Ever since I started coming to Hatrack regularily, I have read all of OSC's "Review" columns. However, the strangest thing has happened. I didn't know that his views were as far right as they are, and this has totally turned me off of him as a writer. I am no longer interested in reading his books, simply because his personal opinions clash so much with mine, and I do not want to give him my money as a result.

The same thing happened to me with Clancy. I read two or three of his novels, and loved them. Then I started to read about him, and his political views. He's a bigtime right winger, and I stopped reading his novels afterwards. (THe fact that he dedicated one of his books to Reagan also didn't help).

Chricton is the same. I used to read him, but after reading "State of Fear" and his interviews on the matter of global warming, I'll never buy another book by him again.

I read Asimov's biography, and it made me like him that much more. His stories also seemed to appeal to me even more, because I knew what kind of man he was, and what he believed it was similar to my own belief set.

Same goes for Arthur C. Clarke.

I don't know....I've never personally had a problem with other's people's views but then again I don't really understand the "activist" mindset and by this I mean you clearly value your beliefs higher than OSC's and are willing to act to demonstrate such.

Let me explain this further.

I was at conference hosted at UGA in February and a sociologist there was telling me how her husband or partner (its not polite to ask such questions at sociology conferences) had made up his mind that they should not to watch the new Battle Star Galactica because it was supposedly based on Jehovah Witness theology. He also decided that they shouldn't watch SG Atlantis becuase supposedly Sheppard condoned torture in some way or another.

To me this woman's significant other is has the "activist" mindset. The belief that I should put my money where mouth is and of course time is money.

To carry this farther, I have a problem with being deeply passionately this in my own right because I am not a "true believer" in my own personal convictions. I believe them but I am more than willing to admit that some of them are fallacious.

Moreover, I don't hold anything so tight that I am not willing to say "you can believe your way and I can believe mine and we can be happy being different" To be totally honest I don't care what the Dentist who cleans my teeth does with their lives when their not cleaning people's teeth.

Why should I care if they support one brand of toothpaste over another? Why should I care how they worship their diety or express their political views?

All that is tangential to their job which is to clean my teeth and help me maintain general oral health.

Its the same with writers. If their books are interesting to me then thats all I need to know. Why does it matter if my favorite author is a swinger or monogamous? Muslim or Jewish? As long as they do their job as a writer who cares?

Additionally, my personal opinion holds this as personal presumption bordering on predjudice.

I have often found that people more often than not find it easier to believe against somthing than to believe in something. I support your right to do this rcorporon and in part admire you for "sticking to your guns" but I personally have a greater respect for OSC who has the strength of conviction to write about his beliefs and principles and intertwine his professional and personal life.

Why? Perhaps its because OSC does something I do not have the drive or desire to do but admire greatly. He refuses to abandon conviction for nuetrality out of fear of upsetting someone or somehow harming his livelihood.

I also like being offended. It challenges me to defend my position and to reflect on why I believe what I do.

But I am straying somewhat from the real issue.

I find that purchasing products created by people whom I have issues with seems odd to me.

Allow me to offer an example. I dislike WalMart. A lot. As a result of this, I simply do not shop there.

I apply the same principle to authors. After reading a Tom Clancy rant against gay people, I couldn't bring myself to ever give him another $ of mine.

As for your question, I really don't mind reading from people who believe differently from me. First off, I'm just looking for a good story, and if they're doing their job, I'll gladly give them my money. It's like building a house, for me. If I want my home perfect, I'm going to hire the best contractors I can, be they Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Democrat, or Republican. It doesn't matter what they think or say, if they are the best suited to build my house, then I want them. The same goes for reading; I don't care what they believe, if they can entertain me to the best of their abilities, I'm gonna read them. This is what being fair to others is all about.

In fact, sometimes I'd rather read from people I disagree with. When I stick to people who already think like I do, they're just preaching to the choir, and while it may be emotional support for my belief, I don't get a chance to learn from others. I'll take George Orwell, for instance. The man was a Socialist, and I find myself disagreeing with his core beliefs, but that didn't mean he wasn't worth reading. In fact, he's very well worth my time: I've read 1984 three times, and some other essays and short stories, because they are very good reads, and I've learned from him. Don't always like what he says, but none of it was a waste of my time.

I regard myself as an independent. I usually side with the conservatives on most issues, but I do not and would not side with them on every issue. But lately I find I do not side with the liberals at all, and have become suspicious of anything they do. (I could outline further, but political arguments are one of the things that drove me away from the last board I hung out on (Internet Fan Fiction), and are far from appropriate here.)

I have been extremely influenced by both Asimov (an ultraliberal) and Heinlein (an ultraconservative---at least when I ran across him). I recently read several books by the above-mentioned George Orwell. That he's liberal didn't put me off---in fact, I thought it nice to read a much tougher-minded liberal than the current crop.

On the other hand, I also think that any would be readers / listeners / viewers are certainly entitled not to buy or support an artist or his work because of his views.

(The above is more of an issue in "show business," since, say, the group collectively known as "Hollywood" has expressed views of contempt towards the values and beliefs of the majority of Americans, and often displays this in their work. (Look at the Oscar nominees this year for best picture.) There seems to be no other way to get them to change or respond other than by hitting them in their wallets.)

*****

Back in the sixties, there were a couple of ads in the SF magazines concerning Vietnam policy. One ad ran names of those signing a petition for withdrawal, while the other ran names signing a counter-petition urging that the US stay in. When I ran across it (in the late seventies), I've got to say I was a little surprised by who signed which.

I did realise I make exceptions to this rule. They are very simple: if the author is preaching in the story, this tends to turn me off. It's regardless of the opinions defended (even if I agree with them).

For a couple of examples, I'm not a fan of George Clooney, but that was from before he started becoming politically vocal (or at least before I heard him). Tim Robbins is the other example I'll use. I really liked some of his work before I learned of his political 'activism.' Because he doesn't go out of his way to attract attention to his opinion and actions, I don't have a problem with him. Robbins' actions make me believe he genuinely does what he does out of concern, rather than a cheap publicity stunt.

I actually appreciate OSC's willingness to be open about his views. Too many authors are quiet and reclusive with their opinions when they really could say something positive for others to think on.

I don't really agree with all of what OSC comments on or how he comments on the subjects he presents. Doesn't make me like him less. He likes Adam Sandler as a commedian, I don't. Big deal. He watches R rated movies, I don't. Also, "big deal".

The only things I would object to in his writing would be his earlier short fiction; a lot of things are contained in those stories that I don't appreciate (i.e. cursing, blatant sexual inuindo, etc.). True, I've read worse, but coming from someone who holds similar beliefs as I do, it's a bit disappointing.

I also don't like preachy reads and I don't think OSC really does that. His "Homecoming" series may be based LOOSELY on the Book of Mormon, but that doesn't mean it's a preachy religious book. I had enough of Arthur C. Clarke's "Rama" series in book two when he devoted nearly two whole chapters discussing Catholicism. I can understand religion being a part of a character's structure, but it doesn't have to be a long discussion of theology taking way too long to end. I've nothing bad against Catholics or Catholicism, either, by the way.

I feel that there's a middle ground where "left-wingers" and "right-wingers", and whatever else is out there, can get along despite personal beliefs. I think these two terms are a bit out-dated and too often it puts people at each other's throats with neither one listening to the other. Conservatives and Liberals hardly understand themselves, let alone the other group and we'd actually be surprised to find that most people are somewhere in-between the two rather than completely left or right. We all disagree sometimes and we shouldn't go storming off because the other person doesn't believe the way we do.

When we take our opinions and beliefs and try to cram them down someone else's throat, then we cross the line and therefore don't deserve to have our opinions and beliefs listened to. That's been my opinion about what the "left-wingers" do mostly, but that doesn't mean I can't agree with some of what they say.

Everything stands up quite well in its own right...but I find some of it reflects back on current / recent events, which intrigues me no end. I find confirmation of my own opinions in some stretches, while finding apparent rejection of them in others.

But I cannot say what the opinions of the author are with any certainty. They may reflect my own opinions...or I may just be reading them into it. Good work, either way, and I look forward to reading more of the series, and may pick up other Card volumes at some point.

*****

As for George Clooney, well, as I see it, he got a lot of praise and an Oscar for "standing up to authority" by making movies about events that happened up to fifty years ago---that, according to some, distorted said events.

In the United States, if a writer writes from a conservative point of view, he might be boycotted by those with a liberal point of view---but, as I figure from the recent elections, the conservatives are still probably close to a hundred million people. That's more than enough to support, say, a good and solid book sale.

But if a writer writes from a liberal point of view, and the conservatives boycott---well, there are still close to a hundred million liberals. (If I take the election results in this way, these number less than the conservatives by several million. I'm also speaking in round numbers and not including millions who honestly have no opinion. Futher and more precise data will have to come from a more reliable pollster than I.)

There have been commentaries suggesting that both groups are so large that one can remain within them and be completely isolated from differing opinions. It's something to be avoided---how can you be so sure you're right if you don't at least consider what those who disagree with you are saying?

I came to a similar conclusion OSC did People just don't care anymore. There is no shock and awe left to be wrought becuase quite frankly no one really gives a damn about cowboys. In my opinion the Myth of the Cowboy is as dead as the Gentleman. They were good symbols of power in their time but really just anachoristic anymore.

Now if you had two Gay Soldiers who were fighting in Iraq and struggling with their homosexuality that would have brought the fight people were looking for Brokeback to start.

quote:

---

I don't really think it's totally fair to judge the work by what the author does in his/her personal life.

---

This isn't exactly what I meant.

I am not saying that authors such as OSC, Clancy and Chricton are poor authors. I know that they are very talented writers.

What I meant was that because of things I have heard them say or write, I find it difficult to bring myself to support them by purchasing their books.

So should people.

I find that when I put my judgement of people down, based solely on their political and/or religious beliefs, I find that there is 80% we agree on. I try to focus on that 80%, not the 20% where we disagree. If we disagree, I try to do it with genuine respect.

quote:

---

What can be really challenging is when you are friends with an author and that author writes something you just don't enjoy reading. I've had that happen more than once, and I have never figured out what to say when asked how I liked the book.

---

A friend recommended LB, and even loaned me a copy. What's so funny about my strong dislike is that I believe the same things the author obviously does (in my own way): Christ's Atonement, faith, repentence, even the Rapture though I don't hold to one view of how it's going to happen (I also don't believe a loving God would leave the rest of his children behind for years upon years without any guidance while the AntiChrist takes over... but then I haven't kept up with current Christian theology so I may be misinformed on that belief).

What got me about that book was the presentation. I know the repentence process was key to the rest of the story, but the introductory character came across as so flat, so hideously thin and stereotypical (the standard cheating husband) that I actually started ranting, out loud, to my husband about it. In fact, every character in that story seemed put there just to preach to the rest of the world that if they don't repent they'll be "left behind".

That's the only time an author's personal views on a subject turned me off of a book (and nearly an entire genre).

Perhaps if there had been a sign of God's love for the sinner in that first chapter (even if he never repents) I might have been able to trudge on through the prose (another topic entirely). But there wasn't.

***

On the other hand, I loved OSC's Homecoming series. It got me thinking critically about my religion during a time when I needed to take a look at my beliefs. If I hadn't done that, I would probably be like all the other people in my church who blindly follow the traditions they've been given.

The only story I've read by OSC that made me feel... dark is the only word I can think of... is the last story in Folk of the Fringe. It's the only story that just felt plain wrong to me.

And I'm sure there are many people out there who were inspired by it, and able to live better lives because they read it.

The final judgment of a story, for me, is if it inspires me in some way. Not if the author is liberal or conservative, Christian or Pagan, hedonistic capitalist or hippie communist.

As for Card's works, I didn't much care for the early parts of, what is it called, the "Enderverse?" I didn't much like the original story as published in "Analog" all those years ago, though I did like a lot of Card's other stories as they popped up over the next few years.

There were only three big GLBT/LGBT type movies out there this year TransAmerica Brokeback and Capote. Brokeback got most of the buzz. Capote got some but it really wasn't the point of the movie to show the author's "gayness" it was really just another biopic and biopics are always hit and miss and who really cares abou Capote? Transamerica was never supposed to be a "big" movie in terms of distribution and profits, its hard to find "art house" movies in the suburbs let alone in the "country". So when it comes down to it, America only had 1 movie they knew about who's point was to shock and awe you with struggles over sexual identity. And it was a cowboy movie.

Keely,
I agree with you. Lahaye has been around since the early 1980's with his doom and gloom books about the endtimes. He's the theological power behind the books and he's far from a widely held authority on the subject. It was Jenkins probally doing most of the actual writing (which wasn't all that bad if you could stomach the theology). Needless to say there plenty of people not associated with your particular brand of faith (your mention of Homecoming gave it away) that have problems with the concept of a Pre-Trib rapture (i personally don't give two hoots either way). But thats a theological debate not really a writing one; the writing debate is whether a writer should use only 1 side of a very dense, much debated and ofttimes criticized prophecy and peddle it as an accurate though ficitional representation of what will happen some time in the future. I would say thats all up to the reader's perogative which it always is anyway.

I'm leaning towards the theory that "Crash" beat out "Brokeback Mountain" and the others because it was filmed in Los Angeles, and most of the Academy members center around Los Angeles.

Is it absolutely necessary that all nominees for Best Picture be failures at the box office? I can't recall offhand what successful movies got a lot of praise---I can remember a few getting scornful contempt---but surely there must have been something profitable to nominate. In past years there have been nominees and winners that made money...

But Robert I still don't think that was enough to not win. And I'm not necessarily saying that Crash's pseudo-expose of "real life racism" being set and filmed in LA isn't an influencing factor but I think that the Academy was just tired of seeing movies trying make a statement and so choose one blindfolded ala pin the tail on the donkey.

Supposedly Crash was a powerful movie but personally while I'll be the first to admit there still are elements of racist behaviors in many parts our country that we are often unaware of I find that 9 out of 10 times movies that deal with subtle issues rarely do so subtley.

But getting back on topic,

I don't think that people stayed away from a movie like crash or brokeback because they were conservative though some probally did. Its more that these types of movies come out every few years and we're supposed to treat them like they're discovering new artistic ground, we must revere them for their trail blazing spirit and I think that people in general are just tired. There are the activist types who won't be settled until they have their way but as noted before I don't understand the activist mind set. OSC is right on when he says that Hollywood should realize that certain movies aren't abnormal anymore they are the norm and we realize that so Americans don't flock to a "issue" movie just to see what the hubbub is all about. Its often the case when reformers/revolutionaries get their way but now want us to have their way too.

Crass Bloody Revolutions lyrics

The above link takes you to a page that typifies my general feelings about reformers. RAH also made note of this in Time Enough For Love when Lazurus Long said "Don't trust Reform Politicians." I have never read, heard or seen anything more true about the nature of democratic politics.

Edit for spelling

As for "Crash"---I read somewhere the guy got the basic idea for it either during or after the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles. That was, like, ten years, plus or minus a few years. (My references are somewhere under my desk clutter.) It's long enough to make one wonder just how contemporary and important "Crash" really is.

I got the answer I was originally looking for.

It seems that I'm alone in my boycotting of authors.

Just as a note, it's not just a casual thing that will turn me off of a writer.

For Clancy, it was an anti-gay rant I read of his once that did it (in one of his novels as well there is a smattering of anti-gay nonsense taht turned me off).

I can't say any author / writer has done that to me. I haven't read much Tom Clancy, maybe none except an occasional essay. Though I've heard a lot about how he felt about changes made by Hollywood to one of his books, involving changing the identity of a group of terrorists.

I find I have some disagreements with deceased authors about their politics, despite my admiration for their work. I admire Asimov extravagantly---but cannot take many of his stated political opinions seriously. I might be closer politically to Heinlein, but I find I have disagreements over many issues as equally profound as those disagreements I have with Asimov---just in different fields.

But I find it appropriate for a reader to boycott a writer (or artist) in this manner. It seems to be the only way to get their attention.

But you can extend it further. Proclaim your boycott in public. Go on the Internet and find like-minded people. (See if there's a "I Hate [Author So-and-So] Because..." site, or some equivalent.) Write the writer a letter, explaining why you feel he crossed beyond the pale. (Don't be nasty or make stupid threats.)

quote:

---

made up his mind that they should not to watch the new Battle Star Galactica because it was supposedly based on Jehovah Witness theology.

---

Anyway, I find it odd that people will stop reading book because of the persoanl beliefs of the author. Now, if said author took his beliefs to the point that they became overbearing in the course of their literature, I can see people not reading it. But if the literature is good, and you enjoy it, and it doesn't ooze of "liberalism" or "right-wingedness", then why would stop reading it.

Just seems strange in my book.

Now, if a series of books starts to get loaded down and boring, then I can see calling it quits with the author. Robert Jordan and the Wheel of Time comes to mind. For love of everything holy and sane, please end that series! ugh.

Jammrock

Generally, if an author has political views that I disagree with, I expect it to show up in their writing, in which case I may find their books more annoying than enjoyable, and won't read them. So far, though, every author I've stopped reading has just been because their work bored me.

Same thing happened to me.

People can shoot off their mouths, and that's fine -- as OSC says -- so long as they're willing to pay the price.

Elan said:

quote:

---

I find that when I put my judgement of people down, based solely on their political and/or religious beliefs, I find that there is 80% we agree on. I try to focus on that 80%, not the 20% where we disagree. If we disagree, I try to do it with genuine respect.

---

Best thing anyone's observed in this thread. I've travelled pretty extensively and seen some very different cultures, but in all of them, people are actually pretty similar. They want the same kind of things, and for me the similarities between me and (say) a Zen Buddhist monk on Mt. Koya, or a trader in the suq of Marrakech are actually far greater than the differences. Where people focus on simliarities, but respect differences, they get along; when people focus on differences, and overlook similarities, they don't.

Regarding Crash; I haven't seen it, but my wife (who's from LA, and lived almost within sight of where Rodney King was beaten) has. her opinion was that it was not remotely ground-breaking, and didn't cover anything new. However I suspect that may be a particularly LA-centric view; LA is a very polyglot, and very odd, city, and things that seem perfectly normal there are not elsewhere (I recently spent some time in Denver, for example; compared to LA, it seemed very, ah, homogenous). So the LA people may have voted for it because of it being an LA movie, but the non-LA people (and I believe there are some in the voting group) may have thought it seemed more radical and important than it did in LA.

Or not.

And, pace Annie Proulx, I still find it hard to believe that "Brokeback Mountain" wasn't really inspired (as a movie) by the South Park Sundance episode, with the "Gay Cowboys Eating Pudding" movie...