So evidentlly, Mitt Romney's favorite novel or favorite Sci-Fi novel (depending on which day you ask him) is Battlefield Earth.
Does this bother anyone here? I've never read Battlefield Earth; I've never wanted to read Battlefield Earth. From what I know of it, I can't imagine anyone labeling it their favorite Sci-Fi novel, let alone their favorite novel of all. And Romney seems so normal, or at least, not the type for this sort of weirdness.
*disturbed*
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Ken Jennings had some interesting things to say about this in his blog.
quote:This is possibly the worst answer to a standard campaign question that I have ever heard in a lifetime of bad campaign answers.
quote:Plus, insomuch as there’s any subtext here, it’s “I’m incredibly lowbrow” or “I’m so green I didn’t think of and wasn’t prepped with an answer to this question” or, at worst, “The Mormon question isn’t enough; I want to be linked with an even iffier religious movement!” Plus, it’s not like the widely-held best SF novel of the last thirty years isn’t by a fellow Mormon!
(with link to Ender's Game)
quote:Romney later clarified that his favorite book was the Bible. Yawn. That’s almost no better. I guess reporters should always preface this question with “Other than lame cop-out answers…”
quote:Bill Clinton used to say One Hundred Years of Solitude was his favorite novel, and you’ve got to admire The Master–that’s a pretty damn savvy answer. It’s a fun book, with broad comedy and even genre (fantasy) elements. But it’s also epic and serious, with an unimpeachable scholarly reputation. It’s foreign (you’re losing me…) but it’s in Spanish (ah, Latin vote!–nicely played). It’s Oprah-ready (and was even a Book Club selection post-Bubba).
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Does this bother anyone here?
Uh...of all the things that disturb me about Romney, from his hair-do to his fiscal policies, his favorite novel isn't even within the boundaries of my worry.
Should it be?
quote:I've never read Battlefield Earth; I've never wanted to read Battlefield Earth. From what I know of it, I can't imagine anyone labeling it their favorite Sci-Fi novel, let alone their favorite novel of all.
I think that the first sentence and a half kind of weakens any argument you'd care to make.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I also liked Battlefield Earth, its generic non-franchised science fiction, and trust me dont dis or say your disturbed by it if you have never even read it, that is just plain rude. The only scientology reference in the entire book is an oblique reference to the cruelty of Psyclo psyciatrists thats about it and only one reference at that.
The book makes considerably more sense then the movie, I consider it well written and an enjoyable read, its on of those the Human race gets nearly obliterated books but is saved by the ingenuity and perservience of the survivors.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Yea, you have to wonder when even your "constituency" questions your sanity by picking such a choice. Frankly, I don't care that much. At the least, I think it is probably a more honest answer - although I still don't get it.
Good point Scott R. Some people seemed to have liked it (enjoyable, but hardly fave) or hated it.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
He must have seen the movie. The movie has a profound effect on lots of people.
I never said it would be a good effect...
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
the movie was also enjoyable as unlike some people I can switch my disbelief on and off at will, so what if Harriers wouldn't work after 1000 years in a sealed bunker its STILL COOL MAN!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Yea, you have to wonder when even your "constituency" questions your sanity by picking such a choice.
How did the people in Massachusetts question his sanity?
Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
I loved the book when I was in Junior High, and I think I actually cried when I was half way through because I knew it would be over soon (even though it was over 1000 pages long). So, now that 16 years have passed I think I will read it again. Thanks for the reminder.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
m-p-h, I mean those who support him in his presidential run, not as former Gov.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I really enjoyed Battlefield Earth as well and have read it more than once.
It has some neat concepts in it.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Why should it bother me? The man's entitled to have a favourite book in the fluffy fantasy genre. Sure, it's written by the same guy who wrote Dianetics, but Battlefield Earth is just a story. It's not a belief system or a religion or anything more than a bunch of aliens and earthlings duking it out.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
My guess is that he read it as a teenager and so it is his emotional choice. It's a good thing I am not running for office because I imagine that "Gone with the Wind" would not be a political answer. My real favorite book is To Kill a Mockingbird, but Scarlett O'Hara with all her strengths and fobiles is knit into my soul.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
He SHOULD have answered, "The Book of Mormon."
Political panderer...
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:m-p-h, I mean those who support him in his presidential run, not as former Gov.
OK, but that still doesn't answer my question. Where have the supporters for his presidential run questioned his sanity? I just don't know what you're referring to.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: So evidentlly, Mitt Romney's favorite novel or favorite Sci-Fi novel (depending on which day you ask him) is Battlefield Earth.
Does this bother anyone here? I've never read Battlefield Earth; I've never wanted to read Battlefield Earth. From what I know of it, I can't imagine anyone labeling it their favorite Sci-Fi novel, let alone their favorite novel of all. And Romney seems so normal, or at least, not the type for this sort of weirdness.
*disturbed*
It's definitely not my favorite, but it's probably in my 50 top books. Maybe 100. I have a lot of favorites.
I thought it was really enjoyable. I've probably read it half a dozen times. Hell, I even read Battlefield Earth, though only once -- it took so bloody long.
I saw a few minutes of the movie, and almost lost my lunch. It's the kind of book that could only be done well as a movie in CGI. But it was a fun book. If you've never read it, I think you're missing out.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Hell, I even read Battlefield Earth, though only once -- it took so bloody long.
You mean Mission Earth?
I loathe that series. Bleh. The entire thing felt like the author was jumping up and down shouting: "Look at me! I'm CLEVER! AND FUNNY!"
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
*blink* type there Lisa? did you mean mission Earth?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Imho the Voltar Confederacy should crash and burn.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Battlefield Earth, the book, is nearly as bad as Battlefield Earth, the movie. Yechh.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Where have the supporters for his presidential run questioned his sanity?" In some blogs where it has been discussed. Maybe if I had more time than simply to type words I will make some links.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
Never read the book, but I love the movie. Very good comedy.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Hell, I even read Battlefield Earth, though only once -- it took so bloody long.
You mean Mission Earth?
That's the one.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I loathe that series. Bleh. The entire thing felt like the author was jumping up and down shouting: "Look at me! I'm CLEVER! AND FUNNY!"
<shrug> I read it after a bout of reading Xanth books (before I finally couldn't stand it anymore). Relative to Piers Anthony's smarmy self-absorbed witless humor, Mission Earth sparkled.
But I didn't think I'd ever be willing to read it again, so I took it down to a used bookstore and dumped it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: *blink* type there Lisa? did you mean mission Earth?
I forget whose law that is. The one about making a grammatical error in a post pointing out a grammatical error, or a spelling error in a post pointing out a spelling error. But I suspect you meant "typo", Blayne.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
An apology to those who liked Battlefield Earth, and also a hat tip that it's disingenuous to criticize that with which one has little or no first had experience. My impression, both from the movie previews and from the few exerpts I read, as well as what (probably biased) information I have a Hubbard's literary aspirations, I assumed it wasn't worth the voluminous paper it was printed on.
And perhaps there's something to what kat says. They didn't ask "What's the best novel you've ever read?" Your favorite novel is quite a different story, I suppose. Anyway, my point is just that it struck me as a very non-Romney answer.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Would him answering The Hitchiker's Guide To the Galaxy or books like Stranger In a Strange Land be politically beneficial or detrimental?
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
I enjoyed Battlefield Earth the book and the movie. The book was well written, engaging, interesting, entertaining. The movie, not as much so, but was still reasonably good and fun to watch. I wouldn't put them in my top ten, but wouldn't mind reading the book or watching the movie again.
It's fiction. What's the big deal?
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Wow. The four adjectives you used to describe the book are the exact antonyms of the words I would've used.
It's fiction, but it's crappy fiction.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Somewhere in the bosky depths of that 1000 page tome is a decent 250 page sci-fi novel trying to claw it's way out. It's very dull, it drags horribly.
It shows odd judgement that Romney would pick it as his favorite novel. And that's being charitable.
edit:For honesty's sake, I think someone at Hatrack, (perhaps Tom Davidson) had a similar critique of BE as mine above. Which I read and agreed with.
[ May 05, 2007, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I read the first half of it (before I lost the book), but it seemed OK to me.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
I have to go with Morbo on this one. There was a decent, interesting 250 page story buried under 750 pages of crap. He needed an editor with a large red pen to cut out whole chapters of stuff.
His "Decology" is the same way.
Also, do you notice that his paranoid characters are the most interesting? Isn't it said that you should write what you know? Well I figured out what Hubbard knew, and that was being nuts.
msquared
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Instead of just taking a poll of Like or Dislike, I'll try something Novel--pardon the pun.
Ok, don't pardon the pun. One should never pardon a pun. It should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but I digress.
I'll tell you why I didn't like it.
The main character, who's name I forget, was an illiterate, savagely grown, undernourished, man living close to a large radioactive source that mutated many of his tribe. With only a little help from a library program (the idea of which was stolen by "the Matrix") he becomes an expert tactician, pilot, linguist, fighter, historian, politician, and more.
He becomes Superman without the allergy to Kryptonite.
They bad guys are called Psychlos for two reasons. One, because they were just normal everyday aliens until evil hypnotic psychologists turned took away their conciences, and two, because once you invade and wipe out a minor slave planet, why yes, you pick a name as close as possible to their term for psychos.
It is a very plot heavy story, lots of action, political theory and religious suggestions abound, but character development is flat and the writing just isn't that good.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Does this bother anyone here?
If taste in reading material was what it took to disturb an alienate me, I'd have to dump half of my friends!
They're a bunch of Dan Brown readin' weirdos... Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I read the first half of it (before I lost the book), but it seemed OK to me.
How do you lose a book the size of a steamer trunk?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I am not sure what he is trying to say in this interview. Makes me wonder what the original question he answered was.
quote:HH: Now we’re wrapping up, Governor. If someone has asked me my favorite novel, I would have said Lord of the Rings, and Eisenhower was a Zane Grey westerns addict. But I’ve got to tell you, science fiction?
MR: (laughing) Well, you know, that’s really not my favorite novel. Probably my favorite is Huckleberry Finn and I’ve read all of Louis L’Amour’s books, I think. I may have missed one of two, but all of his westerns. You know, I have a guilty pleasure in some science fiction. A couple of my other favorite science fiction, Ann McCaffrey’s Dragon Flight, and Orson Scott Card’s Ender’s Game. There’s some great science fiction out there.
Notice, however, that the interviewer didn't question why the particular book, but science fiction in general. And what was up with "2001: A Space Odyssey" as a bad pick as favorite movie? It isn't my favorite, but it definantly is in the top five for me.
I support Romney as my Presidental choice. That said, even this looks like to me backpeddling and PR cleanup. Or maybe its that I am upset that once again Science Fiction is seen as a "guilty pleasure" and unworthy of respect.
[ May 05, 2007, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
I bought a copy of Battlefield Earth in paperback for a buck at a drug store. I read it and my only truly negative comment at the end of it all was that it would've been great at about 1/2 the length.
As it was, the book was, IMO, merely okay. It has some nice elements in it, to be sure, but it suffers from some fairly typical early genre flaws (chauvinism chief among them). Unlike some other authors with that particular flaw, Hubbard was never really good enough to rise above it. (For an author capable of making a better show of that sort of thing, try some early Philip Jose Farmer.)
Anyway, Hubbard's writing is ponderously slow in parts, for no other reason, I suspect, than that he didn't have an editor.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think the shock over the choice is because science fiction - ANY science fiction - is seen as lame. There's an infuriating article in EW this week about how Michael Chabon is "slumming" in science fiction and he defends it. He will, of course, go back to "real" literature for his next book.
I'm only floored that people at Hatrack are taking part in this. Don't we all know that reading science fiction isn't something negative?
[ May 05, 2007, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I'm happy that any candidate could be a science fiction fan. I'm just shocked that a valedictorian, summa cum laude English major would chose that science fiction novel as his favorite.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:And what was up with "2001: A Space Odyssey" as a bad pick as favorite movie?
Personally, I'm torn on whether it or Clockwork Orange is my favorite. 2001 is harder to watch in one sitting, though.
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
katharina,
It's a little strange that someone who is a politician would endorse anything by L. Ron Hubbard. It's the sort of thing that's laden with all sorts of weird overtones for those in general public who might care about such things.
It's just one of those things that candidates say that end up losing them more votes than it gains them, and there's really no reason for them to say anything so silly.
Now, in his case, he has now "clarified" to say that his favorite book is the Bible...so, instead of defending his mildly controversial choice people who aren't for him will get to call him a flip-flopper. Which, of course, is an impression he's trying to live down already because of the abortion issue.
Oh well...I suspect this is relatively minor in the grand scheme of things, and Romney's candidacy will end early for reasons other than anything this silly. But, it's worth noting that the silly questions are often the ones that candidates trip up on.
There are many ways to play this kind of question, and picking something mildly controversial could be a good strategy, but you have to follow through well. His handlers should've prepped him better, IMO. Or he should've prepped himself better.
"What's your favorite color?"
Red! No, Blue!
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The only legitimate colour is Red. Its makes a nifty slogan. "Better Red then Dead".
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:It's just one of those things that candidates say that end up losing them more votes than it gains them, and there's really no reason for them to say anything so silly.
Unless it really is his favorite novel.
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
mph
If that were the case, one might expect him not to change his choice.
Even if we're giving points for honesty, I suspect Mr. Romney has lost those by changing his answer rather than explaining why he particularly likes the book he first mentioned. If, that is, that's how the sequence really went.
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
At any rate I still suspect this will matter to very few people.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: The only legitimate colour is Red. Its makes a nifty slogan. "Better Red then Dead".
Enough with the Republican propaganda, Blayne!
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
I thought he was referring to Native Americans
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lavalamp: At any rate I still suspect this will matter to very few people.
It will matter to whoever the media decides should care.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am puzzled that anyone thinks he is endorsing Hubbard's other writings by saying Battlefield Earth is his favorite novel.
Expecially Hatrackers. So, if someone likes Ender's Game, they are endorsing Card's political columns?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If that were the case, one might expect him not to change his choice.
He didn't change his choice -- he clarified it. He explained that his favorite novel is Battlefield Earth but that his favorite book is The Bible.
So, if we assume that he wasn't lying, while he did change his answer, he didn't change his choice.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Maybe he just told the truth, in a way that was totally unscripted. It's odd that we not only expect but almost require politicians to lie to us on every subject, even insignificant ones. I wonder what our society would be like if the opposite were true, if we insisted our leaders tell us the truth about anything and everything, and being caught in any lie were politically fatal? That would be a very different world. I can't help but think it would be a far better one.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I am puzzled that anyone thinks he is endorsing Hubbard's other writings by saying Battlefield Earth is his favorite novel.
Expecially Hatrackers. So, if someone likes Ender's Game, they are endorsing Card's political columns?
Lots of people feel this way, kat. In fact it's a pretty prevalent attitude out there in the world. The first post in this thread insinuated the same thing.
Mention Orson Scott Card in any (other) forum, and you will have people who say that they no longer read any of his books because of his political opinions.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Mention Orson Scott Card in any (other) forum, and you will have people who say that they no longer read any of his books because of his political opinions.
I think that in most cases that has little to do with thinking that reading him means that you endorse his political columns, though. It's more akin, if I see it correctly, to not watching Mel Gibson movies any more or what have you.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I understand that other people tend to conflate everything a writer writes and assume that appreciation of one part means endorsement of all.
However, all things considered (and by "things" I mean Ender's Game, Card's political columns, and this being Card's website), I'm a little floored Hatrackers would think that.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: It's more akin, if I see it correctly, to not watching Mel Gibson movies any more or what have you.
Not in my experience. I've been told on another forum after posting a positive review of OSC's Treason that I -must- be a pro-Bush and think the Iraq war is a good thing.
Why? Because I read Card, so I "must also think that, because you just must."
We live in a world where it's no longer possible to openly hold mixed opinions, because having one opinion causes other to automatically tack on a whole slew of things "You must also think, because you just MUST!"
Being a Mormon means I -must- hate anyone who drinks or smokes.
Reading and enjoying Card means I -must- love Bush.
Reading manga means I -must- hate American super-hero comics!
It's gotten supremely ridiculous.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Of all the stories I've read, I've never considered what the author's views are. Frankly, I couldn't care less.
If his views are expressed in his work, that doesn't affect me. I've read stories which, at a political and religious level, I might disagree with entirely, but I still enjoy the story for what it's worth.
I read and enjoyed Ender's Game without knowing anything about OSC. Now that I know some of his views, that doesn't change my opinion on the book or any other books of his I might eventually read.
I feel one has to disassociate the two.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Nighthawk, Puffy Treat:
I agree.
kat:
I agree with you as well. It is, imho, ridiculous.
Of course, I'm vested in the idea that the author and his works are separate entities...
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Zeugma, I don't think this is the place to make those kind of statements. You say you stay for the great and diverse community, and that's cool, but Orson Scott Card is still our host. Part of what makes this community great is respect for all our members, and no matter how infrequently active, OSC is still a member here. If you are choosing to stay in spite of him, I wish you would do so without making negative comments about him. To use the living room metaphor, you're spitting on the carpet.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I frequently don't approve of the way those other opinions are expressed, either.
Thank you.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Of all the stories I've read, I've never considered what the author's views are. Frankly, I couldn't care less.
If his views are expressed in his work, that doesn't affect me. I've read stories which, at a political and religious level, I might disagree with entirely, but I still enjoy the story for what it's worth.
I read and enjoyed Ender's Game without knowing anything about OSC. Now that I know some of his views, that doesn't change my opinion on the book or any other books of his I might eventually read.
I feel one has to disassociate the two.
Exactly.
I enjoy fiction for itself, not for the author. When I read fiction, I'm interested in being entertained. I'm in it for the story.
I don't care about the author's views in real life - that's completely separate from his/her ability to tell a good yarn.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Hmmm....
When I was in college, I had a discussion with a female friend about something similar. We had a professor that we both liked and respected. There was a...black mark...on his personal life, nothing illegal, but...not saint-like. She was of the opinion that females were be less likely to want to continue studying with the professor if they knew this about him, unlike most males. When I found this out about him, it didn't immediately affect my opinion of him, but she said it affected hers. Hmmm...
But I think this is different. As long as OSC keeps his political and religious views largely out of his novels, I'll keep reading. I'm not sure I'll read Empire, but I read Crystal City.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:A couple of my other favorite science fiction, Ann McCaffrey’s Dragon Flight . . .
Can't say I think much of whoever transcribed the interview. Didn't bother to check the spelling of author OR title.
As for conflating an author's fiction with their political views/writing, I think that's nonsense. I thought Dianetics was far more interesting a read than Battlefield Earth, and I don't like reading OSC's political essays. So, y'know, I don't read them. (I seriously do not understand those who read them just so they can get all riled up about 'em.) If I disliked reading his books, I wouldn't -- but that's entirely separate from his essays. Thus far, my OSC collection continues to grow.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Lots of people feel this way, kat. In fact it's a pretty prevalent attitude out there in the world. The first post in this thread insinuated the same thing.
In my first post I wasn't taking issue with Romney espousing a book written by L. Ron Hubbard. I was taking issue with Romney indicating his favorite novel was one which my (admittedly limited) experience led me to believe was a second-rate hack job. It was less an issue of political opinion and more an issue of questionable taste. Perhaps something else was read into it by others, but that was my original intent.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I don't think it's as simple as saying that I do or do not separate an artist's views from their work. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. It depends on the work, the artist, the views or actions in question, and the degree to which they show up in the work.
Example 1: Frank Miller
I enjoyed The Dark Knight Returns and the film adapatation of Sin City, but the adaptation of 300 left a bad taste in my mouth. I'm assuming both adaptations are true to their source material, which I'm given to understand is a reasonable assumption. The distinction seems to be that I don't like Miller's work when his political views shine through the visceral joy of explosions and stuff. I have no interest in his "Batman vs. Al-Qaeda" project.
Example 2: Joss Whedon
Pretty much all of the sympathetic characters in Firefly are libertarians. I'm not a libertarian, and from what I've read, neither is Joss Whedon, but I love Firefly all the same. Once, I was discussing politics on another forum with a strongly libertarian friend and he said "twinky is gorram Alliance!" I made "Gorram Alliance" my custom title. Anyway, this is a case where I'm at least sympathetic to the politics of the artist even though the work itself inverts those politics to some degree.
Example 3: Roman Polanski
I've seen his film version of Macbeth and also The Ninth Gate. I liked both of them.
Example 4: Orson Scott Card
In the specific case of Card, I stopped reading his books when I stopped enjoying them enough to merit the reading. That this happened around the same time as his columns started showing up online is coincidental. I generally don't read the columns. It doesn't have anything to do with perceived quality, either, I just preferred the more "talky" style of Xenocide to the geopolitical intrigue of the Shadow series. If he writes anything else in that style in the future I imagine I'd read it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: I was taking issue with Romney indicating his favorite novel was one which my (admittedly limited) experience led me to believe was a second-rate hack job. It was less an issue of political opinion and more an issue of questionable taste. Perhaps something else was read into it by others, but that was my original intent.
All right-- sorry for the misinterpretation.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Pretty much all of the sympathetic characters in Firefly are libertarians. I'm not a libertarian, and from what I've read, neither is Joss Whedon, but I love Firefly all the same. Once, I was discussing politics on another forum with a strongly libertarian friend and he said "twinky is gorram Alliance!" I made "Gorram Alliance" my custom title. [Big Grin] Anyway, this is a case where I'm at least sympathetic to the politics of the artist even though the work itself inverts those politics to some degree.
I would be rather shocked if Joss Whedon didn't score libertarian on political quizzes. I also strongly suspect he votes Democrat. I've never read anything about Whedon's personal political views, but I've watched all of Buffy, Angel, & Firefly and the worldview of each is pretty darn libertarian. I think it is nearly impossible to keep the way you see the world out of your writing. For a short story, perhaps. But when you have a huge volume of work, themes that are important to you are going to repeat.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
Aren't you guys worried that some much time is being spent discussing this rather than Mr. Romney's political manifesto?
Anyway Battlefield Earth is a fun book to read, it's entertaining, requires little or no effort to read and has mosters, heroes, villains and lots of action.
BTW, I feel so much better now that I am cleansed of the infulence of those pernicious Thetans...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Personally, were I to answer such a question honestly as a candidate, I'd have to say Lord of the Rings. So I can't fault him for his answer. The guy likes sci-fi, and he isn't afraid to say it, that makes me like him more, not less.
It has zero effect on whether or not I would vote for him, but I respect him more because of it.
I don't read books based on what their authors think politically. I don't vote based on what fiction the candidates read.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Can't say I think much of whoever transcribed the interview. Didn't bother to check the spelling of author OR title. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Anyway, this is a case where I'm at least sympathetic to the politics of the artist even though the work itself inverts those politics to some degree.