Books and Problematic Authors

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

H. Rider Haggard's Allan Quatermain books are rather racist. I did read the first book and it was awful. The racism wasn't just because of when it was written. It was right in your face. The book was awful.

He is accused of racism now often by people (SJW types) who have never read him. I do not think he is racist especially when you note when he was writin e.g.

In the final Allan Quartermain book he has Umslopogaas a Zulu Chief give a talk to "Good" a white man which is a lesson in morality and Good has to admit that he has fallen below his own standards.

Give me example of real racism in Haggard's work.

Some SJW types also accuse Kipling of the same thing. It is obvious they have never read that "very racist poem" "Gunga Din".

[pdurrant]

I have split out this thread from the ligatures thread. Members are reminded that party politics should be avoided outside of P&R, and that this thread is in the General Discussions forum.

[pwalker8]

Personally, I think that one has to consider an author in the context of the times he or she lived in, not through the modern lens of political correctness. Of course, that's true of most people in history. Someone who was very enlightened for their particular time period in history doesn't stand up to the current standard. Lincoln was racist by modern standards, yet he was fairly enlightened by the standards of the day.

As far as what an author does in their personal life, I don't really focus on that. I can see the point if they are still alive and you don't want your money going to someone who _fill in the blank of whatever thing you consider despicable_ but once they are dead, what's the point? As long as it doesn't leak into their writing, it's moot.

[Deskisamess]

There is a huge difference between someone who is/was a racist, and someone who habitually sexually abuses children.

Racism can be discussed, debated, and minds changed. I've seen it in my own family...people raised a certain way, with hate for anyone different than they are, can change their views. My father was raised with extreme racial views. He did not hold those views as he got older, and had children and grandchildren. He changed his views.

Physical and sexual abuse of children is criminal, not just morally distasteful. It damages the victims in ways that can't always fully be understood, nor "fixed." Many times it is done by people who are mentally unbalanced, especially in the habitual cases.

I'm not talking about global attitudes here, and the systematic racism that has been part of many culture's pasts. That's another discussion.

If I knew an author had been guilty of physical or sexual abuse of children, I wouldn't want to read their books.

I wouldn't feel quite the same about an author who hated Jews or black people, but would still hesitate to support them by reading their work. The two issues don't evoke the same response for me.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Thasaidon

and perhaps I am a little too sensitive about the "cancel culture" that is so prevalent at the moment.

Perhaps not lumping issues you can't get behind with dismissive, scare-quoted, media-popularized labels (a tactic which is so prevalent at the moment) could help with that?

[issybird]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

As far as what an author does in their personal life, I don't really focus on that. I can see the point if they are still alive and you don't want your money going to someone who _fill in the blank of whatever thing you consider despicable_ but once they are dead, what's the point? As long as it doesn't leak into their writing, it's moot.

I disagree. There’s still the issue of the other stakeholders who benefited and continue to benefit from the sale of works under copyright. A publisher who looked the other way and continued to publish, spouses and children who tolerated the offensive attitudes and behaviors - I wouldn’t choose to support them, either.

Obviously, the nature of the offense, the context of the time and time elapsed all figure in this. Another factor is the importance of the work. But popular fiction is an easy call; there’s always something else of a similar caliber to read. However, this is highly situational, both for the reader and for the individual artist. I’m just saying that death doesn’t whitewash an author or his works, not while money is still involved.

[astrangerhere]

Originally Posted by issybird

I disagree. There’s still the issue of the other stakeholders who benefited and continue to benefit from the sale of works under copyright. A publisher who looked the other way and continued to publish, spouses and children who tolerated the offensive attitudes and behaviors - I wouldn’t choose to support them, either.

Obviously, the nature of the offense, the context of the time and time elapsed all figure in this. Another factor is the importance of the work. But popular fiction is an easy call; there’s always something else of a similar caliber to read. However, this is highly situational, both for the reader and for the individual artist. I’m just saying that death doesn’t whitewash an author or his works, not while money is still involved.

Completely agree. It is one thing to read a problematic author, it is quite another to give them or their estate money. It is also quite another to admire, praise or promote that problematic work without admitting its flaws.

I've got a literature degree in addition to my law degree, and I'd never tell people to stop reading the canon. I would tell them to examine it for what it is, and also to read outside of the canon to hear the voices that they don't normally hear.

Child abusers, though, they can just go.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by issybird

I disagree. There’s still the issue of the other stakeholders who benefited and continue to benefit from the sale of works under copyright. A publisher who looked the other way and continued to publish, spouses and children who tolerated the offensive attitudes and behaviors - I wouldn’t choose to support them, either.

Obviously, the nature of the offense, the context of the time and time elapsed all figure in this. Another factor is the importance of the work. But popular fiction is an easy call; there’s always something else of a similar caliber to read. However, this is highly situational, both for the reader and for the individual artist. I’m just saying that death doesn’t whitewash an author or his works, not while money is still involved.

Well, in the case of MZB, all money from sales of her books is going to the charity Save the Children, so you're not supporting her or her family if you buy her books.

Again, though, the original discussion was sparked by me posting a picture of a 40 year old book that was bought by a 16 year old girl who had no idea of the background of the author (in fact, the allegations of the author herself abusing children weren't made public until almost 30 years *after* the book was purchased). As I said, I absolutely refuse to feel guilty for buying and enjoying books that were bought and read decades before the allegations became public. As for the fact of her husband's convictions and her knowing about his actions, while it wasn't hidden, it also wasn't broadcast to the general public in the 80s or 90s. Do you do research on the lives of every author before you buy a book from them? This all started with DNSB trying to shame me for posting the picture of a page from a book...unfortunately, I refuse to feel shame.

Shari

[shalym]

Originally Posted by astrangerhere

Completely agree. It is one thing to read a problematic author, it is quite another to give them or their estate money. It is also quite another to admire, praise or promote that problematic work without admitting its flaws.

I've got a literature degree in addition to my law degree, and I'd never tell people to stop reading the canon. I would tell them to examine it for what it is, and also to read outside of the canon to hear the voices that they don't normally hear.

Child abusers, though, they can just go.

I wasn't praising or trying to promote the "problematic work". I was posting a cropped picture of a page in order to show the lack of ligatures in a print book. The whole MZB thing would have never been brought up if DNSB hadn't recognized a few sentences and mentioned it.

Shari

[issybird]

Originally Posted by shalym

Well, in the case of MZB, all money from sales of her books is going to the charity Save the Children, so you're not supporting her or her family if you buy her books.

Again, though, the original discussion was sparked by me posting a picture of a 40 year old book that was bought by a 16 year old girl who had no idea of the background of the author (in fact, the allegations of the author herself abusing children weren't made public until almost 30 years *after* the book was purchased). As I said, I absolutely refuse to feel guilty for buying and enjoying books that were bought and read decades before the allegations became public. As for the fact of her husband's convictions and her knowing about his actions, while it wasn't hidden, it also wasn't broadcast to the general public in the 80s or 90s. Do you do research on the lives of every author before you buy a book from them? This all started with DNSB trying to shame me for posting the picture of a page from a book...unfortunately, I refuse to feel shame.

Shari

I don’t know why you quoted my post, as your response is entirely irrelevant to it. For one thing, I spoke only in general terms and didn’t reference MZB specifically; I even went so far as to say that each case was situational.

I also absolutely made no mention of you and your imputed “guilt.” I was responding to a specific post, and yes, my post actually referred to that post. Quite the novel concept, apparently.

Perhaps you need to climb down and not assume everything is about you and a hidden attack on you? And get comfortable with the notion that threads move on? There’s also no point at all in reiterating a point over and over; we got it the first time. You don’t feel guilty. Awesome. However, I detect an element of protesting too much in your repeated affront at something that wasn’t directed at you at all.

[astrangerhere]

Originally Posted by shalym

I wasn't praising or trying to promote the "problematic work". I was posting a cropped picture of a page in order to show the lack of ligatures in a print book. The whole MZB thing would have never been brought up if DNSB hadn't recognized a few sentences and mentioned it.

Shari

Shari,

My comment was merely in response to Issy, not you. I am not in the business of shaming anyone for what they read. I will always encourage folks to expand thier reading horizons, but I am not the library police. Not directed at you at all.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by issybird

I don’t know why you quoted my post, as your response is entirely irrelevant to it. For one thing, I spoke only in general terms and didn’t reference MZB specifically; I even went so far as to say that each case was situational.

I also absolutely made no mention of you and your imputed “guilt.” I was responding to a specific post, and yes, my post actually referred to that post. Quite the novel concept, apparently.

Perhaps you need to climb down and not assume everything is about you and a hidden attack on you? And get comfortable with the notion that threads move on? There’s also no point at all in reiterating a point over and over; we got it the first time. You don’t feel guilty. Awesome. However, I detect an element of protesting too much in your repeated affront at something that wasn’t directed at you at all.

I quoted your post to address this statement:

However, this is highly situational, both for the reader and for the individual artist. I’m just saying that death doesn’t whitewash an author or his works, not while money is still involved.

and point out that buying a book by an author with a troubled past does not always give any money to the estate.

As to the rest of your post about this not being addressed at me, that's fine. your post was not. I want to point out, though, that the first post in this thread was DNSB addressing me...so...

Shari

[issybird]

Originally Posted by shalym

I quoted your post to address this statement:

and point out that buying a book by an author with a troubled past does not always give any money to the estate.

Perhaps not, although there are other stakeholders to consider. The publishers, anyone who’s involved in ancillary works, etc. My post did not preclude that in any case; I was addressing the post I quoted, which said that the issues are moot after the author’s death. They aren’t.

But I got curious. As for what happens to MZB’s royalties, are you sure? Or are you being taken in by a gloss put on the situation to justify continued sales and purchases?

In fact, it seems as if the publisher in this case, Gollancz, does donate its share of the profits from MZB’s works, but the picture is far murkier in regard to the the royalties paid to MZB’s Literary Trust. I found this:

"By all appearances the Marion Zimmer Bradley Literary Trust, which holds all of MZB's copyrights and is not listed in California's database of nonprofits, is funneling profits from sales of her works to a small group of MZB's friends and enablers. Nothing, so far as I know, goes to her children or to any charity.” — comment by Alessandra Kelley at Marion Zimmer Bradley - Silence is Complicity (TRIGGERS); WebCite, June 23, 2014.

In any case, it seems obvious that Elisabeth Waters continues to profit personally from her association with MZB and her works and since it also seems obvious she was complicit in MZB’s behavior and its coverup, that in itself would make purchases problematic. For me.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by shalym

As to the rest of your post about this not being addressed at me, that's fine. your post was not. I want to point out, though, that the first post in this thread was DNSB addressing me...so...

“...so...” what? You had already responded to it. Why carry on in a post to me? And then in a post to a subsequent poster?

[pdurrant]

I'm finding it harder to separate the author from their works as time goes on.

I don't see that I should spend money on someone I'd despise when there are so many alternatives.

Of course, the fact that there seem to be so many people who do and say things that I have never even dreamed of doing or saying is sad and, to me, surprising.

But then, I'm a white, cis, straight, middle class, well-off married man. I essentially never have people behaving badly towards me.