How do you deal with authors with problematic, harmful views?

[Gravy]

It's a common occurrence to come across authors from the past who expressed/elevated harmful opinions/rhetoric. Obviously, we have to take or leave those authors as they are, but what about those authors who are still alive, still profiting from their works, and still influencing the world?


How do you deal with those authors?
Do you even pay attention to authors enough to know if they hold a belief that is harmful to you or others?
Do you still read them? Or are their works ruined once you know?
Would you still buy their books? If so, would you only buy used, or support them by buying new?

I have a few I won't ever buy new, but will still read.
I'm afraid another may be off my reading list all together.


I'm just curious. I've lost the ability to support an author of one of my long running series because of his views, recently.
Not to mention...the other one.

[gali]

I don't buy their work as I don't want to support them. If I have the books already, I may read them. Otherwise, I won't bother. There are enough (and better) books, so I don't lose anything by not reading their books...

Who are the authors?

[Robert Potter]

I mean there should be a discussion about separating the art from the artists or in this case the book from the author. That being said I think there's a difference if this author is writing nonfiction vs fiction and if the problematic views are central to the book in question or not. Additionally, I think there is some merit to seeking out books you disagree with even vehemently disagree with.

[ValeriaU]

I don't buy their work as I don't want to support them. If I have the books already, I may read them. Otherwise, I won't bother. There are enough (and better) books, so I don't lose anything by not reading their books...

Who are the authors?

I agree. Even if I do manage to separate the story from the author I refuse to give them more money, for the simple reason that I do not agree with the use they're giving it.

Right now I'm specifically talking about J.K.Rowling. Its been known that she donates to organizations that do not represent my beliefs, but I am unable to part from the wonderful world of Harry Potter.

[gali]

I don't buy their work as I don't want to support them. If I have the books already, I may read them. Otherwise, I won't bother. There are enough (and better) books, so I don't lose anything by not reading their books...

Who are the authors?

I agree. Even if I do manage to separate the story from the author I refuse to give them more money, for the simple reason that I do not agree with the use they're giving it.

Right now I'm specifically talking about J.K.Rowling. Its been known that she donates to organizations that do not represent my beliefs, but I am unable to part from the wonderful world of Harry Potter.

I love Harry Potter too (I got all the books). I heard about her views and was dismayed. I didn't know about her donations.

[Gravy]

I mean there should be a discussion about separating the art from the artists or in this case the book from the author. That being said I think there's a difference if this author is writing nonfiction vs fiction and if the problematic views are central to the book in question or not. Additionally, I think there is some merit to seeking out books you disagree with even vehemently disagree with.

The problem is, if you continue to support them/but their books, you've already made your stance clear.


Once an author is no longer profiting from their work, it's easy to separate them from their work. To do so before that is just an excuse to either passively agree with them, or admit that you just don't care about the harm they're doing.

[Gravy]

Yes, J.K. is the big one.
I've found it impossible to even enjoy the books anymore.

What's worse is that her transphobic rantings have been used politically by those trying to remove protections for lgbt+ people, so the harm she's causing is very real.

I love that the three main actors have spoken out in defense of trans people.


Others are Nicholas Sparks (homophobic), Jim Butcher (didn't see the point in wearing a mask when the pandemic hit), etc...

Orson Scott Card would probably have interested me, but his views ruined his writing for me before I even knew what he wrote.

[gali]

Yes, J.K. is the big one.
I've found it impossible to even enjoy the books anymore.

What's worse is that her transphobic rantings have been used politically by those trying to remove protections for lgbt+ people, so the harm she's causing is very real.

I love that the three main actors have spoken out in defense of trans people.


Others are Nicholas Sparks (homophobic), Jim Butcher (didn't see the point in wearing a mask when the pandemic hit), etc...

Orson Scott Card would probably have interested me, but his views ruined his writing for me before I even knew what he wrote.

I agree. I can't separate the man from the writing. I also avoid racists and Antisemitic authors. I don't enjoy reading books of such men.

I didn't know about the others. I have read a couple of Nicholas Sparks's books a long time ago, a couple of Jim Butcher's book and a couple of Card'. It is surprising that such great authors hold such intolerant views. I didn't notice it in their books. They should have stuck to writing books!

[Bigwig1973]

Maybe I'm rather wishy-washy or a bit too open-minded or I pick books I generally agree with because I don't often run into those issues. If people seem racist or sexist for example, I generally optimistically view them as misguided or, that their racism is not racism or their sexism is not sexism because it is a learned defense mechanism. People are, or ought to be designed to categorize for the sake of self-preservation and so, if someone feels that sexism is keeping them alive or contributing to their well-being, and if their opinion is not necessarily harmful to others, etc., how is that wrong? If you apply Aristotle's ethical tables to folks, then bravery to a fault or cowardice to a fault makes them imperfect - I wouldn't not read their books because of it, but I might have a preference for not reading them if I fall in the middle or on either side. Something like that, in the grand scheme of things, is rather difficult to assess. I've run into genres that I don't feel I have a need to understand - it doesn't work for me so why try. In these cases, I wouldn't say their views are problematic or harmful, they are just not useful to me. If I thought they had value and no one else read them, I would probably read them for the sake of a good cause. I guess I think your statement is rather broad, maybe?

[ValeriaU]

Maybe I'm rather wishy-washy or a bit too open-minded or I pick books I generally agree with because I don't often run into those issues. If people seem racist or sexist for example, I generally optimistically view them as misguided or, that their racism is not racism or their sexism is not sexism because it is a learned defense mechanism. People are, or ought to be designed to categorize for the sake of self-preservation and so, if someone feels that sexism is keeping them alive or contributing to their well-being, and if their opinion is not necessarily harmful to others, etc., how is that wrong? If you apply Aristotle's ethical tables to folks, then bravery to a fault or cowardice to a fault makes them imperfect - I wouldn't not read their books because of it, but I might have a preference for not reading them if I fall in the middle or on either side. Something like that, in the grand scheme of things, is rather difficult to assess. I've run into genres that I don't feel I have a need to understand - it doesn't work for me so why try. In these cases, I wouldn't say their views are problematic or harmful, they are just not useful to me. If I thought they had value and no one else read them, I would probably read them for the sake of a good cause. I guess I think your statement is rather broad, maybe?

I must disagree, sexism and racism are things that shouldn't be accepted or encouraged, it doesn't matter if it's a defense mechanism or not. If an author, or any public figure for that matter, is openly sexist or racist, supporting them helps spread that message. Yes, maybe they're not doing things that directly harm others, but they are encouraging people who share their beliefs to do it. The fact is that as public figures they have influence over people who might do stupid harmful things because they saw someone famous agree with them. If we support these authors we're either agreeing with them, or we just don't care about what happens to others as long as it doesn't affect us.

[Bigwig1973]

"I must disagree, sexism and racism are things that shouldn't be accepted or encouraged, it doesn't matter if it's a defense mechanism or not. If an author, or any public figure for that matter, is openly sexist or racist, supporting them helps spread that message. Yes, maybe they're not doing things that directly harm others, but they are encouraging people who share their beliefs to do it. The fact is that as public figures they have influence over people who might do stupid harmful things because they saw someone famous agree with them. If we support these authors we're either agreeing with them, or we just don't care about what happens to others as long as it doesn't affect us." Quoted from ValeriaU

The underlying problem is that the defense mechanism should not have been triggered in the first place. To argue against such defense mechanisms is likely similar to arguing against a sense of taste, (as in a sense of taste, not a sense of style) depending on how the problematic conclusions were drawn in the first place. I'm not speaking of people who are openly biased, yet, on the other hand, (lone wolves excepted), people are social creatures and want their feelings validated and I feel that sometimes that is almost what is required to make the whole species tick. A scene from the film "A League of Their Own" where Tom Hanks "yells" at one of the girls and then she starts crying and he again "yells", "There's no crying in baseball!" comes to mind. On one level, she wanted her feelings validated and he eventually gave in. Baseball and physical dexterity is like life and defense mechanisms. To some degree. I also wrote "...if their opinion is not harmful to others..." which could incorporate "encouraging people who share their beliefs". You didn't necessarily argue with me, nor did you support what you perceived to be my stance. And now, Gravy is perhaps still not validated because we are totally off topic, his (I'm assuming Gravy is male) topic in the first place. However, the argument may still ring true in regard to transphobia, homophobia, and people who prefer to not wear masks.

[Eclecticmama]

I think if the author is able to keep their personal views and beliefs out of their writing, I can read it. I don't know about buying their books, but I will borrow them from the library. Everyone has an opinion, and its ok if it is not the same as mine. I can respect that as long as they don't try to make me believe the same as they do.

[MrsTurner2013]

Honestly, if there is an author that I don't agree with, I just ignore what they have to say. They have the right to express what they think. I have a right to express what I think. The only time I ever have problems with people expressing their thoughts is if they come back and tell me I can't express my own opinions or tell me my opinion is "wrong". Just because someone's opinion differs from your own doesn't mean the expression of that opinion should be hindered. If someone's opinion is harming other people, I will express that concern but I have no control over what they will do. I can tell people there is a better, less harmful idea that is available. In the end, people will believe what they believe and no matter how I feel about it gives me the right to suppress someone else's expression of thought.

[Bertha Jackson]

It would depend on the content and tone of the writing. If they are writing about history that conforms with their beliefs, but the intent is to inform about the history, than it would be ok. If their intent was to encourage their own believes and not open-minded than no I would not read them.

[jlhtr]

Mostly I just don't read any more of that author.

Twice in my life I destroyed a book because I hated it so violently. One was a book that essentially normalized violence-- ugly violence -- against people who were less than. No one is less than. Tore that one up and stuffed it in the trash.

The other was a piece of shadow written self-hype, by Jack Welch, about his role in General Electric.

GE bought the small software company I was working for. Two guys showed up to take over, and their attitudes, their delivery of the culture and values of GE were a subversion into a dark, dark world of nothing matters but GE and making money for it. A table piled with copies of this one book showed up in the front hall; for a while the pile was mostly untouched, then people began to take copies more and more, and I did too.

I got about 1/3 of the way into it and couldn't stomach it; set it aside, left for another job, eyed the book for a few more weeks.

A friend provided the perfect opportunity. She invited me to a bonfire whose theme was burning old letters and other leftovers from earlier times. It was a big hot bonfire.

Books do not burn easy, but it did finally fall apart. I had very complicated feelings about burning a book, but I'm glad I did it, at least that once.