Books and Problematic Authors

[4691mls]

Maybe if I heard something about an author that I thought was terrible I would consider not reading their books (at least if it's a contemporary author who is still alive and benefiting from the proceeds).

However, it's entirely possible that some author I've read has actually done something I'd consider terrible and I just didn't know it. I don't see myself researching every author to find out about their personal life before I check out a new library book.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by Rand Brittain

Is literally anybody calling for the banning of authors, or that you should "stop reading" books that have bad opinions? Pretty much nobody is calling for that.

People are pointing out that Rowling is a terrible person and that we should stop giving her money and stop allowing her to be a celebrity because her proper place is in disgrace.

(The real reason for not teaching Shakespeare in school, or most of the other books that get taught in high school, is that kids don't enjoy him and forcing them to read "the classics" mostly just teaches them to hate reading.)

That there are authors and publishers who have cancelled books due to public outcry would say there are people calling for that. Those authors who want to get their work out still do either through reworking it or finding a publisher who’ll publish it or self publishing.

Cancel culture may not be a things but there are voices calling for the cancellation of authors.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

I don't see myself researching every author to find out about their personal life before I check out a new library book.

You know, people keep saying they are NOT going to do that. Yet I don't remember anyone saying that you should do that. Feels like a straw man to me.

It's a long thread, but from memory, most people are saying the same as what you said in the first half of your message:

Maybe if I heard something about an author that I thought was terrible I would consider not reading their books (at least if it's a contemporary author who is still alive and benefiting from the proceeds).

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Cancel culture may not be a things but there are voices calling for the cancellation of authors.

Yes. They are called morons.

Aside from the Woody Allen memoir*, was there a book that was cancelled by the publisher due to outcry? I only remember reading about authors pulling their books and you can't account for how people feel.

Of the authors who pulled their books, most of them wound up publishing anyway.

(*And even the Woody Allen memoir wasn't pulled due to public backlash. It was pulled because the publisher valued Ronan Farrow more than they valued Woody.)

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Aside from the Woody Allen memoir*, was there a book that was cancelled by the publisher due to outcry?

Most books I read are major publisher non-fiction likely written only after acceptance of a book proposal and receipt of a research-funding advance. If a book proposal isn't accepted, one wouldn't know for sure whether there were non-commercial considerations.

When a weekly periodical column is spiked, as with Andrew Sullivan a few weeks ago, you can see it. With a non-fiction book, you cannot.

Fiction is different because novels are often a one-person project, and, if any good, are usually open to multiple interpretations. So any cancel culture effect more likely reflects hostility towards the author than the book. That can be seen by googling:

author fired

Are there many examples there? No. But there aren't many novelists who are on salary, and other examples would be hidden.

I don't think the Harper's letter signatories would make up this being a real problem. Historically, I see more societies without strong freedom to read than with it, and thus a need to be vigilant.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Yes. They are called morons.

Aside from the Woody Allen memoir*, was there a book that was cancelled by the publisher due to outcry? I only remember reading about authors pulling their books and you can't account for how people feel.

Of the authors who pulled their books, most of them wound up publishing anyway.

(*And even the Woody Allen memoir wasn't pulled due to public backlash. It was pulled because the publisher valued Ronan Farrow more than they valued Woody.)

Not that I’d wanna die on this hill for him, but Milos book was pulled for public outcry.

One could make the argument that if Ronan Farrow wasn’t able to demonstrate that he had public support the publisher wouldn’t have valued him.

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by Hitch

This seems to be venturing--the thread, not your post, Sirtel--into the area of "books written by and featuring standards or ideas that we no longer hold to be true or right." Like Haggard, or any other authors of that era or earlier.

But if you're going to do that--if you're going to say that you shan't read Haggard, because you feel his views were racist, or similar writers, then you are going to also have to ban from your shelves pretty much any fiction (or non, for that matter) featuring women, in near-perpetuity, including Jane Austen, who featured women inveigling to get married, as their only futures. Mr. D'Arcy's kind and generous act--salvaging Lydia's reputation--is worthless today as nobody would give two figs if she ran off with Wickham. (Not to mention all the other stereotypes, etc.)

Almost every piece of fiction written, hell, well into the 70's, is condescending, patronizing and demeaning to women. Read anything by Mickey Spillane. Anything by Chandler. Read anything by pretty much ANYBODY.

If you're going to ban from your shelves anything written by anyone who doesn't share your modern sensibilities, you are going to have shelves that aren't very full and aren't very deep. That's simply a fact. Humans have changed and developed--I don't say evolved, as that word is egregiously misused to indicate shifting social mores--and that's simply part of history. We don't send entire colonies now to unknown lands, for the purposes of "bringing the Faith" to people, as did Isabella and Ferdinand. We no longer slave-trade. We no longer have laws on the books that "dictate" what size rod a man could legally and rightfully use to beat his wife. But those laws existed and the people--and characters--of that time reflect that.

But if you're going to say that you won't read any novels or books, written by anyone who ever thought that any of those things were right or normal...well. Then I really do feel sorry for you, because you will miss some fantastic literature.

Issy, for example, is very fond of The Three Muskateers, and it's hard to find what is described as a "rollicking adventure" that is more misogynistic than that. I mean, let's face it; how the would-be heroes treat women hardly meets 21st-Century standards. So...if we're going to be limiting what we read, it seems that we should be even-handed about it.

Right?

Hitch

Another brilliant post. I agree with every word.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Thasaidon

Another brilliant post. I agree with every word.

Well...gosh, thanks! Nice of you to say so.

Hitch

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Rand Brittain

Is literally anybody calling for the banning of authors, or that you should "stop reading" books that have bad opinions? Pretty much nobody is calling for that.

People are pointing out that Rowling is a terrible person and that we should stop giving her money and stop allowing her to be a celebrity because her proper place is in disgrace.

(The real reason for not teaching Shakespeare in school, or most of the other books that get taught in high school, is that kids don't enjoy him and forcing them to read "the classics" mostly just teaches them to hate reading.)

Rowling is a terrible person? Gee, I hadn't heard that. I heard that she expressed a view on a particular subject that was fairly mainstream a few years ago but no longer matches whatever the politically correct view is this week, so people went after her in social media. What exactly has she done that makes her a terrible person?

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Rowling is a terrible person? Gee, I hadn't heard that. I heard that she expressed a view on a particular subject that was fairly mainstream a few years ago but no longer matches whatever the politically correct view is this week, so people went after her in social media. What exactly has she done that makes her a terrible person?

Exactly.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Rowling is a terrible person? Gee, I hadn't heard that. I heard that she expressed a view on a particular subject that was fairly mainstream a few years ago but no longer matches whatever the politically correct view is this week, so people went after her in social media. What exactly has she done that makes her a terrible person?

I have a transgender friend who AGREES with Rowling, as it happens and what's more, violently resents what Hollywood and the left have done around TG issues. She feels that "gender-fluid" is nothing more than a pop-culture craze promulgated by activists--like Troll Dolls and Pet rocks--and that it's hurting true sufferers of gender dysphoria--which she says she wouldn't wish on her worst enemy. She also agrees that young children--particularly girls--are being pushed by over-PC adults--into making life choices that they're not remotely ready to make, OR serious about. (She also says she wishes she could smack Charlize Theron in the head, who has an adopted child of color who is 5 years old--five!--who she is "advertising" as TG.)

Offered solely FWIW.

Hitch

[Apache]

I guess instead of calling a girl a tomboy we should classify her as transgender?????????????
Apache

[astrangerhere]

I am going to respectfully ask that folks not make blanket statements about the LGBT community. One person does not represent the views of all of us, or even a majority of us. (I am also rather tired of seeing many of you refer to my community as merely being "politically correct." I am old enough to have been subject to laws that criminalized who I am - so before it was accepted by anyone, politically or otherwise.) But in this particular thread, it is reductive and beside the point.

The fact is that JK Rowling has said things that the broader transgender community find both hurtful and harmful, especially to younger members of that community. Her views have been broadly condemned by many formal LGBT organizations. She has liked tweets that support conversion therapy, which is abjectly terrifying. I would have undoubtedly committed suicide were I forced into such a "therapy" as a teenager. Do you agree with her views? Fine, whatever. I don't care what you believe as long as you are not actively trying to harm me by it or take away my fundamental rights. Rowling's free speech grants her the same freedom. I would just like to see her megaphone taken away.

Does that mean Harry Potter isn't still a formative work of fiction in many young folks' lives? Nope. But it still requires that I view the media with an eye towards the author's views. And now that I am aware of it, it also leads me to personally never give her any money in any form again.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Most books I read are major publisher non-fiction likely written only after acceptance of a book proposal and receipt of a research-funding advance. If a book proposal isn't accepted, one wouldn't know for sure whether there were non-commercial considerations.

When a weekly periodical column is spiked, as with Andrew Sullivan a few weeks ago, you can see it. With a non-fiction book, you cannot.

Fiction is different because novels are often a one-person project, and, if any good, are usually open to multiple interpretations. So any cancel culture effect more likely reflects hostility towards the author than the book. That can be seen by googling:

author fired

Are there many examples there? No. But there aren't many novelists who are on salary, and other examples would be hidden.

I don't think the Harper's letter signatories would make up this being a real problem. Historically, I see more societies without strong freedom to read than with it, and thus a need to be vigilant.

I don't mean to sound dismissive. And Lordy knows I could have misread your meaning. But it sounds to me like you are saying that you just know it's a problem even though there's no proof of it.

All I have seen so far is proof against it. I can buy The Black Witch (which was the poster child for this phenomena) right now, along with the sequels.

So while I don't disagree that the author went through undeserved hell on Twitter, I don't see that her book (or any of the other high profile examples) was really cancelled.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Not that I’d wanna die on this hill for him, but Milos book was pulled for public outcry.

Milo is a professional troll who makes his living by being purposely shocking and outrageous. Eventually it comes back to bite him.

It's like complaining about Kathy Griffin getting fired from CNN.

One could make the argument that if Ronan Farrow wasn’t able to demonstrate that he had public support the publisher wouldn’t have valued him.

I mean you could say it that way. But at that point you are twisting things so far away from reality, what's the point?

Simply put, Ronan Farrow who won a Pulitzer prize and broke the Weinstein story is currently a bigger deal than his father is. And it can't be ignored that we are talking about two members of the same family involved in a feud.

The publisher stuck to the one who sells more books. The other went to a different large publisher. No tears were shed.