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?