Books and Problematic Authors

[darryl]

Originally Posted by issybird

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.

My position is that there is no need to justify buying an author's work whatsoever. Even if someone is aware that they are buying the work of, say, a convicted criminal, and they have qualms about benefiting that criminal, they should be aware that their individual contribution is usually de minimus if anything. In the remote scenario where the work is a best seller and the author does profit significantly, any small contribution they may have made individually is more than justified by them having read a worthwhile work. I respect someone's right to choose for themselves not to read a book because of some problematic aspect of the authors conduct or character. They should likewise respect my choice as to what I choose to read.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

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

I agree that he is a very problematic author.

[issybird]

Some posts have been moved to a new thread in the Reading Recommendations forum.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=331518

[issybird]

Originally Posted by darryl

My position is that there is no need to justify buying an author's work whatsoever.

Except that by citing negligible profit to the author, you are justifying the purchase.

Even if someone is aware that they are buying the work of, say, a convicted criminal, and they have qualms about benefiting that criminal, they should be aware that their individual contribution is usually de minimus if anything.

And yet, if enough individuals give themselves a pass on a similar justification, it can add up to a bestseller. That was my point. Individual actions do matter. As you acknowledge in the next sentence.

In the remote scenario where the work is a best seller and the author does profit significantly, any small contribution they may have made individually is more than justified by them having read a worthwhile work.

Why? That’s a major moral pronouncement with no reasoning behind it. There are a lot of books out there, even a lot of worthwhile books, and no one can read all of them. Why not have the author’s personal worth in the case of egregious failings be part of the decision process? Especially since “worthwhile” means nothing at all.

I respect someone's right to choose for themselves not to read a book because of some problematic aspect of the authors conduct or character. They should likewise respect my choice as to what I choose to read.

Well, no. I did say that certainly AFAIC, people can read what they want. But expecting someone to respect a choice that he finds immoral is not at all warranted. There’s a chasm there, between respecting someone’s ability to choose and respecting someone’s choice. Such is society and such, one hopes, is how moral suasion works.

Bottom line, to repeat: read as you will, but if you’re going to parade it in the marketplace, you can expect some disapprobation.

[shalym]

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.

Ok...Samuel R. Delaney. I read some of his books, and had absolutely *no* idea of his race (just like I have no idea of the race of 99.9% of other authors that I've read, TBH). I didn't know that he was African-American until I just googled to find some non-white science fiction authors.

The same goes for Walter Mosley. I've read a lot of the Easy Rawlins books and had no idea of his race, either. It's not only that I don't care, I honestly didn't know.

This also goes for gender--When I read "The Outsiders" as a child, I had no idea the S.E. Hinton was woman.

You can believe me or not, but when I'm reading a story, I don't notice or think about the race or gender of the author unless it's constantly thrown in my face.

Shari

[Apache]

I do not care what the sex or ethnicity of an author is. most of the time I have no idea and when I do find out it is of no concern. Is the book going to be a good read to me is the only point I consider when buying books. I did not know that Andre Norton was a woman when I first started reading her books and would have read them any way if I had know. Octavia Butler was a great Science Fiction writer. The fact that she is a woman and black has no bearing on whether I read her books or not. I assumed, because of her name she was a woman, but had no idea what color her skin was. I do not understand why some people think the color of someone else's skin is relevant to anything.
Apache

[issybird]

Back on topic, please. Let’s keep this to the issue of problematic authors.

[Thasaidon]

In an earlier post Rider Haggard was accused of racism in books.

I disagreed and gave an example from the last Allan Quatermain book, which would be inconceivable if he was such a racist.

I then asked for an example of racism in his books

No one gave any.

So later I asked again for an example of racism in his books

Agaiin No one gave any.

So I will ask one last time and if no examples are given, I will take it that the accusation is just empty virtue signalling.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by Thasaidon

In an earlier post Rider Haggard was accused of racism in books.

I disagreed and gave an example from the last Allan Quatermain book, which would be inconceivable if he was such a racist.

I then asked for an example of racism in his books

No one gave any.

So later I asked again for an example of racism in his books

Agaiin No one gave any.

So I will ask one last time and if no examples are given, I will take it that the accusation is just empty virtue signalling.

I've read King Solomon's Mines and liked it very much. I don't think the author was a racist, considering the times he lived and wrote in.

I've also read Queen Sheba's Ring by Haggard. It wasn't as good as his first book and there were some elements there a bit more grating. But no, still not racist for his time.

By modern standards he was a racist, of course. So were almost all the other 19th and early 20th century writers.

[murraypaul]

To be on topic:
I distinguish between problematic views in a book and problematic views held by an author.

Implicit racism/sexism/... within a work can be at a level where I am no longer comfortable reading it, at which point I won't, and probably wouldn't buy any more books by the author.
Views held privately by the author, but which don't come through in their works, aren't something it would occur to me to consider when thinking about reading a book.
I don't read up about authors, or research their opinions, because I don't really care about the author personally, just about the books they write.

I had an example within books, but now can't remember what it was, and don't want to call out an author if I'm not sure I'm remembering correctly.

An example from TV would be the series The Unit. The ideologies the writers seem to implicitly assume I would hold were so intrusive and unpleasant that I stopped watching the series. If the writers had held the same views, but not made them obvious in the show, I would never have known, and would have carried on watching.

[gmw]

Even when I agree that an author may be problematic (a judgement, obviously, according to my own standards), I am not inclined to jump to conclusions as to why another person may have been reading the book. My reasons for reading have been many and varied.

So when I first read the what is now the OP, it made me very uncomfortable to read "do you feel comfortable posting". It may not have been intended, but I felt the judgemental stab of those words:

I once had an MZB book on my shelf. I gave it away* in a box of other stuff to charity. Was I being judged for allowing someone else to be infected by this book by a problematic person? Did I do wrong by not burning the book?

At first I wondered if the previous paragraph was an exaggeration, but if it was morally ambiguous to make one page of these words available for viewing as an example of the font used, just how bad was it to make whole book available for actual reading to some poor and unsuspecting young person? I am a horrible person! I blame it on my upbringing**.

I doubt if DNSB meant it to be interpreted in that extreme, but that sense of judgement is there in the OP, so I'm not surprised by the reaction to it.


I cannot change the fact that I have, in the past, supported authors who I have since found to be personally objectionable (according to my standards). I cannot even change my opinion of the books I read, although in some cases I have re-read with a more careful eye, wondering if the problems showed. I may decide not to support such authors now (those that are still publishing), but I am less inclined*** to punish the children of deceased authors for the sins of their parents.


* It was given away because it was one of the most boring books I've ever read, although that has nothing to do with the author being problematic in the sense of this thread.

** As a poor and unsuspecting young person I read a few books by MZB, they weren't all as bad as the particularly offensive example I gave away. No doubt it was this influence that led to my poor behaviour many years later.

*** I guess, if the work itself is problematic, then yes, I would still refrain from offering support.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

To be on topic:
I distinguish between problematic views in a book and problematic views held by an author.

Implicit racism/sexism/... within a work can be at a level where I am no longer comfortable reading it, at which point I won't, and probably wouldn't buy any more books by the author.
Views held privately by the author, but which don't come through in their works, aren't something it would occur to me to consider when thinking about reading a book.
I don't read up about authors, or research their opinions, because I don't really care about the author personally, just about the books they write.

I had an example within books, but now can't remember what it was, and don't want to call out an author if I'm not sure I'm remembering correctly.

An example from TV would be the series The Unit. The ideologies the writers seem to implicitly assume I would hold were so intrusive and unpleasant that I stopped watching the series. If the writers had held the same views, but not made them obvious in the show, I would never have known, and would have carried on watching.

I really enjoy the opposite examples, where the protagonist holds views I personally don't share, but are realistic considering the character's history and the book's setting and that's why they're there, not because the author thinks likewise. An excellent example is the Hope series by David Feintuch. The hero, Nicholas Seafort, has some not so pleasant beliefs and views, but they're entirely plausible in the series' universe and I don't think the author himself shared them. At least I didn't get that vibe from the books.

[astrangerhere]

Originally Posted by Thasaidon

In an earlier post Rider Haggard was accused of racism in books.

I disagreed and gave an example from the last Allan Quatermain book, which would be inconceivable if he was such a racist.

I then asked for an example of racism in his books

No one gave any.

So later I asked again for an example of racism in his books

Agaiin No one gave any.

So I will ask one last time and if no examples are given, I will take it that the accusation is just empty virtue signalling.

This is not hard. When the native Africans are referred to as "primitives" as well as the entire theme of the white saviors of Europe coming to "improve" the natives are obviously racist, even if they were the status quo of the time.

Did Haggard hold racist views? Almost certainly. He was involved in colonialism in South Africa, which was a whole bag of issues all on its own. Nevermind that modern African scholars deplore his work and others like it. Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o, a Kenyan scholar of race and literature, refers to Haggard as one of the "geniuses of racism" in his book Decolonizing the Mind.

He's dead and his works cannot profit anyone anymore, but I would still not enjoy reading them. However, as a member of a minority who had my private life subject to criminal law at one point, I am certainly not telling anyone what they can and can't read - only to be informed about it and not try to pretend that it is something that it isn't.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I really enjoy the opposite examples, where the protagonist holds views I personally don't share, but are realistic considering the character's history and the book's setting and that's why they're there, not because the author thinks likewise.

Oh, I agree, and that is why I made a point of saying implicit.
If a character is meant to hold certain views as part of the their backstory or personality, that is something else.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by najgori

I never use any of Eric Gill fonts in my work and I really hate that Gill Sans is on Kobo.

I wondered if anyone was going to mention Eric Gill.

I've found it fascinating that while everybody is quite well aware of his behavior, Gill Sans is EVERY-bloody-where, particularly in Creative work. The very people that you would most expect to eschew same...and it continues on and on and on. Something that, unlike books--good or great--would be simplicity itself to give up.

One (small) comment about the royalties and "rewards" for dead authors--for all you know, by not buying their works, you could be denying royalties or benefits to the very people that were abused, as the abuser himself (or herself) is obviously not around to benefit any longer.

Vis: Lynch and Bear--that's murky water and I certainly wouldn't hold my breath on any real decision or...well, anything. The person primarily making the claims appears to have made a similar claim about another married man, 3 years go. FWIW, and as the complainant is the age of consent and then some, I'm damned if I can see how that constitutes "abuse" rather than (what certainly seems to be) exceedingly poor judgment on the part of all parties. But, as with all things in the Twitterverse, surely, it won't die off any time soon, but will drag on for eternity.

Hitch