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.

Just curious if anybody else has stopped reading an author after finding out more about them as a person.
 

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.

These are just 2 examples, but there have been many more.
 

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.

So have I ever had this problem? No. Why? Because I quite frankly to give to hoots, a damn or other such sentiments. Pherhaps its because I can't help but find that in the final summation its a personal choice to believe in something or believe against something, but the latter is easier to do.
 

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.

At any rate, it doesn't really matter to me what the author's political views are as long as he can write a good story that I can enjoy.
 

I've had that happen more than once, and I have never figured out what to say when asked how I liked the book.
 

On the other hand, I sincerly enjoyed Folk of the Fringe, so it's just a matter of personal taste, I suppose.
 

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.

I don't think that this is because I feel that my "beliefs are higher than those of others."
 

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.

Of course, Orwell never wrote stories so much as political tracts. But I still stand by what I said, in that when I want to read a story, it's the story I'm supporting. I'll judge the author on separate merits. I do the same thing with movies; there are actors I love on screen, but their personal lives can make me barf. I'll support the films they're in, and judge the people differently.
 

There is one writer of fantasy I do not buy. I read one book by him and all through it he kept cheating me by getting me all worried about the pov and then it turns out to be joke. For example, the pov is attacked by this giant spider. Turns out to be a costume and he's in some mardi gras-ish situation, but that is not explained until after I got real worried. Hah, hah. Joke's on the author. I do not like being jerked around and made to feel like fool. He lost a customer.
 

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.

You, too, might be surprised by the political beliefs of your favorite writers. But try to take them---what they say, who they vote for---with a big grain of salt...nearly all of these writers wrote to entertain, not to preach, and knowing one part of their political beliefs won't affect your enjoyment of their work.
 

For instance, I love David Eddings, Raymond E Fiest, Robin Hobb and Terry Goodkind just to name a few. But I can't stand Robert Jordan. I actually read through book 9 or 10 Mainly because I just really wanted closure and to see what was going to happen. But that was the problem, nothing ever REALLY happened. The few badguys that died were brought back, more and more main charachters were created and none were leaving or dying off. I got thouroughly frustrated and peeved with Jordan. He should have ended the story around 4 books but he kept stretching it out. I don't think he even KNOWS how to finish it.
 

I just won't go to any more of his lectures. Unless I think he's going to talk about writing.
 

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).

However, if he/she spouts opinions I don't agree with over several books, I'm much more likely to find something else to read next time. But the only time this happened to me was when reading Terry Goodkind's books. I can bear with Tepper, who can be fairly preachy, as well as having opinions I don't agree with.
 

But it depends on if you're about the book or the author. Don't know why you'd care about the author personally. Shrug.
 

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.

As for buying their material, you don't have to. Go to the library, or a used bookstore. If you enjoy someone's writing, you shouldn't let basic differences of opinion prevent you from reading their work.
 

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.

In the end, I think it's what we as readers want to put up with, whether we'll tolerate the author's opinions or not. We can't change the author but we can change ourselves. We shouldn't let that color our appreciation for good literature though. Might miss out on some really good stuff. We should develop guidelines that we use to buy books and leave it at that.
 

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.

I think Tim Robbins's concerns are seriously misplaced...but that these also infect his work so much that it's long since reached the point of being not worth a look, over and above any notion of "boycott" or "hitting them in their wallets." George Clooney has not reached that point.
 

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?

But the main point is, a boycott is likely futile---though I note in passing that people are staying away from the recent Oscar best picture nominees, arguably representing the liberal point of view, in droves.
 

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.

Just a slight difference, but an important one.
 

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.

I can separate OSC's ability to entertain me from his personal views and life. If you can't do that, then perhaps you'd be better off to quit reading anything about a particular author's life. Seriously. You are losing your ability to enjoy fiction because you can't separate man from manuscript.

 

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.

---

Eek... I never thought of that. Having never become friends with a best-selling author, it's never happened to me. But the more I hang out here with you guys, the greater the possibility.

 

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.

I fight those battles on separate turf.
 

As to preaching during storytelling. I ran across one book where the author (a feminist) was preaching. However, she did it so cleverly that it did not ruin the murder mystery but actually enhanced the storytelling! The book was MOGHUL BUFFET by Cheryl Bernard. Wonderful book. Delightful read.
 

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.

And more recently, Card's "Alvin Maker" series has been an unalloyed delight to read. (As of this moment, I'm three-fourths through what I think is the last book to date. I regret there's not more.) So I may check out more of his work, possibly even "Ender's Game" and such again.
 

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.

[This message has been edited by Matt Lust (edited March 11, 2006).]
 

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...

As for "Brokeback" being a "cowboy movie," well, it did involve cowboys, but it's hardly a traditional Western, even ignoring the "two guys dating" part. As near as I can tell (without seeing it, or having any intention to see it), it's set somewhere in the late twentieth century. Simply setting it "in the West" (Wyoming, though I understand it was filmed in Canada) won't cut it. A somewhat rigid definiton, limiting "Westerns" to the nineteenth century, would exclude "Brokeback" and many other movies.
 

If they were sheep herders, then cowboys would be insulted that it was called a "cowboy movie." Ever heard of the range wars of the 1800s?
 

Sure I've heard of the range wars. And they produced one fine movie ("Shane") and one awful movie ("Heaven's Gate") that I know about. And probably others.
 

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

[This message has been edited by Matt Lust (edited March 12, 2006).]
 

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.

Alas, we seem to have wandered off topic (disliking authors mixing messages within their work) into a discussion of contemporary Hollywood politics and the Oscars. I regret I can't think of anything to add further to the original topic.
 

If no one has any more to say on the original subject, maybe I should close it?
 

I got the answer I was originally looking for.

I thought it was funny that somebody wrote "Let's get back on topic" and then continued to talk about Brokeback Mountain
 

(I don't know about closing the topic---a couple of people stepped up and dragged it back in line. Besides, serendipitous wandering can lead to equally interesting subject matter.)
 

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).

Oh well, to each his own!
 

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.)

If worse comes to worse, say, take the book you read (if you bought it rather than disliked him from a library copy), cut it into pieces, wrap it up and send it to the publisher with instructions to forward it to the writer, telling him you were so offended by what he said in his book that you won't have it in your house.
 

Maybe Mr. Clancy will get a package from Japan with the shredded remains of "Hunt for Red October"
 

An addendum to my brief comment about Harlan Ellison above: some of his work has been extremely important to me, particularly a spoken word recording he once put out of two of his stories---they seemed far more interesting when he read them aloud and I listened than when I read them in printed form. Even a lot of the ones I've read once and disliked have remained in my memory---while a lot of works I read 'round the same time, and thought I liked a lot, have faded away nearly completely.
 

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

[This message has been edited by Jammrock (edited March 20, 2006).]
 

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.

I suppose if the author did something really offensive, like blogging about white supremacy and the goodness of hate crimes, I'd make a point of not buying their books.
 

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.

[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited March 21, 2006).]
 

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...

[This message has been edited by tchernabyelo (edited March 22, 2006).]
 

It has happened to me with a writer called 'Chopper Reid", a minor gangland criminal who turned writer. The same guy who writes books named things like How to Shoot Friends and Influence People. It is interesting and funny until yo remember that the author is a lying, thieving, murdering criminal who had done the very same sort of things he was describing. I just wasn't interested in finding out what I had in common with him — no matter how well crafted the book. He might have something noble and meaningful to say in there — somewhere — but I'd rather read something else.

[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited March 22, 2006).]
 

There are also lots of things one can completely and utterly disagree with a writer about---a list of writers I like, who've expressed contempt and hatred for the music I like, seems endless---but I'd try to hold out the boycott thing for some extreme and thorough disagreement over something considerably more fundamental and important. (As I stated further back, this comes up for me far more often with the celebrity class than it does with writers.)

But sometimes I just lose interest in a writer's work somewhere along the way...that can be mistaken for a boycott, but it's not quite the same thing. The writer failed to entertain me...or I failed to be entertained by the writer.
 

This left me feeling really betrayed. Whedon's politics are, of course, his own business, and he has the right to believe whatever he wants. But at the same time, I felt left out. I would have loved to go to this event and hear Joss speak via phone, but to do so, I had to donate money to Kerry. Not like $35 (or whatever it was) would make a big diference to Kerry, but it would to me. I had to make a difficult choice -- was I willing to donate money to a candidate I didn't support, or was I willing to forego the opportunity? I skipped the event, and boycotted Whedon for a while.

My situation is not quite what you were referring to, but in some ways it's actually worse. If an author expresses a non-profit opinion (like OSC), that's one thing. But this, to me, was as if Whedon had said, "All my true fans are Democrats." It really did make me feel like my patronage was unwanted.

However, since reading OSC, I have come to a somewhat different opinion. (I just wasn't aware that there were any major authors out there who could even lay a claim to being moderate.) Maybe it's best that authors speak their mind. By boycotting Joss, I was in essence rejecting a part of his creativity...it was a nifty setup for a fundraiser, I have to admit. And hey, at least if you know their opinions and you disagree, you're ready for it. Forewarned is forearmed, and all that jazz.

Hope this helps.
 

On the other hand, Springsteen is (from my point of view) on the wrong side of the fence politically, and I'm reluctant to put money in his pocket for that reason. (And Seeger is on the wrong side of the historical fence---but that hasn't stopped me from enjoying his songs and work (he's one of the few performers I've actually seen in person)).

On the other other hand (if I had another hand), Springsteen hasn't been near as obnoxious about his political opinions as some others.

And on the other other other hand, I understand from a review that he does make a contemporary political swipe on at least one song.

So I've got to ponder the matter further...