The early books are acceptable light fantasy. Nothing profound but entertaining.
I’ve never heard any accusations against Anthony for anything he’s done in real life. His creepiness is limited to what he writes.
The creepiness factor increases the further into his career he got. His early stuff had nothing objectionable. Then things got a little salacious. Then they became questionable. Then disturbing. Then sick.
A classic case of this dilemma (which rated far more attention here than in the US) was that of “The Hand that Signed the Paper” by Helen Darville.
The book is in my view quite brilliant, but very nasty in that it is about a Ukranian family during WWII, the sons of which become members of the SS and participate in the Holocaust. What is IMHO brilliant is the way in which Darville adroitly describes the descent of the sons into evil without them ever being stereotypical bad guys, or them making any particular decision to be as evil as they become. It’s a disturbing portrayal of the ordinaryness of those who perpetrated the Holocaust.
Darville published the book under a pen name, Helen Demidenko, and pretended that she was Ukrainian and that the book was (to some extent) inspired by her family’s experiences. At least to my recollection, the book’s reception - which had the potential to be hostile insofar as it might be seen to be sympathetic to the SS - was tempered because Demidenko could be seen as merely passing on the reality of what her family told her.
When it came out that Darville was not Ukrainian at all and that the book was entirely fiction, the gloves came off well and truly. It doesn’t help that Darville is politically active and has strong right wing leanings.
For my part, it doesn’t matter who wrote the book it is IMHO - in itself - a great book. Not “great” in the casual sense of “fantastic” or “wonderful” and certainly the book is not enjoyable, it is dark and really quite horrible. But it is a great work. It’s powerful and should be read by anyone who thinks that only atavistic monsters (and certainly no one in their community) could become part of an evil machine. I don’t have any particular view on Darville; I haven’t looked into her life enough. But I do think that those who say that the book can be dismissed out of hand because Darville mislead about her identity and the background to the book are missing out on something that - taken on its face - is a worthwhile piece of literature.
Some of the pioneers of organ transplantation were, to say the least, awful people. Dr. Walton Lillehei was probably the best example of this; he was a sociopath to the core whose medical license was revoked in the early 1970s for IIRC tax evasion, which in the long run was probably for the best.
And there’s Dr. Gajdusek, who identified kuru and paved the way for prion disease research.
Delany’s also on the record as supporting NAMBLA, FWIW…
There’s a vast difference between cultural products and a material product like medicine.
Not necessarily, I’ll never understand why some people insist in believing that. I know quite a few authors whose darkest spot is along the lines of “never remembers to change the roll of toilet paper”, while people whose own lives could be nonacentist novels never write a single coherent sentence.
What’s hard about Straight Life is the brilliant music of Art Pepper. Loving his playing, his in-the-moment musicality which seems so transcendent, and then reading that book is brain-twisting. There’s something so deep in the juxtaposition, because, yeah, talk about the banal yuckiness of a bad guy user - any humanity he had he put in his music.
This type of moral ambiguity is the source of a lot of great works. I will definitely check this book out, thank you.
I might be able to get past supporting NAMBLA, but supporting FWIW? That’s insurmountable!
Roald Dahl was one the best children’s book authors that ever lived. He also was a total douchebag with fell into being a published author. And I love all his works.
By the way, per the OP, I love Paula Poundstone as a comedian and humorist on NPR. I get that she had some issues but it seems like she’s owning her shit.
I don’t listen to her with a mental filter on. She’s eccentric, but I don’t think of her as bad of heart.
[QUOTE=dorvann]
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?
[/QUOTE]
Additionally, unless you can establish a link between a scientist’s bad acts and the cure he develops, you’d be a fool to reject to it. A harder ethical question to answer, however, is whether people would be in the right using a cure or some other beneficial invention the that is the fruit of a horrific atrocity committed by the scientist(s) or even of means that are legal but considered morally objectionable by many (e.g., animal testing or use of stem cells). That’s the topic of a different thread though.
“I mean, how can they call it anonymous when they told everyone I went there?”