|
Author
|
Comment
|
rosyelf
(4/2/04 7:10 am)
|
Do a writer's political views matter ?
Having recently heard of the novel Enchantment by Orson Scott Card, I happily put it on my Amazon Wishlist-it's a retelling of the Sleeping Beauty story, using a Russian background, and it sounds right up my street. However, when typing this gentleman into my search engine, I was horrified to find a crassly insensitive article he has written on gay marriage. For example, he says that gay people have always had the right to get married-to persons of the opposite gender ! Well, yes, but. . .I found the whole thing so ghastly, and his attitudes about marriage in general and, basically, people in general, I have gone off reading the book.
On one level, I tell myself it doesn't matter-alcoholics, wife-beaters, bigots, etc, can write like angels, and one doesn't have to embrace their alcoholism, wife-beating and bigotry in order to appreciate their literary gifts. Who . knows ? Shakespeare might have been a dreadful person but his plays are wonderful and we'd be fools to dispense with them. On the other hand, I balk at this man's views. I'd be interested to hear what people think. Thank you
|
AliceCEB
Registered User
(4/2/04 8:08 am)
|
Re: Do a writer's political views matter ?
I make the perhaps false distinction between a writer/artist that's alive and one that won't benefit from my purchasing his/her product. I'll listen to some of Wagner, but I won't go to a Woody Allen movie (not because of his politics but because he is a sicko -imo- human being). I will read opinions I do not agree with, but I won't purchase them. I hope this rambling makes sense.
Alice
|
wrightales
Registered User
(4/2/04 8:12 am)
|
Re: Do a writer's political views matter ?
That is why I go out of my way to avoid reading anything about my favorite authors, actors, or musicians. Finding that I dislike them personally should not effect the way I perceive their work, but it does. I make an exception in the case of books they write on their craft.
wrightales
|
Niniane
Sunyata
Registered User
(4/2/04 9:04 am)
|
Re: Do a writer's political views matter ?
I read a lot of stuff by people who have views I personally disagree with. So long as it doesn't infect the work, I'm cool with it. I like OSC's books, but I don't like his perspective on a whole lot of things. Doesn't invalidate the books though, and he's got a right to his views.
Then again, I read the Ender Quartet before I read his personal views on a whole lot of things which are at odds with my own liberal/freespirit p-o-v, and I suppose that would have affected the way I read the books. The book you mentioned sounds interesting though, so I'll probably check it out.
Hmm, thinking on this topic a bit more, I'd say: I rather read something readable by an author I disagree with on principle than something mediocre by someone who champions everything I believe in. After all, I still love the works of people like Donne, Shakespeare, Dante etc who would probably consign me to the seventh level of hell or to a "nunnery!"
After all, it's fiction, and that's easier on the eyes than non-fiction, and believe you me, I've read a lot of non-fiction and thoughts that I argue furiously with. Part of the fun, actually. A kind of bloodless combat training which can be easily resolved by tossing said text across the room.
Something like that.
*duck*
Anita Harris.
Terra Mythogene
www.mythopoetica.com
|
aka
Greensleeves
(4/2/04 4:15 pm)
|
Re: Do a writer's political views matter ?
Go ahead and read it. Card and I are on opposite ends of the political spectrum (and that's an understatement), and we also keep radically different religious views.
And he's one of the best novelists out there. Whatever his political
views, his fiction is sensitive, thoughtful, balanced, and--dare
I say it--surprising, considering his personal views. The man is
very smart and well-read, and he knows where he's coming from in
his writing. He's written not only intriguing science fiction (Ender's
Game, Speaker for the Dead), but also some very interesting
Bible story retellings (Sarah, Rebekah). He even has a
very unique vision of an alternate history of colonial America (the
Tales of Alvin Maker).
I will not say that an author's views don't matter (that's
New Criticism, not my bag); but I will say that Card's politics
are not overtly expressed in his fiction, and you may find yourself
(pleasantly?) surprised by what's between the covers of the book.
And if it bothers you that much, don't buy the book--get
it from the library. That's why you pay your taxes.
|
Larry
A Tilander
Registered User
(4/2/04 10:59 pm)
|
Re: Do a writer's political views matter ?
Robert A. Heinlein is my favourite author. He was also a rabid flag
waving Yank. His old roomie, L. Ron Hubbard was a cultist nut. He
also wrote some great books. I could go on. Card is a great writer.
I don't care about his politics. Read him.
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/ltilander/index.html
http://www3.sympatico.ca/ltilander/kidex.htm
|
Nalo
Registered User
(4/4/04 7:35 am)
|
Re: Do a writer's political views matter ?
They do very much matter to me, and sometimes I will cease to support the work of writers whose views I think are harmful to others. But that's a personal and quirky decision, and not applied uniformly. And to me, what a writer's views are shouldn't necessarily stop anyone reading what they have to say; better to keep the buggers' hands in view where you can see them, so to speak. Another side of the coin; as others have pointed out, artists who are bigots and otherwise creepy can still have important, positive things to say, and say them well. Human beings are contrary, complicated creatures.
Edited by: Nalo at: 4/4/04 7:35 am
|
janeyolen
Registered User
(4/4/04 8:05 am)
|
My take
I have so little reading time and so many books I want to read (ditto films) that anything that helps me winnow down my lists is agreeable to me. So I won't see Woody Allen films, and I wrestle with my conscience on Scott Card's writing because he was a close friend a long time ago until I read that same terrible article. Yet I love his work.
So I waffle.
And by the way, I loved the Russian novel.
Jane
|
Helen
J Pilinovsky
Registered User
(4/5/04 11:32 am)
|
Re: My take
I have to say that, while I'm about the furthest thing possible
from a PoMo kid, and while I *certainly* don't believe that "The
Author is Dead," I don't think that an author's political views
necessarily invalidate their work ... if they're good authors. Card
is a pretty good example of this: while his article is deeply disturbing,
in some of his novels, he becomes involved enough with who the characters
are, in their own rights, and not as extensions of his own positions,
that he actually contravenes his own stances. For example, Enchantment
has a rather sensitive discussion of objective standards of behavior
that revolves around, of all things, cross-dressing (something which
he might not advocate in reality, but which his protagonist doesn't
frown upon, and which, in fact, given his circumstances, he almost
advocates). What I mean to say, in my stumbling and inarticulate
way, is that the artist *can* transcend his instrument - Card may
be hindered by his positions in reality, but his writing is honest
enough that it isn't necessarily damaged by it (this isn't the say
that the misogyny of Hart's Hope didn't have me throwing
it across the room - but, in that case, it was true to *that* character).
I also think that it depends upon your individual reaction to the
morality, or lack thereof, of their exact behavior - I can still
read Card, who holds a position that I disagree with, but I tend
to howl with outrage when Michael Jackson's music is played. Then
again, I never much liked it in the first place ... I guess that
the interesting question would be where the line is drawn. If a
truly stunning artist was revealed to be, in some way, unsound,
would it be valid to condemn their work with them, regardless of
its merit?
|
Gregor9
Registered User
(4/7/04 7:07 am)
|
Knowing too much can be dangerous
I'm in Nalo's camp on this one, I think. I know too much of OSC the person to be objective about OSC the author, and so have to pass on weighing in there. I'll say that he is a very powerful writer who knows how to mine certain themes that trigger a deep emotional reaction in his readers.
It's true that a writer's personal views don't necessarily appear on the page, or at least not in a form easily identified; but readers often assume that a writer *must* think the things their characters think, much as we sometimes believe that an actor who fully inhabits a role must be like the person they play. They've convinced us. Yet actors who make good villains are frequently kind, decent and honorable people who just happen to know how to manifest evil when it's called for.
Stephen King in his book on writing talks about his mental and physical
condition at the time he wrote Misery--he was both an alcoholic
and a cocaine addict--and the woman who traps and hobbles the main
character (the author) in King's novel was a stand-in for his addictions,
which were very much hobbling him. He was writing out his significant
demons, but reading the book I would never have known it, nor is
the reading less rich for not knowing this. I can go back now and
see the clues embedded in there. You can probably comb through Card's
novels and find homophobic clues, too, now that you know. But you
didn't notice them the first time around, and it didn't damage your
experience.
Gregory Frost
|
oaken
mondream
Registered User
(4/7/04 5:48 pm)
|
Re: Knowing too much can be dangerous
We had a discussion about this topic in class today focusing on Ezra Pound. You can try to separate the writer from their work, and I think that's what we've been trying to do in class (the professor isn't too keen on biographical readings), but the writer keeps seeping into what is being written.
The other side what that it is possible to take the humanity out of the poet (the exact phrase we were looking at was "the poet, the man" from Bishop's "A Visit to Saint Elizabeth's"). I wish I could remember what the exact remark was, but it was a thoughtful reproach to the idea that it is possible to write from that kind of position.
I think, however, that one cannot ignore what is being written by people who's opinions one cannot stand. Maybe one person can and should be allowed to, but as a society that is censoring an artist who has the potential for greatness. There's also the fear that someone could unleash an "unright" (for lack of a better word) sentiment over the masses (e.g. anti-semitic, homophobia, anarchy, contempt for institutions, etc. etc.) and that people who might express such ideas are better off silent.
Sorry, I'm just trying to figure out my own opinions, I don't mean to accuse anyone of anything.
Part of me says that I should read things by people who's philosophies I don't agree with because they are good. And part of me realizes that even if the author is able to divorce himself from what he is writing, that doesn't mean I can: its hard to read Ezra Pound and not think of him as a fascist.
|
Jess
Unregistered User
(4/8/04 6:22 pm)
|
I absolutely read their stuff
I guess in my obstinate sort of way I enjoy reading books by people whose views are different than mine. I like to pick them apart or see if I can find their positions in their stories, and sometimes I find myself swayed by a good argument if it is well-presented. It isn't necessary that I know the author's political view, but I think it makes the reading more fun.
On the other hand, I don't think there is an author (or any other person for that matter) alive that would agree with me on everything. If I discounted every book by every author with whom I could violently disagree on an important social issue, I would simply have nothing to read.
Do I find some authors' views offensive? Absolutely, but I feel that sometimes it is more important to read their works especially if they are popular. I want to know what the hum is about, and how someone with those opinions could reach so many people. That doesn't mean that I would buy those works. And I would be vocal in my opposition to the offensive position.
And what if that person has a truly remarkable gift? Can I ignore their offensive position and appreciate the gift? Absolutely again. To answer otherwise would hypocritical on my part. The best example I can think of is a musical one: I adore the music Richard Wagner, but feel the man was a beast.
Jess
|
LegendMaker
Registered User
(4/14/04 1:52 am)
|
Re: Do a writer's political views matter ?
I'll address the question directly: "Do a writer's political views matter?" Well, if you're the writer, yes. If not, only if you want them to matter.
If you're simply polling to see if any author's political views matter to each of *us*, my personal answer to that is no. Although that is conditional: if they use passive-aggressive tactics to force their opinion into my living room, I'll change my answer. For instance, if while reading a novel I start to hear axe-grinding instead of storytelling, I'm putting it down.
In regards to Orson Scott Card, I haven't seen the article you did, and to be honest I very rarely read about the personal opinions of authors and artists because I don't much care about them. For the most part, I only care about the entertainment value of their work in my life. I will only react to their personal views if they use a venue to express their opinion that I find hostile. (More on that below.) If the opinions are passive, such as in an interview, why should I care?
I do suspect the views OSC expressed are not politically driven but religiously driven. I am not a Mormon, and the Protestant churches I grew up in are expressly anti-Mormon, but that doesn't mean I won't read OSC (who, as you know, is a Mormon), nor would it decide how I feel about what I read. I have a great respect and admiration for OSC.
I am most certainly not Scientologist either, but that won't stop me from reading L. Ron Hubbard. Hubbard was *very* pushy about his philosophy, and recruited other major SF literary figures such as A.E. van Vogt and John W. Campbell (the latter being a personality heavyweight in his own right), and I will still read their work as well.
But that's just me. I tend to react more to conduct than opinion. The line is crossed when the artist starts using their opinions like a weapon, and then ducking behind the First Amendment as an excuse for their insecure behavior. For instance, though I am not Catholic, I would never pay money to see Chris Ofili's painting in Brooklyn, "The Holy Virgin Mary," which uses elephant dung and cutouts from pornographic magazines to express his art. It's not that I'm "offended" so much as that I really don't care to see art made with such material, especially if with a direct religious message. I had the same negative reaction to Sinead O'Connor's Pope-ripping episode on Saturday Night Live back in 1992, the Dixie Chicks' ashamed-the-President-is-from-Texas remark on stage during a concert in London, and Michael Moore's shaming of Bush on stage at the Oscars last year. And to put the latter two cases in perspective: I did not agree with the decision to attack Iraq. But I also did not agree with the way these artists abused their privileges.
It is not about their civil rights. The way I see it, a person has the civil right to pass gas anywhere and at any time and as loudly as he or she wants, but Moore deliberately passed it at the dinner table.
-----
Christopher Sirmons Haviland
FaithAndFairies.com
Edited by: LegendMaker at: 4/15/04 7:59 pm
|
janeyolen
Registered User
(4/14/04 3:24 pm)
|
I disagree
I have to respectfully disagree, Christopher. Michael Moore may have passed gas, but it was at his own dinner table. You decided to be a guest there. I didn't.
And all art is, at its heart, political, whether it is comforting the status quo or challenging it. We can be changed by what we read or be enlightened or be moved or be comforted. We choose what we want to read or look at from many motives. And if you choose NOT to listen to or watch or look at or read stuff--it is your own choice.
I choose not to support Woody Allen because of his life. I choose not to go to see the elephant dung Madonna because I find the very idea stupid. I refuse to read Norman Spinrad because of a personal run in with him years ago. And I bought The Satanic Verses as a political act, but found it impossible to slog through.
Jane
|
LegendMaker
Registered User
(4/14/04 6:14 pm)
|
Re: I disagree
Jane, regarding the Moore incident, it is the very fact that he took advantage of millions of unsuspecting viewers -- who where there to watch filmmakers win awards -- to vent his political opinions. TRUST me, if I had *known* he would pass gas, I would not have been a guest!
In other words, I would not have watched the oscars, despite that I very much liked the documentary Moore won the award for. If I want to tune in to see that kind of thing, there are channels for it. See, that's really the point. It's one thing when someone stands outside on the town square and exercises the First Amendment (something that rather comforts me, because it reminds me we don't live in a dictatorship), but quite another if I, let's say, went to the movies and someone got up in front of the screen and started shouting political opinions in the middle of the movie. Technically the latter person is allowed to do this legally (though it might get him tossed out by the manager). But it is not welcome conduct, because it is an inappropriate venue and an act of aggression to take advantage of an audience who is not gathered to hear your opinions. You will always notice that people who act this way will use the First Amendment as a reason they are misbehaving.
Unfortunately, due to this, I now will find it impossible to convince some of my family to see his Columbine documentary, which I felt was well worth watching. They were thoroughly offended and don't care to see any of his work. I guess those are the consequences, but it's a shame (for both Moore and for my family).
BTW I also bought The Satanic Verses for the same reason you did, and I had the exact same reaction to it. As for Woody Allen, I like his movies, and know nothing about his life at all, save the media hype about his affair with his step-daughter, which to me seemed really over-baked by the media. Norman Spinrad, well... He has contributed material to one of my current book projects and so far so good, so I can't complain; I don't know him personally at all. It's Harlan that makes me nervous. :-)
Edited by: LegendMaker at: 4/15/04 7:57 pm
|
jane
Unregistered User
(4/15/04 5:57 am)
|
Answers
Since every Oscar night someone or two or three get up and make political or off-the-wall statements, part of the fun for many folk is seeing that. Like hoping to see a streaker at the superbowl. The rest is pretty boring. At least in my opinion.
The Woody Allen thing is really urpy. She was his stepdaughter, though not perhaps legally. But he had been her "father" since she was very small. When she was a teen he was taking naked pictures of her and seduced her before she was legally of age. All the while he and her mother were still an item. When her mother found the pictures she threw Allen out. The stepdaughter went with him, lived with him for a while, married him, had a child. One hopes it's not a girl.
As to Norman--he tried to deck me. No one in my life had ever before or since raised a hand to me. Granted he was drunk or perhaps otherwise narcotically compromised, and I was in a position of power (president of SFWA) but it is not something I am able to forget. At least not enough to read his work. I fully accept that this is a failure on my part viz literature.
Jane
|
LegendMaker
Registered User
(4/15/04 7:40 am)
|
Re: Answers
Norman Spinrad tried to hit you?? Good Lord. I wouldn't accept it as a failure on your part viz literature, but as a pretty justifiable human reaction.
Edited by: LegendMaker at: 4/15/04 7:56 pm
|
Terri
Windling
Registered User
(4/15/04 9:08 am)
|
Re: Answers
Christopher, may I ask you the favor of not using graphics in your posts? It screws up the margins for some of us with older computers. On mine, it makes these threads very, very difficult to read. Sorry to be harping about this issue lately, but this board has been fairly graphic-free until now...which has been a blessing to those of us with machines that don't cope with them well.
|
Laura
McCaffrey
Registered User
(4/15/04 11:07 am)
|
Re: Answers
There are artisits whose work I won't buy because of their politics. It may be a small thing, but I don't want my money going toward their political causes, even if the actual dollars I lay down don't. However, this doesn't mean I won't read or view their work. In my opinion, this is what libraries are for: to be the place where books, and information in other formats, of all political stripes can be found. And I think we'd be in a sad state if they didn't serve that function for us.
Perhaps, therefore, my refusal to buy doesn't matter if I still think the work should be available. It's a strange answer, I suppose, but the one that I'm currently comfortable with.
LauraMc
|
Veronica
Schanoes
Registered User
(4/15/04 1:16 pm)
|
Re: Answers
I myself take Jane Yolen's point of view--life is short and I'm
not going to waste it forcing myself to read the work of people
who bug me, personally or politically. No doubt this does make me
miss out on some great art. For example, last night I turned down
yet another opportunity to see Gone With the Wind (it was
on TCM). I'm sure it's a terrific movie, technically, but I just
have no sympathy for rich slaveowners, or poor slave-owners, for
that matter. No doubt I'm missing out, but I think the movie's politics
would have prevented me from enjoying it anyway, considering that
I spent all of The Ninth Gate screaming incoherently at
my TV over the inaccuracies of the movie's portrayal of an antiquarian
book dealer. Now, I do realize that there's a difference between
the politics of a work of art and the politics of the artist, but
I think that emotionally I would have the same reaction.
Obviously there are degrees of this sort of thing. I have no intention
of not reading Shakespeare just because he wrote that vile Taming
of the Shrew. Though I don't care to watch/read Shrew
ever again. Having read it 3 times, I think I've served my time.
|
LegendMaker
Registered User
(4/15/04 8:01 pm)
|
Re: Answers
Terri: That's no problem, I didn't realize that. These ezBoards make it easy to edit old posts.
Edited by: LegendMaker at: 4/15/04 8:02 pm
|
|
