Should a Novelist's Anti-Gay-Marriage Views Matter?

I didn't know until after I read his book.

When I finished Lost Boys today, I looked up Orson Scott Card on the web to learn more about him and see what other novels he has written. Lost Boys was the first Card book I ever read, and I liked it enough to possibly try another of the author's many titles.

It was on the Web that I discovered Card has actively and publicly opposed same-sex marriage, which greatly upset me because I'm a strong believer in gays and lesbians having the right to wed. So I asked myself: Do I ever want to read this guy again?

Lost Boys is a very good 1992 novel about an economically struggling Mormon family that moves to North Carolina in 1983 after the father gets a job at a software company. The family and workplace dynamics are interesting, the dialogue is believable, there's some humor, there's a nice take on the beginnings of the personal computer revolution, there are several blood-pressure-raising nasty characters, and there's rising suspense as local kids disappear.

The book also offers insight into Mormonism (Card's faith) without being too doctrinaire it. But the author's strong, real-life stance against same-sex marriage seems pretty doctrinaire to me. Why should gays and lesbians be denied the opportunity to have a loving, married-couple-headed family like the one depicted so well in Lost Boys? (I'm heterosexual, for whatever that's worth.)

Ultimately, I decided I would not open a Card book again. This is similar to a decision I made years ago not to read much of Ernest Hemingway and Norman Mailer because of the macho nonsense they were guilty of in their personal lives. (And I didn't see a Woody Allen movie for a long time after his shenanigans that might have almost bordered on incest.)

Yes, I may be missing out on some great literature, but I'll survive. I have a list of hundreds of other great novels I want to read. There's only time for so many books, anyway.

But shouldn't I get some exposure to right-wing, narrow-minded viewpoints? Well, I'm already inundated with those viewpoints when I read much of the mainstream media or hear many politicians open their mouths. Plus I read plenty of books by authors who are not liberal, or are objectionable in some other way. We all pick and choose, so if I consider a novel a "must read," I'll read it even if I don't like the book's or the author's ideology.

For instance, Jack London was allegedly a racist, which is dismaying, but he didn't make a big point of it in his novels. So I kind of look the other way and read him avidly. I still read and reread John Steinbeck even though he supported the disastrous Vietnam War. I also love authors such as Herman Melville and Cormac McCarthy even though I'm a feminist and their books have very few significant female characters. (I don't know those two authors' views about women in their real lives.)

In short, I have no hard and fast rules. Maybe I'm all over the map on this. But the very good writer Card is not an all-time author, and I won't devote any more eyeball time to a guy who fights against an important civil and human right for millions of Americans.

How do you feel about reading books by authors whose personal views you oppose?

 

Comments

[LJO 22]

07:12 PM on 12/07/2011

Orson Scott Card is a major scfi writer, the creator of incredibly imaginative universes and concepts, and has written some of the best books I've ever read. I'm pro-LGTB rights, and I LOVE his works.
I honestly don't care about his personal and political views. I consider they don't get in the way because I don't see them appear in his work, in spite of what some people have said (someone points the Homecoming saga to me, because that's the only book, along with "Songmaster", where you can find an openly gay character. In both cases, IMHO the portrayal of gay characters wasn't bashing and anti-gay : both characters are pretty realisric, with their ups and flaws, and in Songmaster, the gay character is a main one)

I think th problem is when the author tries too hard to deliver a "message" or writes a pamphlet instead of a fictionnal work. For example, even if I share the beliefs that Glee promotes (being yourself, empowering LGTB), I never bring myself to enjoy or even like this show. It always feels like they try so hard to educate their audience that it becomes counter-productive.

[Dave Astor]

08:06 PM on 12/07/2011

Thanks, LJO 22, for your eloquent comment! You made some excellent points.

But I'm still troubled by the vehemence of Card's opposition to gay marriage. I'd like to stop thinking about that, and read more of his fiction. But I can't quite do it. I imagine what a gay couple must feel when they read Card's (non-book) words, and it has to be very hurtful.

[LJO 22]

02:56 AM on 12/08/2011

I get your point, but I've always felt that what's extraordinary with literature is that you can enjoy a book for whatever reasons you fancy. I like Hemingway, but not for the same reasons that my male friend does (I resent the misogyny of this author, probably more than a male writer would).
As a lot of readers here, I probably don't share the political beliefs of a lot of authors I enjoy. But IT'S NOT THE POINT. When one reads a fictional book or enjoy a fictional work (pamphlets are a different matter), one usually doesn't do so to support the real or supposed beliefs of the author, but for the intrinsic qualities and the universal worth of the work. If I should do that, I would have never read OSC and would have had to watch Glee religiously (argh!)

I don't even know if I'm articulate, but IMO literature reachs something universal and completely unconcerned by political and social debates. This detachement is precisely what allows us to fully appreciated a literature work for its worth, and not for the so-called worth of the author and his/her opinions.

[Satirist1]

11:22 PM on 12/06/2011

Orson Scott Card is an author of outstanding Ender series series which won both Hugo Award and the Nebula Award two years running. It's great middle brow literature.
The fact that he disproves of homosexuality is only a problem for those who who lack sophistication and place their political agenda ahead of their art.
Personally, I love Wagner's music, while I find some of his personal opinions rather abhorrent.

[Dave Astor]

08:01 AM on 12/07/2011

I hear you, Satirist1, and as I noted in my post and several of my comments, I do read novels by people I strongly disagree with ideologically. Same for music. For instance, I like some bands that are pretty sexist in their behavior and songs (though I prefer bands, such as 10,000 Maniacs, that are great without that macho nonsense). Anyway, we all make decisions logically or illogically, and the narrow-minded Card just pushed my buttons too much. Thanks for commenting!

[Satirist1]

09:44 PM on 12/07/2011

If you read Ender's Game you'll revise your opinion about Card's work.
Certain broadmindedness and ability to see pas personal prejudices is essential for those who attempt to speak about art. In my opinion. Especially having read most of his books I had no idea of his religious inclination until your blog. He, at least, doesn't preach.
Personally, I am agnostic about gay marriage, but doesn't prevent me from collaborating with gays on various recording projects.
The man or woman's talent is what interests me.

[Mike Nemeth]

06:54 PM on 12/06/2011

These comments are amazing. You are all a bunch of readers. Onward and upward.

[Dave Astor]

08:49 PM on 12/06/2011

Thank you, Mike! I'm sure the people who commented appreciate your very kind remark. And thanks for contributing to those excellent comments today and last Friday!

[AbsolutDemocrat]

01:17 PM on 12/06/2011

Meh...if they were THAT GOOD, I'd read his stuff at the bookstore...then put it back on the shelf. I wouldn't buy it to support them economically.

[Dave Astor]

01:32 PM on 12/06/2011

I'd feel guilty about doing that with 99.9 percent of living authors (including ones I disagree with). But for that other .1 percent, I like your idea! Of course, it would help to have a tolerant bookstore if one is sitting there for several hours.... Thanks for commenting, AbsolutDemocrat!

[M4dwoman]

09:11 PM on 12/05/2011

The only Card I've read was the Ender series, and I liked it. It was well written and thought-, provoking. I've often wondered if his other works were worth reading.
But there was this negative vibe I got from his self-trumpeting forward to one of his books that turned me off. Seemed like a mormon driven ego-trip. Haven't read anything of his since then.
I had the same reaction to Heinlein. While I loved his juvenile literature, the more adult books had a misogynistic and reactionary bent that I just didn't care for.

[Dave Astor]

09:48 PM on 12/05/2011

I appreciate your comment, M4dwoman. It reminds me of this equally excellent Olderandwiser55 comment on Saturday: "(W)hen someone believes something so strongly, it will show itself in their fiction." Or in a book's foreword!

I don't recall reading anything by Heinlein, but "misogynist­ic and reactionar­y" doesn't sound good to me.

[Jamie Fessenden]

01:06 AM on 12/06/2011

Heinlein was not misogynist. He had an unrealistic view of women, and tended to idolize them and depict all of his heroines as gorgeous sexpots who consider sex to be one of their weapons in a male-dominated world. Understandably, this doesn't appeal to most women today. But "misogynist" implies a dislike of women, which is absolutely false. His female characters were generally highly intelligent and capable.

[Olderandwiser55]

01:53 PM on 12/06/2011

I have to agree about Heinlein and women. I know some call it "feminist" but his female characters often derive their power from sex...

[Dave Astor]

02:09 PM on 12/06/2011

I have to read Heinlein myself to see how I feel about his writing, but I agree that women deriving power from sex doesn't sound feminist. Women deriving power from their intellect, independence, etc., sounds feminist to me. And men who respect that intellect, independence, etc., would be feminists, too.

[Amber Troska]

03:01 PM on 12/05/2011

It's not so much that I won't read the work of someone whose views are in opposition to my own (as you can often separate the merit of the work from that of the individual), but I don't want to buy their work and thus put my money in their pockets. But Card's views have been so loudly proclaimed, and are even becoming apparent in the work itself, so I don't believe I will be reading him anymore.

[Dave Astor]

04:21 PM on 12/05/2011

Very well said, Amber! One of the great points you make is about the issue of putting money in an author's pockets. As some commenters have noted, one way around that is to borrow from the library rather than buy a book by an author with objectionable personal views (although the library option still supports the writer indirectly). What it often comes down to, as you note, is how strident authors are/aren't in expressing personal views in or outside their writing. So I definitely read various authors I disagree with but the way Card expresses his views makes me reluctant to do the same for him. Thanks for commenting!

[JoeyDee2]

10:14 AM on 12/05/2011

On a general level, this discussion has come up in my classes: the artist's work and his or her life/behavior. When I was in college I remember telling a friend that I liked Ezra Pound's poetry. He said to me, "how can you, he was a Nazi sympathizer." The poems in question had nothing to do with Nazism.

I adore the films of Woody Allen and many are the work of a talented, creative director. But in his personal life, he's had some missteps to put it mildly in his relationships. Do we shun his work?

We pick a Shakespeare play (film) every semester.
Hamlet (the Mel Gibson version). This version is well-done and very accessible. Should it be judged on the basis of Gibson's anti-Semitism?

Macbeth (Roman Polanski). Excellent film version of the play. He raped a minor--utterly despicable.

So, should we boycott these works on the basis of the artist's personal behavior?

[Dave Astor]

11:02 AM on 12/05/2011

Those are all excellent questions, JoeyDee2. I would have liked to be a fly on the wall of your classes to hear what you and others said! I guess, like many people, I would answer your questions inconsistently. I'm a fan of Woody Allen's movies, but I deliberately didn't see his films for many years after his relationship scandal before eventually seeing one. Mel Gibson's "trifecta" -- far-right beliefs, anti-Semitism, reported bad treatment of at least one woman in his life -- pretty much crosses his movies off my list. Can't forgive Polanski enough to see his films, either; if he had accepted punishment for his crime rather than fleeing, perhaps I would feel differently. Thanks for your great comment!

[Dave Astor]

11:36 AM on 12/05/2011

To continue: I love and read Charles Dickens' novels, even though he was accused of anti-Semitism in "Oliver Twist." I love and read Edith Wharton's novels, even though she was a supporter of French imperialism. As a recent Meryl Streep movie title noted, "It's Complicated"!

[JoeyDee2]

11:48 AM on 12/05/2011

David, a fly on the wall of my classes would have more to say than my students. I pose the question to trigger debate, opinion discourse. Uniformly, I just get blank stares.

[HermaO]

08:05 AM on 12/05/2011

I read Ender's game and the following ones, and really liked them. then I came upon the Homecoming Saga, and decided to read it, since his previous books had been so good.
Something I read in this saga made me tick. He wrotes about a gay character, but I didn't like the way he wrote about him or waht he made him say. It made me uneasy, and kind of ruined my reading, even though it was a very minor character with no real influence on the story. I was a bit disapponted in him afterwards, and when I learned he was big on homophobia, I decided to call it quits.

I don't really mind reading books written by people whose opinions I don't share, as long as it doesn't appear in their books, or, if it does, I know about it and don't find it to be insiduous. Scott card failed, so I won't read what he writes.
And it can actually be interesting to read books who describe a particular ideology, even if you don't share any of it. Ayn Rand's books, already quoted here, are a very good example of that. I completely disagree with her, but reading Atlas Shrugged was interesting, and I don't regret it.

[Dave Astor]

08:28 AM on 12/05/2011

Thanks, HermaO, for your excellent and thought-provoking comment! You summed up a lot of important things: the uneasiness and ambivalence we might feel about certain authors and books, the benefits of reading other viewpoints, etc. And it's interesting that Card's views surface more strongly in some of his books than in others.

[Jefe in OC]

11:19 PM on 12/04/2011

I am of Jewish descent, yet I read Mein Kampf to understand the the evil of a man. I am a capitalist, and yet I have read Das Kapital to understand why someone would think differently. Both books have helped me frame my position so that I was able to counter the arguments of those I disagreed with by knowing how they framed their positions. When one decides against a book without ever having read it, one in effect burns it. I find such a position disturbing to say the least. One loses ones ability to gain insight to others as to why they hold their positions and in effect become themselves entrenched and dogmatic. In short, the blogger doesn't care what the person writes or how, or whether or not there is something that can be learned or even turned against the authors arguments, the blogger has prejudged the position without knowledge, deemed it unworthy of reading, and dismissed it without understanding. Why not just burn the books and be done with it? Strip the illusion of fairness, and without any critical thinking as to what may or may not have been written, destroy the books of the unbeliever. I do not believe in using liberal curtains of patois to hide rigid conservative windows of thought.

[Olderandwiser55]

01:00 AM on 12/05/2011

Jefe-your argument is similar to the comments we had about Ayn Rand. Sometimes we do read certain works important to causes contrary to our own. But there are limits.

No one is suggesting banning or burning at all. Frankly, I'm glad those views are in print so we don't forget.

I most disagree with your statement "When one decides against a book without ever having read it, one in effect burns it." I have hundreds of books to choose from-and more in the future. A choice of one over another is not burning. It's only a preference.I'll never read read them all.

[Dave Astor]

07:42 AM on 12/05/2011

Thanks, Jefe, for your comment, and, thanks, Olderandwiser55, for your response. Obviously, I agree more with the response than with the comment! As I said in the post, Jefe, I do read books by authors I disagree with. But, as Olderandwiser55 said, there are limits, and we have to pick and choose books because of time constraints. It has nothing to do with censoring, calling for a boycott, or burning books (literally or metaphorically). I'm obviously not advocating any of that. I was just stating my personal decision about reading Card. I'm well aware of anti-gay-marriage views. I read and hear about those views all the time from anti-gay-marriage media people and politicians. To conclude, my post expressed some ambivalence about the matter and you're wrongly interpreting my post as a screed. But thanks for writing, Jefe, because I enjoy the debate!

[VA Jill]

07:51 PM on 12/04/2011

He's a Mormon. What would you expect? As long as his views don't get into the storyline, I could care less. He still writes a good story!

[Dave Astor]

08:24 PM on 12/04/2011

Well, there are Mormons with expected conservative views against same-sex marriage, and then there are Mormons with over-the-top ways of expressing those expected conservative views against same-sex marriage. Card is in the latter camp (see his quotes a number of comments down, courtesy of "BeninOakland"). But, from reading "Lost Boys," I agree that Card writes a good story! Thanks for commenting, VA Jill!

[LabRat]

06:36 PM on 12/04/2011

No, It should not matter. OSC has been one of my favorites for years. Lost Boys is (in my opinion) his best book.

I enjoy authors regardless of their stance on issues unless the *fiction I'm reading* is blatantly pamphleteering. (Ayn Rand -- as someone pointed out) I don't even enjoy blatant message fiction if I do agree with the sentiment.

But pure fiction? I don't care.

[Dave Astor]

09:12 PM on 12/04/2011

LabRat, while I enjoy message fiction on occasion, I agree with you that it's usually better when the author is not blatant about it. In "The Grapes of Wrath," for instance, the reader obviously knows where John Steinbeck stands, but the characters and plot are what make it a truly great novel. The great Margaret Atwood is obviously a feminist and liberal, but her storytelling and all other aspects of her writing are so spectacular that people of any ideology would love her novels.

[treehugger5]

05:28 PM on 12/04/2011

This happened to me, I love sci fi and in the 80s I picked up a book and liked the story and how the author handled "bad" words. Of course it was a continuing story so bought more since they were discounted. Since I did like the story I looked in to the author. Luckily, the LA Times did a great series and I never again picked up a book again from the pathological liar: l. Ron Hubbard.

[Dave Astor]

06:22 PM on 12/04/2011

Thanks, treehugger5! You had me in suspense until your last line. That's definitely a good example of an author who would give one pause. He's someone I would not read, either.

[Olderandwiser55]

08:35 PM on 12/04/2011

Great example.

[Dave Astor]

08:41 PM on 12/04/2011

Agreed! I should have also used the word "great" (rather than "good") in my 6:22 response!

[3fingerbrown]

06:54 AM on 12/04/2011

Ayn Rand.

Discuss.

[Dave Astor]

08:19 AM on 12/04/2011

Best. Three-word comment. Ever!

I've never read Ayn Rand, partly because of her right-wing/hyper-individualism/look-out-for-one's-own-interests reputation. As I and some other commenters have said, there's only time to read so many books, so we have to pick and choose. But I wouldn't mind trying Rand's work one day, out of curiosity. I'd definitely be interested in seeing some commenters respond to your "challenge."

Thanks, 3fingerbrown!

[Olderandwiser55]

12:17 PM on 12/04/2011

That was a funny comment. I read both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged in my early 20s. I read them as novels, not the convoluted "truth" espoused today. And frankly, I doubt many right wingers have actually read these rather large novels. I have always been a leftist but those were different times.

I have thought I should re-read one of them with my "olderandwiser" brain. An interesting example-on this one, I would read a book by an author with extreme, contrary views...just to refute the Others. However, I wouldn't pay the high price those books are going for now.

Ayn Rand was a strange person but not the champion the right wing thinks either...she was certainly atheist and sexually promiscuous and anti-family values. And she said many things completely contrary to republicans that adore her views.

"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth, the man who would make his fortune no matter where he started."

Hmmm, that sounds like wealth shouldn't be passed down. In her novels, she was against inherited wealth.

"Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone."

Seriously, I don't see a lot of reason used by those avid Rand supporters.

[PatA]

12:26 PM on 12/06/2011

When I was a 'youngster, I lived on a ranch in a very rural area. (just moved back) Libraries didn't exist for us. It was too far to drive.

When I turned 9, my parents starting let me ride one of our mules 3 miles to a neighbor's house. Mr. Thomas brought tons of books with him when he moved to our area. Due to our location, he subscribed to the "Readers Digest" series. I took a 'tow sack" and he filled it and I rode back with my treasures. He filled the sack and I didn't ask what was it it. I knew I would read every book. When I finished them, I rode the mule back for another sackful.

By the time I started high school, age 12, I had read Ayn Rand, Shakespeare, true crime and anything else he gave me.. Oh! Silas Marner stands out in my memory. I have a copy that I found at an estate sale.

I encouraged my children to read everything I've read and more. None of us absorbed any writer's views.

There are lots of people who disagree with my views on several things but they have not quit inviting me to their houses. Same thing as far as I'm concerned.

[Elizabeth Tabler]

12:15 PM on 12/04/2011

hahah umm... is awesome :)

[Danielle13]

07:29 PM on 12/03/2011

Interesting question.

I will read books by authors with whom I disagree as long as their opinions are not the focus of, or prominent in their work. I've enjoyed some of Card's books and as long as his anti-gay marriage stance does not become the focus of his novels I will continue to read them. I think people who limit themselves to authors they agree with will miss out on a great deal of good literature, but I can see why one would wish to do so. I admit the choice has me torn sometimes.

[Dave Astor]

08:03 PM on 12/03/2011

Thanks, Danielle13! Your take on this makes a lot of sense. And, as another commenter said, one can read a Card book without directly supporting him financially by borrowing it from the library.

[atari guy]

04:41 PM on 12/03/2011

First, may I say that I loved "Lost Boys." It's probably my favorite OSC book, primarily because it relates so well with my own life as a Mormon father and programmer. And I will admit that I tend to agree with OSC personally, but I read his books because I like his books.

My favorite author, though, is Stephen King. While I tend to disagree with him personally, I still really enjoy his books.

I also listen to a lot of music made by people I don't disagree with personally, as well as music made by people that I do.

I think it's kind of silly to make judgments that way, but that's just me. :)

[Dave Astor]

05:38 PM on 12/03/2011

Yes, "Lost Boys" is an excellent book. I'm also a fan of Stephen King; his low-key (for him) "From a Buick 8" is one of my favorite post-2000 novels. I don't recall King ever saying anything as harsh as Orson Scott Card said (see the quotes below in BeninOakland's comment), so I can understand a conservative reader liking King more than a liberal reader might like Card. But I do see your point that people can enjoy things created by people they disagree with. Thanks for commenting, atari guy!