Huh? Child molesters get caught all the time. What’s unrealistic about that?
For using laran to mindrape someone? Really?
And anyway, it was MZB’s wholly fictional world, and earlier in the worldbuilding process. The “society portrayed” could be whatever she chose to portray.
Hypothetical:
Friend: “The author wrote this while having sex with an infant and snacking on live kittens.”
Me: “Is it any good?”
Any other human will have details in their life and value system that don’t match mine. I don’t wish to live in isolation so any line would be arbitrary so I just don’t draw one when it comes to the author/composer/actor/etc. of creative work.
I didn’t quit reading Card because of his views on gay marriage. I quit reading him because the last few books in the Alvin Maker series sucked.
Excellent.
I shall now tell myself that no one reads my work because they disagree with my personal beliefs, and not because I write cliched, predictable, trite juvenalia whose cardboard characters have inexplicable motive and goals.
The unrealistic part is the perpetrator being caught after only doing it ONCE. By the time they’re caught molesters/rapists usually have a significant history of doing the act.
Yep - because that society doesn’t give much of a fig for anyone abused by the comyn. If Ardais had stuck to nobodies instead of going after aristocratic kids no one would have cared. Even in this instance, it took the intervention of higher placed people in the government/society to bring him up on charges.
Much was made of mindraping being a horrible, unforgivable crime but the series is rife with examples of people doing just that, and often getting away with it for prolonged periods of time.
Yes, but a society in which all criminals are caught after just one offense then severely and properly punished with no exceptions would be pretty unlikely and possibly rather boring to read about.
I can’t decide whether this fallacious argument is better described as a false dilemma or not. The choice isn’t between drawing arbitrary lines or not - I don’t have arbitrary standards, I approach each author as a person. In fact, I’m the one who isn’t drawing the arbitrary line: the one between person and creative output. Unless you think all creative works just arrive new-sprung out of peoples’ heads rather than being influenced by their personality, that is? Maybe for some Surrealist art, otherwise, no.
And unless your filters were set unrealistically, ridiculously high (which, I don’t think “no kiddie-fucker-enablers” is,) you’re not going to be “in isolation,” that’s complete hyperbole. There are millions of authors out there who have never been shown to have: molested kids, covered for child molesters, beaten their girlfriends, murdered someone, oppressed gays, raped someone or similar evils. Millions.
OK, I get you. You can always change that to “a few times” then
I thought the Cadets were all Comyn. Might have misunderstood, I just remember Regis and Danilo, anyway.
…yet entirely within the bounds of a telepathic society that has truthspell. Hell, such a telepathic society should have a completely different legal system. And I wouldn’t find the premise boring at all. It could make for interesting stories.
But this discussion of Darkover specifically is turning into a bit of a hijack - like i said, even if I grant that* Heritage* doesn’t contain apologia, it was never the root of my argument for a boycott of MZB. That was her real-world actions.
Two problems with that. The first is the minor of “never been shown” doesn’t mean never have done it.
Second, what about someone who has never done any of those things that make your cut but cheated on a spouse, forgot to call their mother or voted for Bush. The arbitrary part of the arguement - admittedly a little exaggerated - is that any screening criteria you choose is going to have someone who passes but has done some other unsavory things. And the things you opt to screen by may not match the things I’d screen by.
You are free to screen by anything you want but if your critique of a work is not about the work itself, it loses impact for some people.
I don’t see the big deal here. Mr. Dibble doesn’t have to read anything from an author who’s behavior he finds morally repugnant. I think his reasoning that he doesn’t want to contribute or reward such behavior is reasonable. Other people may have different approaches. If you intentionally contribute to such behavior I find you morally repugnant, anything less than that is just too open to interpretation.
I wouldn’t criticize someone for holding either position. I think they’re both ethically defensible.
So what? I can just go with the facts presented to me. I don’t claim moral omniscience, and never have.
So? I’m not calling for a universal standard here, I’m saying I should have the right to point out things about an author* I *find objectionable, as long as it’s not a hijack (so I’m not going to go into a “What is your favourite Darkover novel” thread to rail against her, but a general recommendations thread is fair game IMO). Others can take that anti-rec or leave it. Wendell Wagner as good as said I shouldn’t do even that.
That’s perfectly fine, I’m aware lots of people are on the other side of the “creator divorced from their creation” line. That wasn’t the issue - the issue was whether it was OK to even bring non-actual-creative-output stuff up. “Thanks, but I don’t screen my books that way” is an OK response. “Don’t harsh my creative buzz with your author facts, man!” is not.
This is basically my stance. I read MZB (and met her once) before learning about her icky defense of her pederast husband. The enjoyability of the books did not change from learning about that, but my enjoyment thereafter, did. They were, frankly, overwrought and cliche-ridden, so not much of a loss.
As I recall, MZB defended her husband by claiming he was enticed or led on by the girl he raped. That doesn’t match up in particulars at all with Heritage of Hastur, so I’m skeptical she wrote it as an(other) defense of her husband.
Similarly with OSC, I read a couple of his books, then learned what an asshole he was, and stopped reading more of his books.
If I know someone reading an MZB or OSC book, I’d likely mention the authorial issues to them. But if they choose to read on having been informed, that’s their choice to make, and doesn’t really bother me.
Boys (plural) he raped. Over the course of at least 25 years.
Boys from SF fandom, BTW, which makes it kind of doubly evil, IMO.
“In defence of” is perhaps going too far. “With him in mind” is perhaps closer to what I think.
It might bother me if they were a really good friend, but not otherwise.
Hell, even on the MZB front, I’m not a complete absolutist. I belong to, and am very active in, the Society for Creative Anachronism. Guess who named that?
Back to the basic question.
If the topic is “writers whose morals you don’t like”, you are correct to interject.
If the topic is recommend books with X, and your contribution is not on topic, I’d say you are dtrailing the thread. If you feel you must, a simple “I have issues with their personal life” would allow like minded individuals to get the info you want them to have.
I’ve not read any of those books but it looks like the only fact is her husband’s conviction (and the lack of a divorce I guess) and then some debatable interpretation of a fantasy world scenario.
“I would not in good conscience recommend her work” is totally on topic.
My original post was perfectly succinct, and would allow anyone who wanted to know more to contact me. “I have issues with their personal life” is content-free boilerplate.
Then you haven’t read the links I’ve posted, such as MZB’s own trial testimony. So you can’t bother to find out facts, you skip right over replying to replies to your posts, and yet your opinion counts because…?
Are you talking about your link in post #52?
That, and other links in the thread this one is a spin-off of.
My view is generally that the views of the artist don’t matter and that the art should stand on it’s own merit. Chances are, there are a number of authors, actors, musicians, comedians, or stepping out of just the arts a bit into comedians, athletes, and other performers and entertainers, who have opinions and have done things that I don’t approve of. If I were to limit myself to just those whose morals and opinions matched mine, I would bleed myself dry artistically. On the other hand, I do think these things come in to play if those opinions and morals filter through into their work, then I might have a problem.
For instance, like the example up thread, some author has an involvement with potentially enabling a pedarest. Even if that’s true, does it bleed over into his work? How good are his novels on their own merit? If we weren’t to read any work written by anyone who ever felt that way, we’d have to throw out a ton of works by the ancients. Or even on racism, so many of the works of our forefathers are considered essential reading, but at the same time many of them had detestable views by modern standards on race. We can ignore anything they wrote supporting those ideas we reject, but we shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bath water.
Obviously, with laws like copyright, it’s difficult to legally and ethically observe the work of someone one doesnt support morally and not reimburse them for it somehow. I think trying to just find a free version of it somewhere sort of defeats the purpose, fighting a wrong with another wrong. So, though I will generally separate the artist from the art, there are some artists whom I find so dispicable that I will not support them, and I’m willing to accept that I won’t get to see or read or hear the art they’ve created as a result. And so, that’s why I do so sparingly.
For example, for anyone keeping up on the Bryan Singer situation, I’ve heard a number of people say they won’t see the new X-Men film. Even if we assume he’s guilty, there’s still literally hundreds of others involved in the creation of the film, for a number of people it’s a film they’re otherwise really interested in seeing, and I seriously doubt there’s anything in it that has anything to do with what he may have done. I don’t see a point in hurting myself in not seeing a film I want to see and not supporting the hundreds of others involved in the creation of it, and then letting the other stuff be sorted out as it is.
Well, OK, let me put it this way - when OJ Simpson published If I Did It I didn’t want to read it because in that case I believed it was based on him actually killing two people (yes, obviously I’m in the “he’s guilty” camp). Now that any profits from the book go to the Goldman family I’d consider it, as it wouldn’t benefit an effin’ murderer and reward him for killing people.
I don’t see where reading MZB’s novels ever benefited a molester or rapist or rewarded him for doing that, so I have no moral objection to reading them or purchasing them. I also don’t have a problem with other people who feel so strongly about MZB’s child raping husband they can’t stomach reading anything by her NOT reading/buying/whatever her novels. Free choice, it’s wonderful. I only object when someone tell me I should or shouldn’t read something based on their opinion. I can study the facts and decide for myself, thank you very much. If there’s an issue let me know about it, I’ll look into it myself to confirm whether it’s true or not and go from there.
Now, the OSC novels I purchased in the past, as far as I know, didn’t go to directly supporting causes I don’t approve of. If, however, he announced tomorrow all proceeds from his writing would henceforth go towards opposing same sex marriage and converting the heathens to Mormonism I’d stop buying his stuff because then it would no longer be about a writer making a living and supporting his family but rather furthering causes I find repugnant.
Like I said, though, I’m OK with someone else having a completely different filter. I’m also just fine with discussing different filters as long as it remains civil.
She continued to financially support Breen until his incarceration.
Then you’re not in opposition to the matter being mentioned at all, I take it.
I object to anything that boils down to “You shouldn’t read it because I don’t like it”, but I’m up for discussing where people draw a line for themselves and why.
As for as MZB’s books supporting a molester - they were also supporting her and her children and I don’t see where a person and her children should be deprived of income because of the actions of another human being. Now, if she had said “All funds from this novel are going to support a child rapist” that would be a different matter, but we shouldn’t be destroying anyone’s livelihood (because a boycott amounts to an attempt to do just that) prior to them being convicted of a crime - which MZB was not, it was her husband who was guilty.
At least, that’s my reasoning. As I said, I’m well aware others feel differently.