Books and Problematic Authors

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by Paperbackstash

She was being obnoxious, and totally Karen thing to do. I

And that is obnoxious. Do not use a ethnic group, age, gender or someone's name to stereotype or criticize a group.

This recent Karen thing is as bad as some people vs Ginger Hair and worse than labelling people as Milleniums, Boomers, Gen<whatever> because people are all different.
Lots of humans are called Karen.

[issybird]

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 think it’s disingenuous. A reader might not, probably does not, care, but to say they don’t have a pretty good and accurate sense of the author’s particulars most of the time I think is unrealistic and dishonest. This is most especially true when it comes to race, where the descriptors contain all sorts of clues. Take J.K. Rowling, for instance. The initials were intended to obfuscate her sex and given her eponymous character, the assumption could have been made that she was a man. But could there have been any doubt at all that she was white? The overwhelming majority of the time, the race of the author will be blindingly obvious. In fact, I have no issue with an imaginative work’s being about an experience that’s different from the author’s and that includes race and ethnicity. But they need to get it right, and it needs to be of such a caliber that it precludes the notion of exploitation, as with Alexander McCall Smith’s deeply offensive books about the No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency. Oh, those charming Africans. How very droll.

Heinous deeds done by the author are different; I agree that you wouldn’t necessarily know or find out and why should you? However, if you do find out, then you can choose whether or not to continue to support the person economically. I’m just not all that fond of arguments that cite either the “greatness” of the work or that the work stands on its own merits as justification. That’s a judgment for time to make. But I’m also not a moral arbiter or the internet police, so I don’t care, either. Read what you want. But if you’re going to post about it, expect blowback.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Paperbackstash

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

Okay, forget Milo. That in general is a good thing for everyone to do. Milo has more than burned his bridges.

However, aside from Linda Fairstein, who is the one inarguable case of an author having a contract cancelled, the rest of the people you mentioned were cases where the author chose to pull their book from publication. They weren't dropped.

And in several cases, their minds changed and the books are now available.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

...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 feel that I have been expressing it. Had I been pushing it, I might have targeted you as an adversary, tried to determine your real identity and "dox" you on the web, because I happen to disagree with you on this topic we are discussing. I might have tried to organize boycotts of your posts (tried to get other forum members to stop responding to them), because I disagree with what you are saying. I might have tried to contact the management of this forum (the administrators) in an attempt to get you banned for some made up or exaggerated offense. I might have tried to dig into you personally via research on the internet, in an attempt to find other areas you are involved in that I could use to cast aspirations your way. Possibly I might have found that one of your friends is an XYZ, and that could have been used against you.

But I am not doing any of that. I am simply stating my viewpoint. You then take that viewpoint and twist it around in an attempt to make it seem I said something that I didn't. I don't care for that, but I cannot control your actions. And even though your actions are distasteful to me, they will not trigger me to start "pushing" my viewpoint by doing things, for example, like I mentioned in the paragraph above.

There is a significant difference between expressing and pushing. I am sorry that you cannot see it. One thing you might try though, is look for some element of punishment, usually far in excess of the "crime". If you see any indication of punishment evident, then most likely (but not 100%) it is a "push" and not an "expression". But looking for the punishment element is only a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. Use common sense when applying this guideline.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by issybird

I think it’s disingenuous. A reader might not, probably does not, care, but to say they don’t have a pretty good and accurate sense of the author’s particulars most of the time I think is unrealistic and dishonest. This is most especially true when it comes to race, where the descriptors contain all sorts of clues. Take J.K. Rowling, for instance. The initials were intended to obfuscate her sex and given her eponymous character, the assumption could have been made that she was a man. But could there have been any doubt at all that she was white? The overwhelming majority of the time, the race of the author will be blindingly obvious. In fact, I have no issue with an imaginative work’s being about an experience that’s different from the author’s and that includes race and ethnicity. But they need to get it right, and it needs to be of such a caliber that it precludes the notion of exploitation, as with Alexander McCall Smith’s deeply offensive books about the No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency. Oh, those charming Africans. How very droll.

Heinous deeds done by the author are different; I agree that you wouldn’t necessarily know or find out and why should you? However, if you do find out, then you can choose whether or not to continue to support the person economically. I’m just not all that fond of arguments that cite either the “greatness” of the work or that the work stands on its own merits as justification. That’s a judgment for time to make. But I’m also not a moral arbiter or the internet police, so I don’t care, either. Read what you want. But if you’re going to post about it, expect blowback.

I agree that race (in the US sense of white/non-white at least) is relatively easy to guess, if one bothers to do so. I generally don't, because I'm just not interested. I don't care what the author's skin color is. It has nothing to do with my enjoyment or lack of enjoyment of their book. Admittedly I read almost exclusively modern books these days, so any ignorance or prejudices in them are a lot less glaring than in older literature (there are exceptions, of course).

And of course the reader's background is crucial in how sensitive they are to racial issues; I'm sure that many things a reader from the US immediately notices go right over my head, because I have lived in a racially homogenous country all my life. The only non-white people I saw while growing up were tourists, and even they were very rare. So I'm probably pretty insensitive to racial issues in books.

[issybird]

Not caring is not the same as not knowing, and I think it’s disingenuous to say that because you don’t care, you don’t know. And I don’t mean you in particular, but anyone who claims ignorance, and most especially when they’re claiming a higher moral ground at the same time.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Okay, forget Milo. That in general is a good thing for everyone to do. Milo has more than burned his bridges.

However, aside from Linda Fairstein, who is the one inarguable case of an author having a contract cancelled, the rest of the people you mentioned were cases where the author chose to pull their book from publication. They weren't dropped.

And in several cases, their minds changed and the books are now available.

Linda Fairstein and Gillian Philip who was dropped for her support of J.K. Rowling, though as noted previously Philip was part of a collective writing under the name Erin Hunter and the publisher claims she connected her views to the Erin Hunter name. I can't determine how accurate that claim is, reportedly Philip had put "I stand with Rowling" in her twitter profile, but I don't know if she had anything connecting her twitter profile to the name Erin Hunter nor how obvious or clear it was to readers of the Warrior Cats series which Erin Hunter writes that the author consisted of a collective of which Philip was one.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by issybird

Not caring is not the same as not knowing, and I think it’s disingenuous to say that because you don’t care, you don’t know. And I don’t mean you in particular, but anyone who claims ignorance, and most especially when they’re claiming a higher moral ground at the same time.

Honestly, I don't know most of the time, because I don't think about it. Yes, people can read a book without thinking about its author's race even once. Not in the US, perhaps, but certainly in many other countries.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Honestly, I don't know most of the time, because I don't think about it. Yes, people can read a book without thinking about its author's race even once. Not in the US, perhaps, but certainly in many other countries.

It’s not something that crosses my mind. I’ll look at the title and synopsis of the book to decide if it’s something I want to read. Something going digital has made easier because I don’t need to be aware of the last name of an author while browsing a shelf.

Of course even judging by the name of an author is already fraught with perils and will only continue to be so in and become even more so, pen names exist, and more and more people are marrying different ethnicities which of course results in more varied names, there’s also adoption to consider.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by issybird

Not caring is not the same as not knowing, and I think it’s disingenuous to say that because you don’t care, you don’t know. And I don’t mean you in particular, but anyone who claims ignorance, and most especially when they’re claiming a higher moral ground at the same time.

I'm certainly not claiming higher moral ground, but as a teenager I enjoyed Andre Norton books. It was not until I had completed one of two of them that I found out the author was female. So such ignorance does happen on occasion, but probably not very frequently.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Honestly, I don't know most of the time, because I don't think about it. Yes, people can read a book without thinking about its author's race even once. Not in the US, perhaps, but certainly in many other countries.

Oh, people can read a book in the US without thinking about the author's race even once in the US as well, unless of course the author makes a big deal of it. Some authors post their pictures, some don't. I suppose if a reader considers it a big deal, then that reader can track down most authors, though some authors use a pseudonym that hasn't been pierced yet.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

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.

This is mistaken and, although wholly innocent in terms of motive, a slander against the freedom to read commitment of the staff of the Princeton University Press.

The word "Press" never appears anywhere in the letter I criticized in #109. It's not in the text, nor in the titles of the (by my count) 406 signatories.

I checked the Princeton University Press employee list and, for each of the several dozen with the word Director, Publisher, or Editor in their job title, I did a search to see if any had signed the letter. I could not find any Press people, even though many other non-faculty Princeton affiliated people did sign.

This could be a coincidence. Or it could be that the Press people rank freedom to read higher than the signatories. As a reader, I hope their declining to sign reflects publisher values.

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Any other issues raised by that committee read as textbook examples of at will employment and contracted employment.

Tenure for university faculty, and freedom to read -- especially for non-fiction -- are thus connected.

Originally Posted by MGlitch

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

Princeton faculty salaries will then become golden handcuffs. That's just what I'm against.

P.S. For reference, here is the entire paragraph I criticized:

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.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

This is mistaken and, although wholly innocent in terms of motive, a slander against the freedom to read commitment of the staff of the Princeton University Press.

False, it's a comment on what those who wrote and signed the letter were asking of Princeton University. Of which Princeton University Press is wholly controlled by.

The word "Press" never appears anywhere in the letter I criticized in #109. It's not in the text, nor in the titles of the (by my count) 406 signatories.

Again, I'm not saying Princeton University Press is requesting to be further regulated. So any staff of the publishing division signing or not is entirely irrelevant to the letters request.

Here:

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, ...

Emphasis mine. As this is a letter to a university body, which oversees the publishing arm of said university (why this last even needs to be stated is beyond me, it's standard practice for major universities to have publishing divisions) it follows that they are speaking of that same publishing division as they are the most likely by far to be the publisher of faculty's research

I checked the Princeton University Press employee list and, for each of the several dozen with the word Director, Publisher, or Editor in their job title, I did a search to see if any had signed the letter. I could not find any Press people, even though many other non-faculty Princeton affiliated people did sign.

This could be a coincidence. Or it could be that the Press people rank freedom to read higher than the signatories. As a reader, I hope their declining to sign reflects publisher values.

[quote[
Tenure for university faculty, and freedom to read -- especially for non-fiction -- are thus connected.

Princeton faculty salaries will then become golden handcuffs. That's just what I'm against.
[/QUOTE]

For the nth time in this thread, your "freedom to read" is not impinged upon, you are still free to read. The professors and faculty are free to write whatever they wish. They are not free from the consequences of writing whatever they wish, they and indeed no citizen have ever enjoyed that freedom.

You're demanding freedoms for the faculty while limiting the freedoms of the university. Freedoms which as mentioned no one in history have every held.

[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.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by darryl

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

On the contrary, very similar situations. Briefly, my point was that if you can justify buying an author’s work because there’s an infinitesimal royalty earned, by the same token there’s no point in voting, i.e., the individual has an imperceptible impact on the outcome in both cases. One can only make the right choice for themselves and act on it, in the knowledge that if others agree, they will prevail. A collective action, whether it be an election or a book purchase, is based on such individual decisions.