08 May 2010

Weekly Geeks: The Author v. The Book

Weekly Geeks wants to know if it is possible to separate a writer's non-writing life from the books the produce. 

Does an author's politics matter to you? Do you have a favourite book or series written by someone you know to be your political opposite? Or have you stopped reading works by a particular author after discovering that their politics was radically different from your own?

What about their personality? Have you ever stopped reading an author's work after seeing or hearing them talk because you didn't like what you saw or heard?

And how about that secret past? How would you feel if you found out your favourite author was a murderer or some other kind of criminal? Are there some crimes that you would be OK about and others that would stop you following their work? Do you know about the pasts of 'your' authors? Do you want to?

I rarely have this issue as I'm woefully ignorant regarding who the authors are in real life.  I just don't seem to care very much about their personal lives; sometimes I don't even know if they are alive or dead!  The world of book blogging has made me more and more aware of authors though, so there have been a few instances of Author Disappointment.

For instance, I ran across this problem when I wrote my review of Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card.  Apparently Card, a Mormon, is anti-homosexual, particularly anti-gay marriage.  He also appears to be something of a chauvinist.  I really enjoyed the following quote which is his reasoning for why homosexual marriage is a travesty:
Husbands need to have the whole society agree that when they marry, their wives are off limits to all other males. He has a right to trust that all his wife's children would be his...Wives need to have the whole society agree that when they marry, their husband is off limits to all other females. All of his protection and earning power will be devoted to her and her children, and will not be divided with other women and their children...  Faithful sexual monogamy, persistence until death, male protection and providence for wife and children, female loyalty to children and husband, and parental discretion in child-rearing [is the foundation of marriage].

What an ass!  So men marry so that other men can't have sex with their woman, and women marry for money...a man protects and a woman is faithful...how unbelievably archaic. And it gets better ladies and gentlemen.  Card likens homosexual desire to the following:
We expect alcoholics to be able to refrain from driving when drunk. We expect pedophiles to keep their hands to themselves. We expect aggressive males to curb their need to fight with perceived rivals. We expect people whose mental illnesses are only contained by drugs to take those drugs... We expect heterosexual males -- males who are expressing the very drive that leads to reproduction of the genes, and which in other primate species is often expressed as rape -- to be able to recognize that "no means no" at every stage of wooing and coition.

In other words, a man desiring another man is the same as a man wanting to rape a woman.  Um, not even close, you homophobic misogynist.  I realize I'm going on a bit here about Card's beliefs, but that's just to get across that I absolutely despise his ideology. 

But I still think Ender's Game is a fantastic book.  I will still recommend it to those who are struggling to get in to reading, as on many occasions, this book was the start of a non-reader's journey into the world of books. 

Stephanie Meyer and her Twilight series give me pause too.  I find the overt 'no sex before marriage' morality overblown and ridiculous.  Not too mention, the 'if I touch you even a little bit, I might get carried away and hurt you' crapola makes me gag in feminist outrage.  Morally, I disagree with Meyer's belief system - clearly Mormons and I don't share a worldview - but I still think there is enough benefit and enjoyment to reading the books that any sort of boycott or overt protestation would be silly.

Just like I believe the censorship of my beliefs a nasty evil, so too do I believe the censorship of beliefs I disagree with.  If I think it's ridiculous that people don't read Harry Potter because it's "Anti-Christian", then it's also ridiculous for me to not read Meyer and Card because they are "Pro-Mormon".

So to sum up what is definitely a convoluted little spiel:  While I may disapprove of an author's beliefs or actions, this does not affect whether or not I read his/her work.  I'm anti-censorship (even of myself) for all belief systems, and sometimes the book doesn't even carry the deplorable belief in its pages.  Reading is not agreeing, and I believe that reading belief systems other than your own is actually a positive intellectual pursuit.  It opens your mind to other ways of thinking and helps you determine your own personal beliefs. It sparks discussion, contemplation, and growth.  And all of that is, in my opinion, a good thing.

I do admit, however, that from time to time I'm disgusted that my money (if I buy the book) is supporting someone with such different beliefs from my own.

So what do you guys think?

13 comments:

  1. Anyone who says Harry Potter is 'anti-Christian' is talking bollocks, because there's no anti-Christian message in there. Yes, it's about magic, but so are so many other books. It's a 'fantasy'.

    I'm steering clear of Pullman's latest because even the concept of it angers me no end. Mostly, though, the Northern Lights is the only book I have ever not finished and I thought it was hugely boring, so if his latest book is written remotely like that then I'm just not interested.

    However, I am slightly weary of books that are hailed as OMG FEMININISM YAY! But such is Carter's work and I absolutely love it, despite it being considered 'feminist'.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I usually have no problem separating author from their work, but Card is a huge exception. I hate him with a passion. I'd go on a rant here, except I feel I shouldn't do that on your blog. But because i hate him so much, I would never, ever read any of his books no matter what.

    ReplyDelete
  3. GAG GAG GAG GAG GAG.

    I knew of Card's essay, but for the sake of my blood pressure I'd never actually read it. The quotes you included here were enough to make me see this was a wise decision :S

    Having said that, I did enjoy Ender's Game, Speaker for the Dead (despite the way he travesties Portuguese culture and language in it) and Enchantment. I feel much as you do about this issue. As long as those repulsive positions don't show in the books themselves, I won't refuse to read them. And even if they did, I'd never be for censoring them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I guess I'd have to consider this issue on a case by case basis, but basically I agree with you. If I'd written a book, I'd hope that people who are anti-feminism and anti-gay marriage would read them, even though we don't agree. One of the great things about literature is that it's one of the few places we all come together. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh, we have some high and mighty mothers at the kids' school who will actively boycott a movie because the writer/director/producer is an atheist. Personally, if I am entertained, by a movie, book or music, then I consider it money well spent. One of my all time favorite authors has political views completely opposite of mine, but I really could care less.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bethany - I agree about HP; it doesn't feel anti-Christian to me, but some of my husband's family, who are extremely religious, are adamant that it is.

    Amanda - Always feel free to rant on my blog! Card's ignorance is shameful.

    Nymeth - Sounds like we have the same ideas on this.

    Stephanie - I agree! Books are like neutral territory where one can accept or reject the ideas therein as one sees fit.

    Sandy - I agree. Differing opinions don't always negate entertainment. :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. In Stephenie Meyer I have been shocked by another matter: the complete lack of diversity.

    I know that she has her own beliefs. And I know that authors write about what they know and what they are (mainly middle class etc.).

    But I am slightly disturbed by the fact that everyone in Twilight is white, christian and heterosexual.... It is unnaturally so, especially in a genre like fantasy which puts diversity at its core.

    I read her books and enjoy them, but I know they lack what is essential to me in a story.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree with you and Nymeth on Card; I love his books, but I don't have to love him the person. (And it wasn't until I had read almost all of his work that I found out that "buggers" were thought to be some sort of double entendre.)

    There are times when I won't "contribute" to someone with egregious views by buying his or her product, but that usually only occurs if the author of entrepreneur makes it clear that the profits will be devoted to to egregious cause!

    ReplyDelete
  9. It was the money issue that made me pause about reading another Susan Hill novel in the first place - did I really want to be contributing money to someone whose beliefs I find quite abhorrent? I suppose I could borrow them from the library but that felt a bit like cheating.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yikers! Didn't quite know all that about Mr. Card. Perhaps that is why I don't want to know all this kind of stuff. It dose kind of affect how you think about their books. I recently talked about how much I loved Ender's Game ... but I'm glad now I didn't read much more by him.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Caroline - I agree. Meyers world is extremely homogeneous. Almost scarily so.

    Rhapsody - I didn't know about the buggers thing! Dang it, that's even more not to like!

    Bernadette - I'm afraid I don't know much about Susan Hill. What are her beliefs?

    Jenners - Card is one of those people I wish I didn't know about since I adored Ender's Game so much.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm not sure I know what Hill's beliefs are in total but the piece that turned me off her was all about how Oxfam (the charity) is bullying other charities and I have a hard time accepting that in the scenario she describes - she seemed to be saying that it's OK to sell second hand books (that she doesn't get any money for) if you do it form a dirty, smelly store that no one wants to work in but if you do it from a light, bright, airy store in which people are paid a decent wage then you're a great hulking bully. That bugged me. Then I read more and discovered a whole lot of clap trap about climate change denial (some of my best friends don't believe in man made climate change but it was her way of wording things and the really nasty, mean-spirited way she talked about people who do believe that turned me off completely)

    ReplyDelete

Talk to me baby!