculty members last week advocated creation of a committee that would stop publications, by fellow faculty members, they deem beyond the pale:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1F...CkyIA/viewform



I personally, from time to time, read publications -- specifically, books -- written by Princeton faculty members, so this is a threat to my freedom to read (just as the excuse for shouting down, made in #100, is a threat to my freedom to listen).

Neither your freedom to read or listen would be impinged upon by any of that, even setting aside that you’re using “freedom to” as an ethical construct rather than a legal one.

The Princeton issue reads as a committee which would hold sway over Princeton University Press rather than the faculty’s ability to publish outside the university. Which Princeton is wholly within their rights to incorporate into their practices, employment does not guarantee publication by the university.

Any other issues raised by that committee read as textbook examples of at will employment and contracted employment. You can be terminated if your employer feels your behavior reflects poorly upon them (assuming it’s not as part of being within a protected class I.e. they can not terminate your employment for being a woman, or a PoC, etc).

The professor is still free to publish if they can find a publisher or can self publish.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Got it. It's "cancel culture" (pushing their viewpoint) when you disagree with the viewpoint, and it's "freedom of speech" (expressing their viewpoint) when you DO agree with it.

I never said anything about agreeing or disagreeing with a viewpoint. That was all you. I've got to say, you are the master at putting words in peoples mouths that weren't said or intended. You may see yourself as "winning" a discussion that way, but the rest of us don't.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Got it. It's "cancel culture" (pushing their viewpoint) when you disagree with the viewpoint, and it's "freedom of speech" (expressing their viewpoint) when you DO agree with it. Seems simple enough. Thanks for clearing that up.

Not at all. It's "pushing" when you demand others stop expressing their viewpoint. It's "freedom of speech" when you just say you don't like their viewpoint. Seems simple enough.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by haertig

I've got to say, you are the master at putting words in peoples mouths that weren't said or intended. You may see yourself as "winning" a discussion that way, but the rest of us don't.

So now you're speaking for "the rest of us" are you?

I'll take your decision to get personal to mean that you've run out relevant arguments to defend your stance. A couple of quick questions (using your own words so I'm not accused of manipulation) if you don't mind: looking back through the thread, do you feel you've been pushing the opinion that what you choose to refer to as cancel culture is a real and present danger, or do you feel you've been merely expressing it? I'm just trying to get a better handle on the whole pushing vs expressing argument. Aren't you sort of demanding that everyone should view what you refer to as cancel culture as a creeping danger to society (instead of an act of free speech many believe it is)?

[darryl]

I've refrained from this discussion until now, mainly because I've been stuck on a sub-standard mobile broadband connection for the last few days and have spent very little time online.

My views on this issue are very simple. Many people who create great art and literature are terrible human beings, and none are perfect. I let the works stand on their own merits. I find the whole cultural appropriation concept abhorrent. I'm happy to know nothing about a writer of fiction or their background, particularly the colour of their skin or their sex. If a racist, a murderer or a child molester produces great work, I'm not going to deprive myself of the pleasure of reading it. If a work is related to crimes they have been convicted of then they may well not be entitled to the proceeds of the sales in any event. Even if they are, a traditionally published author will receive nothing or a tiny amount of royalty from each sale. And perhaps a great work of art or literature which brings pleasure to many may go towards making up for their crimes in some small way.

I am not interested in others telling me what I should not read. Nor, for that matter, do I approve of pressuring a publisher into not publishing or withdrawing a book from sale so as to prevent me from reading it. If you want to boycott particular authors because you regard their views as problematic, real or imagined, go right ahead. Do an unfavourable review. But please don't start a crusade with the ultimate aim of damaging the author and denying others the choice of reading that author's work. And, of course, of making you satisfied at the resulting widespread proliferation of your own virtue. I was reading Orson Scott Card long before his personal views were derided. If you boycott his works then I can vouch for the fact that you are missing out on some great reading. But that is of course your personal prerogative.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by darryl

Many people who create great art and literature are terrible human beings, and none are perfect. I let the works stand on their own merits.

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

I'm happy to know nothing about a writer of fiction or their background, particularly the colour of their skin or their sex. If a racist, a murderer or a child molester produces great work, I'm not going to deprive myself of the pleasure of reading it.

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.

If a work is related to crimes they have been convicted of then they may well not be entitled to the proceeds of the sales in any event. Even if they are, a traditionally published author will receive nothing or a tiny amount of royalty from each sale.

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

And perhaps a great work of art or literature which brings pleasure to many may go towards making up for their crimes in some small way.

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.”

And, of course, of making you satisfied at the resulting widespread proliferation of your own virtue.

Some projection here, perhaps?

I was reading Orson Scott Card long before his personal views were derided. If you boycott his works then I can vouch for the fact that you are missing out on some great reading.

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.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by darryl

I've refrained from this discussion until now, mainly because I've been stuck on a sub-standard mobile broadband connection for the last few days and have spent very little time online.

My views on this issue are very simple. Many people who create great art and literature are terrible human beings, and none are perfect. I let the works stand on their own merits. I find the whole cultural appropriation concept abhorrent. I'm happy to know nothing about a writer of fiction or their background, particularly the colour of their skin or their sex. If a racist, a murderer or a child molester produces great work, I'm not going to deprive myself of the pleasure of reading it. If a work is related to crimes they have been convicted of then they may well not be entitled to the proceeds of the sales in any event. Even if they are, a traditionally published author will receive nothing or a tiny amount of royalty from each sale. And perhaps a great work of art or literature which brings pleasure to many may go towards making up for their crimes in some small way.

I am not interested in others telling me what I should not read. Nor, for that matter, do I approve of pressuring a publisher into not publishing or withdrawing a book from sale so as to prevent me from reading it. If you want to boycott particular authors because you regard their views as problematic, real or imagined, go right ahead. Do an unfavourable review. But please don't start a crusade with the ultimate aim of damaging the author and denying others the choice of reading that author's work. And, of course, of making you satisfied at the resulting widespread proliferation of your own virtue. I was reading Orson Scott Card long before his personal views were derided. If you boycott his works then I can vouch for the fact that you are missing out on some great reading. But that is of course your personal prerogative.

Exactly.

Shari

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by issybird

And I really don’t buy it when people say they’re clueless about an author’s race, etc.

Why? I certainly don't google every author I read, and unless there's a photo of the author included in the book, I generally don't have any idea about their age, race or even gender (after all, they might use a pseudonym). I learn about authors' egregious misdeeds only when I stumble upon someone mentioning them (which doesn't happen often, because I rarely use social media and visit only a couple of forums regularly, so the hullabaloo must be really big for me to know about it. Like it was in MZB's case). Why is it so hard to believe that many people just don't care all that much what sort of person the author is?

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

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

He was the last example of many that I brought up over multiple posts, so I wouldn't say he was my chosen to make a stand. I was adding his name to the list as an example of a dropped contract

[Paperbackstash]

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.

It's tricky. She wasn't bringing up another about the worker because of the employees race. She was being annoying, yes, but she was upset the worker was breaking the rules and sitting there eating on the train. She should have ignored it, certainly shouldn't have brought attention to it on social media. She was being obnoxious, and totally Karen thing to do. I don't think she was doing it because of racism, however, I think she's just annoying. She was bringing up the point that she is also a woman of color to defend herself from people accusing her of doing this due to racism.

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Why? I certainly don't google every author I read, and unless there's a photo of the author included in the book, I generally don't have any idea about their age, race or even gender (after all, they might use a pseudonym). I learn about authors' egregious misdeeds only when I stumble upon someone mentioning them (which doesn't happen often, because I rarely use social media and visit only a couple of forums regularly, so the hullabaloo must be really big for me to know about it. Like it was in MZB's case). Why is it so hard to believe that many people just don't care all that much what sort of person the author is?

I agree with this and have been in the same boat. I also get the same accusation when I've brought this up. When having to go through my ratio (based on a challenge prompt on BookRiot), I had to go and look through all my books read, google the author's name to try to find information about them or a picture, because I honestly had no clue on the race of most of them. An exception would be top favorites where they have their pictures online, but a lot of authors now use graphics or drawings of themselves so I can hardly tell. It's easier to keep up with and notice if you don't read a high volume or actively look. I'm trying to be more observant these past 2 years, but I have always chosen the books on their back cover blurb or reputation as a recommendations, or sometimes sales when browsing websites. I don't know what most authors look like or much about them unless something unusual is brought to my attention by someone else, like a Twitter storm that mentions the cases I've posted as examples in this thread.

Either way, it is something I've realized I do need to pay more attention to.