Well, no–not everyone.

As far as I can see, the only difference between “bigot” and “someone I disagree with” is that “bigot” means “someone I disagree with a lot“.

Hence: ‘hateful’ and ‘bigoted’ are both loaded and relative… I’m fully aware it’s a sliding scale.

There is? I’m not so sure. As far as I can see, the only difference between “bigot” and “someone I disagree with” is that “bigot” means “someone I disagree with a lot“. Everyone accuses their enemies of being bigots.

*There’s a difference between someone who’s an a-hole, or whose politics (or musical taste*) you disagree with, and someone who espouses hateful or bigoted views (and yes, ‘hateful’ and ‘bigoted’ are both loaded and relative).

*There’s a difference between someone who has different beliefs or values then you, and someone who loudly and publicly proselytizes those views.

*If I’ve already read (and enjoyed) someone’s work, I’m more likely to continue reading their stuff even after they’ve expressed views I find repugnant (lucky for you, Dan Simmons). However, I’ll probably be less forgiving if I think the quality is slipping, and/or if they ratchet up the repugnant rhetoric (ha!).

*On the other hand, I’m less likely to buy something from an author I haven’t read if I find their views distasteful for whatever reason. It’s just another reason to choose something else, in a situation where there’s generally plenty to choose from. If the book got all kinds of great reviews an/or was recommended by a trusted source, I’d probably still give it a chance. But on a level playing field, it gives me a reason not to pick something.

My US$0.02, worth less by the minute…

*I dig Elvis, me. I even have a collection of Elvis-abilia, or, as some might call it, junk.

Temporarily. I went back and read more — his stories changed the way I saw the world, and I still aspire to being half as good at this as he is. Then I read the one Ender book in which a gay man appears, a totally unbelievable Mormon ideal of a gay man — considering himself sick and remaining celibate all his life — and I had to step away again.

But when it comes down to it, I still love his writing. I bought two more copies of Pastwatch recently — I like to always have one for myself and one to give away, but I’m always more eager to introduce someone to it than to keep it so every couple of years I find myself Pastwatchless again.

Neil Gaiman recently wrote on his blog, “…you should never meet your heroes, if you want to keep them as heroes.” (http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/07/morning-found-me-miles-away.html) I think the principle applies here — if we want to keep our literary heroes, we need to stick with their literature.

However, for the most part, we try to not let our personal opinions dictate what we will purchase for the library or recommend for patrons. But, our opinions might color what authors we will ask to attend events, especially if they have been rude to children. I have personally witnessed two cases of this, two authors who will likely never be invited back to a statewide book event because of their treatment of their child and teen fans.

It’s sad really, since the kids still love them. But we youth librarians tend to be very protective of our patrons. As I said before, this doesn’t mean we won’t purchase their books for the library, or recommend them to kids, but it does effect our opinion of the writers as people. It is very disillusioning.

As time passes, I learn more about the person from their books, their interviews, their online presence, their con presence, and who they hang with. And I start refining. Some people, I just like better and better. Some people, I have a progressively harder time tolerating. Some people I like in person/online but can’t read their books; others it’s the opposite.

In other words, there’s a lot of variation. But I figure it’s all fair. ‘Cause I get to think what I think, y’know?

Plus there was a ton of gay love between older men and younger boys in Songmaster.

And there’s far too much stupidity out there to maintain that level of activism of not buying books/going to movies/being entertained due to artist activism.

Plus it’s what you don’t know about that should have you worried. Diana has been investing HER book riches on researching the creation of pygmy children for pets. Kids are cute, but they grow up. Pygmy children stay small and innocent(until they get blow guns) for life.

Incidentally, I mentioned OSC’s rant to my wife who was the best ‘man’ in a gay wedding and recently bought the latest OSC book too. She said ‘Huh! He’s nuts. His books are getting worse*, too.’

*She said it not me. I don’t bag on authors online.

I have never purchased one of OSC’s books. People like him do not get my money. As another commenter pointed out there’s a difference between who we read & who we’ll give our money to.

I kind of wish I hadn’t sidetracked the discussion by mentioning OSC. He is too hateful for humour.

First, reading a book is not the same as buying a book. When you buy a book you are giving some (yes, I know not very much) of your money to the author. If you know that author will use your money to spread ideas you find repulsive, either in person, in print or on an internet blog, I think you should reconsider buying giving that author your money. I live in a capitalist society, money talks.

Second, I just want to point out again that loving my partner of 12 years and wanting to marry him is not the same as loving Elvis. I do love Elvis, and Bobby Darin and Frank Sinatra, but it’s just not the same at all.

Yes, BUT not every writer casts themselves as a protagonist of every story. And not all stories lend themselves to all themes and view points.

Just because an author is publicly opposed to people who cover themselves in peanut butter doesn’t mean they will always disparage P.W.C.T.S.I.PB.s in their writing. They may just not be represented or something.

John Scalzi* is a good example of someone who’s fiction writing is often viewed as opposite his blog persona.

*I’m not sure how he feels about peanut butter covered people.

and so are a person’s most publicly advocated political beliefs.

yes, fiction and publicly expressed politics come from different places, but both are part of the intellect and mind-quality of a writer. if that writer gets something really, really wrong, you can be sure that that writer didn’t just get the one thing really wrong. there’s a flaw in that writer’s intellectual/emotional process. and that will affect how well i can suspend my disbelief (which is an act of trust in the writer) for their stories in the future.

osc is a bad example for me b/c i liked ender’s game a lot, but didn’t love it. forrest carter’s the education of little tree is a better example. i read it in college, at a time when i really needed to read stuff about multiracial children choosing, and demonstrating their choice, to live a non-dominant-race life. “little tree” was a lovely story for me then, and I adored the book.

later i was able to see how stereotyped the story was, so it wasn’t quite as devastating to find out that carter was no only not little tree, but was also a former klansman. carter’s writing of “little tree” is an interesting story, but knowing his political history definitely kept me from reading any further in his brief oeuvre.

and i think it’s justified. saying that a person’s experience of the book can transcend the person’s knowledge of the author’s politics assumes that any reader is always going to be smart or perceptive enough to pick out any wrongness in the book. but we’re not all that smart, and none of us is that smart all the time. i think it makes sense to trust what a writer tells us about her/himself directly and let that inform what the writer is telling us about him/herself indirectly.

As for what we read for, if we read primarily for sympathetic politics, politics matter. If we read primarily for art, politics are only a small part of stories we love or hate.

There may also been a feeling by some people that shunning the author and his/her works is the only proper response, lest the author think his comments/views have been met with approval.

On the other hand, I wouldn’t be in favor of trying to disappear or ban works by authors I don’t like or books or films that express views I find offensive. Some day I might even get around to reading Protocols of the Elders of Zion just to see what the fuss is about.

As for Elvis, who doesn’t love the King?

In the end, all I’ve come up with is that if I read the book before I got the bad associations, then I can keep the good qualities of the book distinct in my head. On the other hand, once the bad associations are there, they pretty much entirely inhibit my ability to find anything good in the books (and indeed, make it much less likely that I’ll spend the money on the book in the first place to even find out if I can get past the associations.)

However, I have decided I can live with that. I mean there’s no shortage of good books out there–more than I am physically capable of reading in my life–so I’m not going to feel like I’ve failed in some way if I’m ruling some out on “not about the book per se grounds.