When authors are objectionable

I have been musing about books and authors lately and trying to get my head around it.

In particular, what do you do when authors of books you love (or may love) show their pimply arses in a most spectacular fashion?

Can you divorce the terrible things they’ve said/done from their work? Can you read the books and appreciate them for what they are even though you know the author is objectionable in some ways? For that matter, is it right for us to decide that someone’s personal life is relevant to their professional life?

If someone is a homophobe, is it right for me to not read their books because of that? Is it right for me to judge their personal life – even their bigotry – as a reason to not engage their professional work? What if I boycott them? What if I encourage other people to avoid their work as well? Does their being extremely bigoted and objectionable justify it? On the flip side, is it right to chide me, a gay man, for refusing to put money into the pocket of a homophobe? Is it really wrong of me to fight against a force of oppression – especially in a world where there is very much a battle for rights and justice still? How much should I be required to swallow my anger and offence over bigotry?

(Obviously I am not talking about portrayals here, obviously a bigoted portrayal is something I’d shun and encourage others to do. I mean an author who has/holds/loudly expresses really virulent views but they are not apparent in their books – or not all of them anyway)

I do think all these questions fade to a moot point when the arse-shower in question shows their arse in a spectacularly public way – especially if they are doing it on a platform that their fame and position as a prominent author has give them. A good example would be Orson Scott Card – who is not just a private little homophobe, he has used his fame, position and prominence to spread his hate spiel.

On a related note, even if we decide that refusing to read someone’s books because of the actions/words of the author is wrong – CAN we always divorce authorial action from their work?

In some ways I can – but I have to say that that tends to come from whether or not their arse showing impacts me personally. So, for example, if someone has a major homophobia fail it’s harder for me to divorce their arse-showing from their work – for example, I own a considerable number of Ann McCaffrey’s books, but haven’t read them in a while and have been skipping the ones that focus on her gay characters for some time – partly because they’re so grossly stereotyped and partly because every time I read them the word “tent pegs” echoes in my mind. This isn’t a conscious “she’s a homophobe, I refuse to consume her work” decision, it’s just knowing that about her colours the words I am reading and prevents me from enjoying them.

And in looking at that, isn’t it an act of supreme privileged to read works by authors who have shown their arse in ways I CAN divorce? I mean, if I admit that an author who has had a homophobia incident then squicks me badly enough not to want to read their work – surely it’s an act of privilege to be able to avoid that squick when it is less personal – though potentially as objectionable? Or, to put it another way, if someone declared they were the biggest ever Orson Scott Card fan and I said “you know, he’s a stinking homophobe” and they said “yes, but I can ignore that and still buy his work” how would I feel about that? I’m not sure, I’m really not. So if someone turns round to me and says “are you reading X, did you know they’re sexist/racist/a complete arsehole of epic and unimaginable proportions” surely it would be wrong for me to say “yes, but I can divorce that from their work?”

Which brings me to my next musing – I have avoided this in many ways by scrupulously AVOIDING any information about most of the authors I read unless I’m pretty sure of them. I don’t follow author blogs, I don’t read biographies, I avoid articles where they are mentioned, I avoid their name in the news. By doing so I can avoid any unfortunate display of arseholery

But is this a privileged view as well? Is it a foolish view? I mean, any of my favourite authors could be ghastly, repellent people I wouldn’t spit on if they were on fire yet I continue to support them relying on carefully constructed ignorance. Isn’t this the very definition of wilful ignorance?

Yes, this post has more questions than answers and I’m not sure where to lean on them. Worse, I feel that I do know where to lean, but am reluctant to go there because it may be personally inconvenient and uncomfortable.