He also did not care for the Joos…see the shitty comments he made about Dorothy Parker behind her back. I agree that “Macomber” and several of the other short stories are great, and I have a warm place in my heart for The Sun Also Rises, but pretty much all the rest of his work stinks.
Dashiell Hammett accomplished better fiction in this style without waving his dick around yelling I AM GREAT LITERATURE, and I bet he could have drunk Ernie under the table.
For me it really depends. If I avoided every great writer that was a seething misogynist, I would never read anything that interested me. But most of the time, if I can tell by the writing that the author is prejudiced, I can’t enjoy the book much. Mostly because their portrayal of female (or black, or gay) characters is one-dimensional and unrealistic. This is why I don’t read Heinlein.
But there are exceptions. I’ve read a large selection of works by Friedrich Nietzsche, my favorite philosopher. In addition to untreated mental illness and syphilis, he also had a massive prejudice against women that occasionally showed up in one of his aphorisms. His prejudice stemmed from the way he was raised, living under the thumb of three overbearing, pious women. His philosophy regarding both women and Christianity were so obviously influenced by his personal life that it was almost comical to me how little insight he had into himself that way. But it didn’t take away from the value I got out of his work.
By and large, I try to separate the author from the work, unless, as stated before, the author’s prejudice (or other moral failings) undermine the quality of the work.
Many, many of the bands I like were heroin junkies, serial adulterers, party animals, adopted Satanic imagery, etc…I just keep that separate from my thoughts. Isn’t that the same thing here? If not, what’s the difference?
If it is living authors who have proven themselves to be jerkwads, I might still read their books but be careful to make sure that they never got a penny of my money. If they are dead, I have even less problem reading their books. For instance, I’m a fan of Lewis Carol’s writing even though he was probably a pedophile.
I can’t just let this go; this is very probably a myth.
In the case of Piers Anthony, the pedophilia infests his work and makes it impossible to consider them as separate.
She alludes, at the very end of the book, to dragging around a bunch of bad baggage but goes no further.
I do suspect that the lewd conduct charge could have been blown out of proportion because Poundstone may be perceived as lesbian (the charge involved a 14yo girl). As a lesbo meself, I’ve always thought she is. However, in the book she says multiple times that she identifies as assexual - like so many times it is weird and distracting. Maybe protesteth too much? I dunno.
Yeah, she’s (was?) a heinous, heinous person. I don’t enjoy her genre, but if I did she’d be on my Do Not Read or Teach list. Her offenses are so hideous it renders her writing unreadable (YMMV). I don’t want to throw any royalties her way.
As an English prof I do have to study and teach authors I personally find odious, but their work is important for students to know. Yup, Joyce was an odious person, but so far as I know he didn’t rape and torture his daughter for decades.
The myth that Carroll was a pedophile is largely derived from ripping his behavior out of historical context. It wasn’t that weird to paint children in the nude and so on because they didn’t have the same hangups about kids back then. He wrote briefly to Alice Liddell and might have had feelings for her once she became an adult, but nothing ever came of it. I’ve never seen any compelling evidence to suggest he abused children. Nothing so much as a rumor.
FWIW, Marion Zimmer Bradley has been dead since 1999. The Avalon series has been continued by Diana Paxson and the covers I’ve seen (haven’t read any of them) all included Bradley’s name above the title, so that might have given people the impression she was still alive and publishing.
Samuel R Delany wrote the extremely transgressive Hogg and also “Stars in My Pocket Like Grains of Sand”.
I think reading something as horrific as “Hogg” would make you wonder how his world view informs other stuff he wrote as it’s all coming from the same brain.
Getting through Art Pepper’s autobiography was a trial. Art was a jazzman, a gifted sax player, and a heroin addict for his entire life. He abused every relationship and person in his life, with nearly every waking moment dedicated to supporting his habit. He lied, cheated and stole, abused women, went to prison for a number of years, went through rehab, and the minute he got out was scoring again. One of the most selfish fuckers you could ever read about. The up side to the book is its complete honesty as to what an asshole he was and how addiction owns you. Hard to finish.
Anyone who writes something like “Hogg” isn’t someone I’d want to be acquainted with, quite frankly. It’s basically child porn. (IIRC, he explicitly stated it’s meant to be porn) Unless he was going for a “Scrotie McBoogerballs” type of thing, I have no desire to read any of his works.
But isn’t that what makes it compelling?
Is any of the Xanth stuff good?
Is it true? I mean, is he messed up in real life? Do the books really go too far?
I’ve not read a single thing from him. The covers, titles, and overall packaging always made them look like cheap crap to me.
IMHO it’s true that some of his books are really messed up when it comes to sex and especially sex with minors, but as far as I know there’s never been any hint of scandal related to Anthony’s personal life. According to his Wikipedia article he’s been married to the same woman for nearly 60 years, and his only legal troubles seem to have been conflicts with his publishers.
There are of course plenty of pervs who manage to cover up their crimes, but as far as I can tell there’s no evidence that Anthony is guilty of anything worse than bad writing.
I haven’t read Piers Anthony since the 1980s. The Xanth books I read back then I considered to be decent light-hearted entertainment, a series of fantasy adventures set in a magical land sort of like Frank Baum’s Oz books for a slightly older audience.
But Anthony has/had a tendency to write series that start out pretty good and get increasingly worse with each new book, which would make the more recent Xanth books, if they follow that pattern, very bad indeed. I haven’t read them, but from what I’ve seen it looks like they’re self-indulgent crap based around bad puns and reader suggestions and creepy sexual innuendo.
I don’t remember much in the way of sexual ickiness in the Piers Anthony books I read back then, but I don’t know whether that’s because of my youth and inexperience at the time, my faulty memory, or the fact that his books back then weren’t as bad, or at least as blatant, as his later work. But here’s a column (from The AV Club) by someone who did go back and re-read that first Xanth book, and didn’t like what he found:
I read the book “Sailing Alone Around the World” by Joshua Slocum. I thought it was a fun memoir, but I have to admit I felt kind of icky after reading that he served jail time for exposing himself to a 12-year-old girl.
In the beginning, it was. But it became a slog, then a chore, and then after going all that way I had to finish it. . .just because. Interesting that his best work was arguably the album “Art Pepper Meets the Rhythm Section”, which he recorded while completely stoned.
I, for the most part, don’t care about the personal lives of the authors I read as long
as they are dead and not profitting off their works.
For a living author, I would not do anything to give them money if I knew they were
scum.
Also, in case of someone like Friedrich Nietzsche, I have a hard time avoiding their work
if it had some sort of historical importance.
Also I wonder how far this type of moral dilemma would people be willing to take?
If a scientist invented a cure for cancer or AIDS would you avoid taking it it if said
scientist was a rapist or murderer or worse?