- Joined
- Mar 12, 2014
- Messages
- 5,313
- Reaction score
- 569
- Location
- MA
- Website
- eclecticlittledork.wordpress.com
14 Authors you should never read, says Buzzfeed
- Thread starter Amadan
- Start date
- Status
Well, one can't expect someone who's brought up in a society where homophobia/sexism/sacrificing virgins to a volcano is commonplace to go against that. People do, and people have, but it's an unfair expectation.
That's my logic, at least. People follow the societal norms of the time, for better or worse.
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2014
- Messages
- 5,313
- Reaction score
- 569
- Location
- MA
- Website
- eclecticlittledork.wordpress.com
Eh, there's also libraries. But I'm with Viridianchick, I don't care to help OSC become semi-immortal by remembering him at all.
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2014
- Messages
- 5,313
- Reaction score
- 569
- Location
- MA
- Website
- eclecticlittledork.wordpress.com
How so, it is a simple fact that AH cannot actually work towards making the world more miserable. People that hold his views can, but the man himself cannot. Card on the other hand doesn't have to rely soely on others to make sure his views continue to be known, and neither does any other living person doing the same thing he does.
Yup. That is pretty disturbing.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,127
- Reaction score
- 105
- Location
- USA
- Website
- atomic-skies.blogspot.com
OSC grew up in a society where homosexuality was regarded as a mental illness. His views were in the mainstream just twenty years ago. I'm not saying that makes it okay that he believes what he believes; I fully endorse criticizing him, making fun of him, making it clear that we in no way regard his opinions as acceptable, but I'm very reluctant to just cut him and others like him out of the societal conversation entirely. I don't think it's good for society.
Doesn't mean we all need to keep up to date on his latest anti-gay screed. But if he writes a book that's not a wad of antigay bigotry - and, of the three books of his I read, I don't remember there being an overt bigotry, though that was a while ago - then I think we should decide whether or not we're going to read it on the same basis as we decide whether or not we're going to read any other book. In my own case, I don't like his writing, so my decision would be not to read it.
That said, I recognize that's asking a lot from people who've been the targets of this kind of bigotry, and I don't really expect y'all to agree.
RikWriter
Banned
Umm, no. I disagree with OSC's stance on homosexuality, but he's not organizing pogroms to burn homosexuals at the stake. He simply disagrees with the mainstream on the issue. That's allowed. We don't need to hate people because they disagree with us, unless they are actively trying to hurt someone. Buying his books isn't increasing suffering in any way...except that I find I suffer when I read his books because I find them mind-numbingly boring, apart from Ender's Game.
Uhhh, when he donates his money to causes that fight gay marriage, then that's harmful to gay people.
I will not give him more money to help deny people their civil rights.
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2014
- Messages
- 5,313
- Reaction score
- 569
- Location
- MA
- Website
- eclecticlittledork.wordpress.com
What Kuwi said. I have no interest in giving the man money that will be used to deny others like me or anyone their civil rights.
Just to clear up a possible misimpression: No one has accused Dr. Seuss of anti-Semitism. His problem was anti-Japanese bigotry, and more specifically his support of interning Japanese-Americans during World War II. He was well known for his fervent opposition to the Axis powers even before the U.S. entered the war, and unfortunately his emotions on the subject seem to have bubbled over in a bad direction. He made some strong statements against both Nazi ideology and domestic racism, and it's just too bad he didn't think through his own ideals more consistently.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 8,649
- Reaction score
- 1,623
Of course, if one refuses to buy OSC's books because the money is, indirectly, going towards anti-gay causes, then one should really refuse to buy any books by any author who's a devout member of a religion that considers homosexuality a sin, since presumably they donate some money to their religion, and all of those religions are working, socially and/or politically, against gay rights.
That would be: all Mormons, all Catholics, most mainstream Protestants (but especially fundamentalists and evangelicals), all Orthodox and Conservative Jews (I think - not 100% sure on Jewish doctrines on homosexuality and gay marriage), almost all Muslims.
Of course, one could make a distinction in Card's case because he has a large platform, he's been unusually vocal about his views, and was on the board of the National Organization for Marriage.
But that's a difference in degree, not in kind, if your metric is "causes suffering."
So if you boycott Orson Scott Card, for example, you should also boycott Brandon Sanderson (another Mormon writer who has publicly stated that he adheres to the LDS view of gay marriage). He's a lot nicer about it than Card, but he's still (I assume) a tithing member of the LDS church.
That would be: all Mormons, all Catholics, most mainstream Protestants (but especially fundamentalists and evangelicals), all Orthodox and Conservative Jews (I think - not 100% sure on Jewish doctrines on homosexuality and gay marriage), almost all Muslims.
Of course, one could make a distinction in Card's case because he has a large platform, he's been unusually vocal about his views, and was on the board of the National Organization for Marriage.
But that's a difference in degree, not in kind, if your metric is "causes suffering."
So if you boycott Orson Scott Card, for example, you should also boycott Brandon Sanderson (another Mormon writer who has publicly stated that he adheres to the LDS view of gay marriage). He's a lot nicer about it than Card, but he's still (I assume) a tithing member of the LDS church.
RikWriter
Banned
I guess we'll have to disagree on what constitutes "causes suffering." Someone being politically active for a cause with which I disagree doesn't qualify for me.
Oh I got you, it is weird though. Suess is like the last one I'd expect to be on that list.
Many political causes impact people personally.
Like, y'know, being denied civil rights because of how you were born.
Sounds like suffering to me.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,127
- Reaction score
- 105
- Location
- USA
- Website
- atomic-skies.blogspot.com
Are you going to stop buying books from authors who don't believe in global warming? That's going to cause a lot more suffering in the long run. What about authors who believe in the wrong kind of economic policies? What about authors who supported/opposed the war in Iraq? What about authors who have the right position on all these issues, but voted for candidates who are on the wrong side? Just how far does your ideological litmus test run?
TheNighSwan
Banned
Hitler's acts are still influencing people. I'd be very surprised if there was a single person today who became a raging antisemite only after reading Mein Kampf. That's not how biggotry happens; people aren't robots with a "biggot switch" you can turn on by just presenting to them the right combination of words, once.
Point being, I've had no trouble finding great authors whose public views I don't find repugnant.
Why should I bother reading books by authors whose public views I do find repugnant?
Why should I bother reading books by authors whose public views I do find repugnant?
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,127
- Reaction score
- 105
- Location
- USA
- Website
- atomic-skies.blogspot.com
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,127
- Reaction score
- 105
- Location
- USA
- Website
- atomic-skies.blogspot.com
Him in particular? It isn't. I don't even like Orson Scott Card; I don't read him myself.
I'm trying to make a more general point here, which is that we should set a very high bar before we cut someone out of the societal conversation. There are a lot of people who still oppose gay marriage; they're losing, thank God, but they're still out there. If we cut them out of the conversation, if we isolate them, that's going to have negative consequences.
First, we lose the benefit of their viewpoint. Someone who's a bigot about homosexuality may still have valuable insights to offer on other topics - look at how many major authors of the past have been misogynists, or anti-Semites, or what have you.
Second, if we isolate them, they're not going to stop talking, they're just going to be restricted to talking to each other. You're risking radicalizing them, turning them into a toxic subculture.
Third, the same sort of analysis used here is equally valid when applied to many, many other political issues. Getting politics wrong causes suffering, no matter what the issue. Often it causes suffering even if you get it right. Given the immense scale our society operates at, even a relatively minor issue - seatbelt laws, FAA regulations - can cause or prevent tragedy. But if you don't read any book by someone who doesn't share all your political views - or at least the important ones - you end up in an echo chamber, and that's no good.
And fourth, what's the actual benefit from cutting them off? If you're worried about financially supporting bigotry, well, get the book through a library, or at a used book store. Even if you buy it new, consider first the percentage of the cover price that goes to the author, then the percentage of the author's income that goes to supporting bigotry, you're contributing what, a cent, to the LDS with every copy of Ender's Game? On a utilitarian level, it's negligible.
Tl;dr: Don't read OSC if you don't like him, but don't stop reading an author just because he's anti-gay marriage.
- Status