From Moff, one of the regular writers, in response to the question "Would you boycott an author's work because of that author's politics?":
Would I boycott—i.e., not purchase new copies of—an author's work because of their politics? Maybe—I think it's totally reasonable to do that with companies; there's no reason I should help Orson Scott Card fund Proposition 8 or the like.
But would I refuse to read an author—like, not buy used copies of their books—over politics? No. Not a good strategy for promoting thoughtful debate.
The kicker, though, comes a few items down when Moff adds this humdinger:
The problem we have to overcome is that the people with the worst views are frequently so much better at punching.
The first part is a wonderfully practical response to the question at hand, which is a good one. I mean, I was concerned about Michael Crichton's politics and apparent gynophobia before the State of Fear debacle, but it hadn't really clicked with me that I was possibly contributing money to causes I don't agree with by buying new Crichton books. Are the sociopolitical leanings (and even contributions) of authors something we as readers should check out beforehand? Is that somehow invading the privacy of these authors (since some, like L. Ron Hubbard, tell you loudly and clearly what they think, but others don't)?
As for the second quote from Moff, anybody here ever get in a real fight, as in physical combat, over a difference of opinions regarding literature?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment