Unutterably Silly Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ellison

[Sparrow]

Reminds me of the Modest Mouse song 'Bukowski'.

"Woke up this morning and it seemed to me, that every night turns out to be a little bit more like Bukowski. And yeah, I know he's a pretty good read. But God who'd wanna be? God who'd wanna be such an asshole? God who'd wanna be? God who'd wanna be such an asshole?"

I'm not bothered about the personalities of the authors I read - it's not important to me.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Reminds me of the Modest Mouse song 'Bukowski'.

"Woke up this morning and it seemed to me, that every night turns out to be a little bit more like Bukowski. And yeah, I know he's a pretty good read. But God who'd wanna be? God who'd wanna be such an asshole? God who'd wanna be? God who'd wanna be such an asshole?"

I'm not bothered about the personalities of the authors I read - it's not important to me.

I'm very interested in this approach, because it's something I just can't seem to do. If you found out your favourite author was a racist, a card carrying member of the Klu Klux Klan can you honestly say it wouldn't affect your reading of their material? It wouldn't inform your reaction to the material thereafter? I don't see how you can't be affected by the knowledge you have at hand. Any knowledge that is, not just knowledge that is distasteful.

I love Bradbury, but I can't stand his attitude toward the internet and now when I read certain stories I realise that my initial reaction was completely wrong. As the viewer I change the meaning of the viewed, and any information I have at hand also changes my reaction and by extension changes the viewed.

So how exactly do you ignore the information you have and not let it influence your reading?

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

So how exactly do you ignore the information you have and not let it influence your reading?

To me, their personal views are no more relevant than their dress sense - I'm only interested in whether I enjoy what they write.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I'm very interested in this approach, because it's something I just can't seem to do. If you found out your favourite author was a racist, a card carrying member of the Klu Klux Klan can you honestly say it wouldn't affect your reading of their material? It wouldn't inform your reaction to the material thereafter? I don't see how you can't be affected by the knowledge you have at hand. Any knowledge that is, not just knowledge that is distasteful.

I love Bradbury, but I can't stand his attitude toward the internet and now when I read certain stories I realise that my initial reaction was completely wrong. As the viewer I change the meaning of the viewed, and any information I have at hand also changes my reaction and by extension changes the viewed.

So how exactly do you ignore the information you have and not let it influence your reading?

For Fiction Only... I do it as the following. Each work of fiction, good, bad, or indifferent, I treat as a unique whole. It may or may not represent the views, beliefs, and morals of the author. In a sense, I strip off the label (i.e. the author) and let it represent itself...When I do that, I find that I may love many works of an author, yet dislike a particular work. The author doesn't get a free ride because I like other works by him, or dissed because I think he's a sociopath.

Can I not read Poe, because by modern standards, he was a child molesting dope fiend?

Or to turn it around, is it Ok to read Norman Spinrad's The Iron Dream because he was a nice fellow.

I'm a greedy capitalist, but it doesn't stop me from reading and enjoying John Brunner or Mack Reynolds, both card carrying Socialists....

(Does knowing that Rock Hudson was completely gay make the Rock Hudson/Doris Day sex farces any less funny? My viewpoint is - What an actor!)

[krisk]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

To me, their personal views are no more relevant than their dress sense - I'm only interested in whether I enjoy what they write.

what if they engage in illegal activity and are unapologetic? when I found out about Arthur Clark's lifestyle, I got rid of all of his books that I owned and refused to buy any new ones.

[Riocaz]

Originally Posted by krisk

what if they engage in illegal activity and are unapologetic? when I found out about Arthur Clark's lifestyle, I got rid of all of his books that I owned and refused to buy any new ones.

His alledged, and later disproven lifestyle.

He was accused in a British trash mag the claims were denied by the man himself, and he was exonerated by the Sri Lankan Authorities after investigation, and the "tabloid" printed an apology.

The fact that the claim wasn't taken up by any othe the other British trash mags or any of the actual newspapers (particularly when he was knighted 2 years later) indicate that the story was more to embarass the Prince of Wales who had been due to perform the knighthood ceremony the day after the "story" broke.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by krisk

what if they engage in illegal activity and are unapologetic?

If an artist openly takes illegal drugs, I don't support them because of the misery the drug trade causes to innocent victims around the world. I don't want to lend my support to that.
But that's not a reflection on the quality of the 'art' they produce, or my appreciation for it. It's just that the price that has to be paid for it is way too much imho.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

If an artist openly takes illegal drugs, I don't support them because of the misery the drug trade causes to innocent victims around the world. I don't want to lend my support to that.
But that's not a reflection on the quality of the 'art' they produce, or my appreciation for it. It's just that the price that has to be paid for it is way too much imho.

I feel the same about openly racist, homophobic, or evangelical Christian artists. I'm not giving money to authors who are going to spend it to encourage hate crimes and oppression; I've got too many friends who've had to live with the aftermath of "[celebrity X] hates your kind, so I feel perfectly justified in [assaulting/firing/insulting/raping] you."

Every bit of social & financial support to authors and celebrities who espouse bigotry "in their private lives" works to hurt the people they fear and hate.

[krisk]

Originally Posted by Riocaz

His alledged, and later disproven lifestyle.

He was accused in a British trash mag the claims were denied by the man himself, and he was exonerated by the Sri Lankan Authorities after investigation, and the "tabloid" printed an apology.

The fact that the claim wasn't taken up by any othe the other British trash mags or any of the actual newspapers (particularly when he was knighted 2 years later) indicate that the story was more to embarass the Prince of Wales who had been due to perform the knighthood ceremony the day after the "story" broke.

I'd never heard that part of it, and as I do not and never have had access to British rags, I have no idea where I got my information. I never heard of any corrections either. if you have any links I would be interested in looking at them

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by krisk

I'd never heard that part of it, and as I do not and never have had access to British rags, I have no idea where I got my information. I never heard of any corrections either. if you have any links I would be interested in looking at them

Wiki's got the story and some references.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

If an artist openly takes illegal drugs, I don't support them because of the misery the drug trade causes to innocent victims around the world. I don't want to lend my support to that.
But that's not a reflection on the quality of the 'art' they produce, or my appreciation for it. It's just that the price that has to be paid for it is way too much imho.

Weirdly I'm the opposite, I seek out artists who are pro drug use, as I myself am, and who actively encourage others to partake But I would say those artists who are actively against drugs, especially those who have never taken them, would make my shitlist very quickly.

Oh, and if I haven't mentioned it before, the documentary actually does a very good job of fleshing out Ellison, we don't just see his asshole side. It's wonderful for fans of Ellison, but interesting to those who don't like him much (me).

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Weirdly I'm the opposite, I seek out artists who are pro drug use, as I myself am, and who actively encourage others to partake But I would say those artists who are actively against drugs, especially those who have never taken them, would make my shitlist very quickly.

It's not so much the drugs as the trade, and it's associated consequences, that gives me qualms.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Donnageddon

Abrasive as Ellison can be. I find him to be a damn fine writer, critic and anthologist.

I just would not want to get on his $h!t list.

I will be searching out this documentary. Thanks Moejoe!

It's on Netflix.

[Riocaz]

Originally Posted by krisk

I'd never heard that part of it, and as I do not and never have had access to British rags, I have no idea where I got my information. I never heard of any corrections either. if you have any links I would be interested in looking at them

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/74938.stm

The deputy inspector-general of police, MSM Nizam, said: "We are satisfied that he has not violated any Sri Lankan laws or committed any crime.

"He denied the allegations and spoke about his abhorrence of child sex and paedophilia."

Police interviewed three young men who had told the Sunday Mirror they had sex with Sir Arthur when they were teenagers.

Mr Nizam said all three had now withdrawn their allegations.

http://www.britishpapers.co.uk/obitu...thur-c-clarke/

All the obituaries touch on the scandalous 1998 story in the Sunday Mirror alleging his pederasty, which broke just as Sir Arthur was about to receive his newly-announced knighthood from Prince Charles, who was visiting Sri Lanka. But The Times, unlike the other three quality dailies, fails to mention either that the Sri Lankan authorities cleared his name or that the Sunday Mirror published an apology:

I remember the apology as I read it at the time. I think the most telling point was the fact that the "story" broke the day before the Prince of Wales was due to knight him. And that not a single other paper picked up on it (The trash rags, are usually unanimous on such things).

The only question left unanswered that I can find is the "tape" the Mirror claimed to have.

I can't believe however that they would have allowed him to continue to live in the country, or that the Gov't would go ahead with the Knighthood, had there been any such proof (and if it did exist why did they apologise).

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

It's on Netflix.

It's also all over the file sharing sites too (I don't think Ellison will like that one bit )