Have you ever been turned off of an author's books...

[Thrawn]

^ Well, ok, but only as long as you realize your entire post is opinion and not fact. I, for one, found several of the character arcs in Torrent Sea quite profoundly moving.

I actually thought the characters as presented in Synthesis had problems with positive social interaction, not OaTS.

So, "not coincidence" it may seem, but let's just chill on the armchair psychoanalysis a little? This isn't exactly as cut-and-dry as you make it sound.

 

[JD]

Personally, I've never anything wrong with any of the characters in Christopher's books. In fact, I've really liked alot of the stuff he's done with the characters in his books.

 

[Kibbin]

I don't think I've ever stopped reading someone because of what they get up to irl, mind you I don't realy follow celebrities and so forth (this is going onto actors now from the sounds of things I don't want to boost any of the egos of the writers here or we won't all fit on the internet ).
If I like they're stuff I'll buy it, if not I don't. What they get up to in their own time is their own buisness.
However if certain theories and opinions that I disagree with come through In a work I shall be less inclined to get it again.


All this tallk of creators and their personalities reminds me of a video I watched the other day.
http://screwattack.com/videos/TGO-Complex-Issues
It's about OSC and video games.
Many gay, lesbian, bi-sexual etc etc gamers are boycotting an x-box live arcade game that is quite good, because some of the money they spend on it will go toward him and his organisation.

 

[Smitty]

Many gay, lesbian, bi-sexual etc etc gamers are boycotting an x-box live arcade game that is quite good, because some of the money they spend on it will go toward him and his organisation.

LOL, now that is about as stupid and effective as some church group boycotting Harry Potter or Dan Brown don't ya think?

 

[OmahaStar]

Many gay, lesbian, bi-sexual etc etc gamers are boycotting an x-box live arcade game that is quite good, because some of the money they spend on it will go toward him and his organisation.

LOL, now that is about as stupid and effective as some church group boycotting Harry Potter or Dan Brown don't ya think?

It's their right to peacefully protest as they wish. Protesting with one's pocketbook is one of the more effective ways to do it, too.

 

[Andy Mangels]

Yet, an argument could follow that if I don't like his/her political beliefs, then I might not like their work either because they probably let that influence their work. Several people have already noted their opinions about Card's political opinions shaping his works.

If I really don't like a person actions/beliefs then why would I want to support that person by buying their works? Personally, I tend to base my purchases on the actual content, but there is at least one trek author who I really can't stand based on their views/actions, which appears to permeate their work, so I've pretty quit buying their works.

And no, it isn't Andy Mangels.

Whew - I delayed reading this thread as I supposed I'd be the target of lots of "gay agenda" ire, only to discover this was the only time I'd been mentioned.

Regarding the topic question, having been a convention-goer and convention guest for over 20 years, I've met my share of wonderful people and jerks alike.

And I have, unfortunately, often found that the more famous one is on a small hill, the more of a jerk they are. Being a relatively large hit in the independent comic market still means that your sales are less than mine as a Star Trek author, so don't give me any of your prima donna bullshit, OK? Hell, in the current market, my books outsell most top-selling comics.

Once one gets onto a bigger hill (say, Hollywood), I've seen that most of them have learned how to "handle" fans so that they come across as pleasant and innocuous. Even if they're bored or annoyed by your fawning or statements.

As for my own fame, whenever anyone says "you're famous," or marvels that I've done 20 books and had three best-sellers, I point out that they didn't know any of that until they looked at my webpage or talked to me, or a friend. "I'm only famous to the people who care" is a common statement.

Summing up a less-than-lucid argument (didn't sleep well last night), all of my "problems" with creators (writers, artists, actors, directors, etc) have ALWAYS come from my perception that they have an overinflated ego or puffed up sense of self. There have been a few additional issues occasionally, such as politics, or alcohol or drugs, but those are, thankfully, rarer.

And yes, it has prevented me from buying, supporting, promoting, or enjoying, their work.

 

[ronny]

When I first posted in this topic I had a paragraph "Meeting an author has never turned me off to their books but reading forum posts, that's another story..." but decided not to get into personalities. And I figured the subject would be brought up soon enough.

The reason I'm here is because it's cool to get info straight from the source and interact with the authors. I can't jibe that with "They said something that annoyed me, I'm going to stop reading their books" or "I disagree with their politics, I'm not reading their books". And I really don't get the whole announcing it thing. That obvious thing that's going to happen, if that causes anything to happen at all is authors posting less, not authors posting what they think you want them to say.

As far as not buying books because I disagreed with the dedication or what ever, 45% of people that voted in 2008 for voted for a different president than I did. Taking the above to an extreme, does that mean I'm not supposed to buy anything from anyone that voted for that guy? There are at least a couple authors here that voted for the same guy I did but I'm guessing if we talked over a beer long enough we would find quite a few areas where we disagree. Where do you draw the line?

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Yet, an argument could follow that if I don't like his/her political beliefs, then I might not like their work either because they probably let that influence their work. Several people have already noted their opinions about Card's political opinions shaping his works.

If I really don't like a person actions/beliefs then why would I want to support that person by buying their works? Personally, I tend to base my purchases on the actual content, but there is at least one trek author who I really can't stand based on their views/actions, which appears to permeate their work, so I've pretty quit buying their works.

And no, it isn't Andy Mangels.

Whew - I delayed reading this thread as I supposed I'd be the target of lots of "gay agenda" ire, only to discover this was the only time I'd been mentioned.

At least personally, I have not seen a pattern of bullying or rudeness from you. In my observation, that goes a LONG way in most people's eyes, whether or not they agree or disagree with you. If someone's nice, I think people are a lot more willing to put their disagreements to the side. But if a person is rude--well, they don't tend to be cut a lot of slack when there's a disagreement.

 

[JustKate]

I've been reading this thread with interest but haven't said much...mostly because I am still not sure how I feel about this.

The short answer is yes, I have. But not very often.

A more accurate answer would be to say that finding an author very unpleasant in some form or other wouldn't ordinarily turn me off his books entirely, but it would and has left an unpleasant taste in my mouth, if you know what I mean.

I am thinking not so much of the authors I've interacted with here but of others from other genres. For example, I went through a period that lasted a couple of years where I was interested in reading biographies or autobiographies of authors. I had to give it up because I found a pretty high percentage that just were NOT good people. They were, far too often, jerks - smugly misogynistic or virulently racist or completely selfish. People I did not want to know EVER.

Which shouldn't be too surprising, I guess, but still...you read these books, and the author sounds wise or warm or filled with knowledge of human nature or whatever, and it's kind of a shock to discover that you can indeed write wise, warm books that tell readers a lot about human nature while being, at least at times, a cold-hearted jerk. I realize that when you come right down to it, few of us could withstand intense public scruntiny, but I like to think that not everybody would come off as a cold-hearted jerk.

I got over most of the distaste generated by my biography phase. Eventually. I never have felt entirely the same about Tennessee Williams after reading his autobiography and experiencing a growing sense of absolute and total dislike for the man (I don't know if he wanted to sound like a whiny, self-centered egoist who cares about nobody but his own precious self, but if so, he succeeded), but I was eventually able to enjoy his plays again...so long as I don't let myself think about what a JERK he sounded like in his autobiography.

It probably helps - and I mean this sincerely - that most of the authors I referenced above are dead. Really. I mean, they were what they were, but they're gone now, so at least they can't add to their list of faults, wrongs and sins, and besides, if they're dead, I have no reason to feel as though in buying their books, I'm supporting somebody I dislike.

There have been times, though, when an author's actions have made me decide, at least for a time, to not give that author any of my hard-earned money. As others have pointed out, disagreeing with me is fine, and I can be and ought to be tolerant of disagreement. But there are people I am simply not willing to support by buying their books. Not many, but some.

A couple of recent examples of Authors Behaving Badly have left a bad taste that I still haven't gotten over. For example, I never have gotten over my distaste for Mitch Albom (if he has any big fans here, I'm sorry - he's a fine writer, but...) after a journalism scandal. That scandal didn't get a huge amount of media play, but as a former reporter, I keep up on media issues, and as the situation progressed, Albom acted and talked and wrote like someone who thought the ordinary rules of journalistic ethics didn't apply to him because he's just so important and busy and talented.

And he was wrong. They do apply, and he had violated them, and he had done so rather flagrantly, too. So I am not going to give him any of my money, at least not for a while.

And I hope Jayson Blair has turned over a new leaf, but until I'm sure of it (and until he writes something that I have some interest in, which he hasn't thus far), I have no interest in giving him money either.

Of course, in both these cases, the unsavory actions involved their writing, not their politics and personal lives. Maybe that makes a difference? I mean, nobody with any sense of reality could believe a word that Jayson Blair wrote, right?

While I admire those of you who believe the only thing that matters is what the author writes, not the kind of person he is...well, you know, I have to question that. It's all well and good to say "I don't care about somebody's politics." But if he's, say, a pedophile or a white supremist or something really unsavory...I have to think that some of you would find yourselves saying, "OK, that's enough. That's where I draw the line." I, for example, am far more likely to buy a book by Jayson Blair than I am that of a unrepentant pedophile.

But it does take more than a difference of opinion. I mean, as far as I am concerned, Tennessee, Mitch and Jayson can vote for whoever they like and that wouldn't bother me.

 

[Lorraine Anderson]

RE: Albom... seems like I remember I heard something like that from a friend of mine who works for one of the papers in Detroit. My friend didn't have a terribly high opinion of him, anyway. I think this was probably before any journalism scandal, too.

I've forgotten exactly what my friend's beef with Albom was...

 

[Greg Cox]

While I admire those of you who believe the only thing that matters is what the author writes, not the kind of person he is...well, you know, I have to question that. It's all well and good to say "I don't care about somebody's politics." But if he's, say, a pedophile or a white supremist or something really unsavory...I have to think that some of you would find yourselves saying, "OK, that's enough. That's where I draw the line."

I guess where I draw the line is where the racism and/or pedophilia becomes evident in the work. If the ickier parts of the artist's personality starts contaminating their work, that's a deal-breaker. But otherwise, that way madness lies. If we only read books or enjoyed movies by people who had no character flaws, you'd be eliminating thousands of classic works . . . . .

 

[flemm]

I guess where I draw the line is where the racism and/or pedophilia becomes evident in the work. If the ickier parts of the artist's personality starts contaminating their work, that's a deal-breaker. But otherwise, that way madness lies. If we only read books or enjoyed movies by people who had no character flaws, you'd be eliminating thousands of classic works . . . . .

With classical works (or really any older work), the economic argument is out of the picture, which simplifies the situation.

If I know my money is supporting some kind of activity that I despise, then I probably will discontinue my use of that product, whatever it is, and I suppose novels would really be no different. That's in theory. In practice I've never come across something like this in the case of a particular author.

When it comes to personality quirks or the degree of "niceness" I can't say I have ever really cared. Probably that's why I have never done the convention thing or gone out of my way to meet an author. Whether I like or dislike a particular author's work, I can't say I have ever felt an interest in meeting the individual who is behind the work.

 

[Nerys Myk]

While I admire those of you who believe the only thing that matters is what the author writes, not the kind of person he is...well, you know, I have to question that. It's all well and good to say "I don't care about somebody's politics." But if he's, say, a pedophile or a white supremist or something really unsavory...I have to think that some of you would find yourselves saying, "OK, that's enough. That's where I draw the line."

I guess where I draw the line is where the racism and/or pedophilia becomes evident in the work. If the ickier parts of the artist's personality starts contaminating their work, that's a deal-breaker. But otherwise, that way madness lies. If we only read books or enjoyed movies by people who had no character flaws, you'd be eliminating thousands of classic works . . . . .

There was an ick factor in Piers Anthony's work that turned me off.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

What did he do? Never read his stuff...

 

[Nerys Myk]

What did he do? Never read his stuff...

His habit of including scenes that featured the hero getting a glimpse of a young girl's underwear disturbed me. Gave me the creeps. It was probably an over reaction, but its constant inclusion made me quit his books. They were getting a bit repetative too.

 

[Myasishchev]

^PA is, perhaps strangely, one of my girlfriend's favorite authors. He seems like a nice guy personally (answers fan mail, lives in a tree), but his works are often disturbing.

 

[JustKate]

While I admire those of you who believe the only thing that matters is what the author writes, not the kind of person he is...well, you know, I have to question that. It's all well and good to say "I don't care about somebody's politics." But if he's, say, a pedophile or a white supremist or something really unsavory...I have to think that some of you would find yourselves saying, "OK, that's enough. That's where I draw the line."

I guess where I draw the line is where the racism and/or pedophilia becomes evident in the work. If the ickier parts of the artist's personality starts contaminating their work, that's a deal-breaker. But otherwise, that way madness lies. If we only read books or enjoyed movies by people who had no character flaws, you'd be eliminating thousands of classic works . . . . .

With classical works (or really any older work), the economic argument is out of the picture, which simplifies the situation.

Yeah, exactly. And there's the question of how dead the sins are, too. Once there is some historical distance, I can forgive or forget a lot - not necessarily everything, but a lot, so long, as Greg notes, as the ickiness doesn't come out in the author's work. But if the author is still alive, still being a racist or whatever the unsavory thing might be, or even if he's dead but not dead long enough that his sins are in the distant past...that's a lot harder to get past. For me, anyway.

For example, I am far more likely to be able to forget about the sins of a fine writer who owned slaves in, say, Rome or even pre-Civil War America than I am to forget about the sins of a Nazi prison camp commandant or somebody who tried to prevent integration of schools or the registration of black voters in the American South. Those last two are simply far too recent for me (and this is even though I wasn't born until long after the end of WWII). "Recent" is a relative term.

I've forgotten exactly what my friend's beef with Albom was...

I can imagine. I've heard things, too, including from folks who know him. It's all hearsay, so I have taken it with a grain of salt, but the facts of the journalistic scandal aren't hearsay, and those are (according to my persnickety journalistic ethics) unsavory enough to give me a long-term distaste for his writing. I might get over it someday, though. You never know. People do learn from their mistakes sometimes.

 

[milo bloom]

First name that came to mind was Card when I saw the thread title. And that's a shame because I thought Ender's Game was brilliant and Xenocide (despite being a massive tonal shift), was nearly as good. I had ordered a few more in the series a while back when I discovered his anti-gay leanings, and they've sat unread on my shelf for a few years now. Personality flaws I can deal with because, well, I have in-laws , but a true agenda against something I feel is a basic bit of humanity is my line.

 

[Lorraine Anderson]

What did he do? Never read his stuff...

His habit of including scenes that featured the hero getting a glimpse of a young girl's underwear disturbed me. Gave me the creeps. It was probably an over reaction, but its constant inclusion made me quit his books. They were getting a bit repetative too.

Yeah, that would be the Xanth series. I still buy those... I guess I have no problem with that series, although you're right, he is repeating himself. He did have another series of books, though, that I refuse to read. I can't remember the name of it right now, but the main charactor commits every major sin, all while trying not to commit any sin. That's where I had my over reaction.

 

[Smitty]

First name that came to mind was Card ... but a true agenda against something I feel is a basic bit of humanity is my line.

Yeah, that name came to my mind at first as well. I think the stickler here is the the last part. What you, I or others consider basic bits of humanity sometimes vary. For instance, if Card's stance was white supremacist, anti-Semitic (or against people of any faith), anti-drugs, anti-guns, etc are those of equal value? For some people, if those thoughts or feelings are preached in the book that is a line that is crossed. For others just that the man personally has those opinions is enough.
I guess it goes the other way as well, if one imposes their lifestyle via their writings then it might be a turn off. For me, if the story is good and it does'nt make those types of issues the focal point of the story then I usually dont care what their personal thoughts are.