October 12, 2004

• Not that far from a wash. Out of the 31 novelists we have 2 abstaining, 4 voting for Bush and 25 for Kerry.
• O.S. Card apparently has never heard the old "if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging" axiom.
• I find it interesting that, of those who say they'll vote for GWB, only one (Thomas Mallon) has any reason other than "otherwise we'll get blowed up real good." I stopped reading the pro-Kerry rants a third of the way through, but their reasoning seemed to be a bit richer.
• I haven't read any of their books, so I'm not interested. So there. /ostrich
• Card's column is one of the more unintentially funny columns out there. Well, next to Michelle Malkin.
• Arrrg.... Orson Scott Card, "Speaker for the Dead" is one of the most amazing and eye opening books regarding clashes of culture and beings interacting with others who are different. What happened?
• Yeah, that's not what I would have expected from Card, after Ender. Surprised me a bit, as did the "Personal honesty is also important to me" argument (not that he values honesty, but that he actually believes that Bush embodies it).
• Man, I've only read three of these people - well, more like 2.1 of these people. I've got a massive allergy to Updike, it seems: 20 pages into Rabbit, Run and I had to flee.
• Vendela Vida: I'll be checking up on you.
• So, if they don't agree with your politics, will you stop reading? If you don't support the politics of an actor or artist, you really should avoid their work. This goes double for an author. You can't show me a novel that isn't an extension of the author's politics. Some are more obvious, like Wicked, Watership Down, or Flatland. Some are less obvious, like the Dark Tower, Harry Potter, or Green Eggs and Ham. But their politics can't help but be part of the story. It's going to come through. Matter of fact, you probably already choose authors based on politics, with out even realizing it. If you disagree with their politics, chances are you won't like their story, and that you won't pick up another of their novels.
• Wouldn't it be better to not avoid their work and at least try to see what the other side has to say? Unless all you want is an affirmation of your own beliefs.
• iws: I had the exact opposite reaction to Speaker For The Dead. His concept of [DELETED] turning into [DELETED] on being [DELETED] was, I thought, a heavy-handed way to make his point about clash of cultures. Mary Doria Russell made it much better in her book The Sparrow.
• If you don't support the politics of an actor or artist, you really should avoid their work. This goes double for an author. Only if (a) you're looking for nothing but reinforcement of your own beliefs and (b) you can't appreciate the artistic merit of a work of art separately from the politics of its creator. I disagree with Tolstoy's politics, therefore I shouldn't read War & Peace? I think Bradbury's a reactionary, so Fahrenheit 451 isn't worth my time? Sure, an author's beliefs are going to come through in the writing. No disputing that. And I'd agree that if those beliefs are laid in with a heavy hand, readers who disagree will likely avoid the work (really, I tend to avoid such novels even if I agree with them, unless they're particularly well-written). But I've known atheists and non-Christians who were charmed by Narnia, for example. Witness the masses of people who think Dave Sim's views on women and homosexuals qualify him for a special circle of hell, yet will tell you in the same breath that Cerebus (at least the earlier issues) is a work of genius. We could just read their books and enjoy them or not.
• I disagree with middleclasstool's politics, so I never read his comments. I simply assume he's taunting me about my fungal infection problem. Well, I'd be real obliged if someone could tell him that I hope one day he experiences the embarrassing pain of "mushroom testicle".
• So Smo, since I dislike military fiction (because I don't like to see war glamourized), I should go out and pick up a Tom Clancy novel, just to see what the other side has to say? That makes no sense. And yet I've done it. I read Rainbow Six, just because I was curious. I found out *spoilers* that war-nicks think that tree-huggers are secretly trying to destroy the planet. And you know what? That's exactly what the other side thinks about them. War-nicks aren't going to be suddenly turned to the other side by reading Watership Down, just like I wasn't suddenly turned to the other side by reading Rainbow Six. In fact, I grew more contempt for war-nicks: What kind of pussy is scared that tree-huggers are trying to destroy the planet? Meanwhile, they'd grow more contempt for peace-nics by reading Watership Down: What kind of pussies are afraid of a little discipline? People read for entertainment. When they read a book with a different political outlook than their own, they'll find "flaws" in the story. This will keep them from enjoying it.
• Just scrub it with a brush and lightly saute it in butter and garlic, and it'll go away.
• Oh great, now he's presumably making fun of my Sister's baldness! Where the hell does this guy get off?
• And Anne Rice is voting for ... herself.
• Anne Rice doesn't need a government. She's prefect all by her loansome.
• If you don't support the politics of an actor or artist, you really should avoid their work. This goes double for an author. Only if (a) you're looking for nothing but reinforcement of your own beliefs and (b) you can't appreciate the artistic merit of a work of art separately from the politics of its creator. or (c) You're looking for plot that you'd consider realistic and (d) with character's behaviour consistent with what you've experienced to be real-world behaviour. The concept of tree-huggers bent on world destruction is ridiculous, from my world-view. Reading it in book doesn't enlighten me about the "other side", it encourages me to disregard them. When someone tells you they disliked a book, the reason is going to be differences in ideologies. That's the ultimate underlying cause. You actually think people, when picking a book to read for entertainment, should choose the book they'll dislike over the book they'll like?
• I gotta bring this one back up: you can't appreciate the artistic merit of a work of art separately from the politics of its creator. It's the easiest thing in the world to disassociate the accomplishment from the accomplisher. The biggest, most blatant example I can think of right now is Columbus. The only people that give a damn how much a s---head Columbus was have put effort into it. It takes intentional effort to connect the s---head Columbus to the hero Columbus, and to merge them into one person. This is why I used the term "should." It's difficult and takes conscious effort. And this effort should be reserved for the topics that weigh the heaviest in your mind.
• I think anyone who would avoid an author or artist because they disagree with their politics (or because they don't like them for some other reason) is not terrifically interested in, or knowledgeable about, art. There are books I've loved by authors whose politics I find loathsome. Same goes for music and visual art. Still, if people want to blinker themselves, that's up to them.
• Wait. So people who don't share your politics are incapable of creating realistic plots and characters? It seems to me that your main argument here is that Clancy and writers of his ability suck. Not exactly a huge revelation. Yeah, his concept is stupid. Even if I weren't an environmentalist, I'd still have to say that that's a stupid concept. I believe in capitalism and democracy. But I don't think anybody can draw better characters than Tolstoy. I disagree with some of Philip Pullman's fundamental beliefs, but I think HDM is a fucking fantastic trilogy. When someone tells you they disliked a book, the reason is going to be differences in ideologies. Not necessarily. I'd say not usually. When you tell someone about a movie or book that you liked, the usual question is not "Did its underlying ideologies match up with mine?" but rather "What was it about?" You can agree fully with the underlying philosophies of a work of art and still call it shit. You actually think people, when picking a book to read for entertainment, should choose the book they'll dislike over the book they'll like? Uh, I didn't say that. I'm saying you might differ with the person's beliefs and still like their writing. If Clancy didn't enlighten you, the problem may be that he either (a) has a laughably simplistic view of things, or (b) is unable to argue for his views intelligently. That's a question of ability, not politics. I'm not an athiest, but when I read well-written atheist fiction, they make me understand where they're coming from.
• I liked George Saunders' Huck Finn vs. Tom Sawyer analogy.
• Sorry, but I have to get some rest. What was that about Narnia and religion? I've never heard the CoN described as christian works (but I haven't even thought of them since I was 8)
• Lewis was a huge Christian apologist, and it comes through very clearly in the books (not as clearly to an eight-year-old, of course). Aslan, the omnipotent lion, brings spring back to Narnia when he allows himself to be killed by the Witch, only to be resurrected afterward, etc. Sleep well.
• Take Dante's Divine Comedy. I enjoyed it, but I don't believe that Hell exists, and even if it did, I don't suppose it would be anything like the Inferno. And I certainly don't believe that the punishments fit the crimes. Doesn't mean I can't appreciate the work. About Narnia, yeah, that's Christian allegory all the way. Aslan = Jesus, IIRC.
• The first part of that was cut off for some reason. Anyway, I want to say that Dante is still worth a read, even for an atheist, if not for the poetry itself, then to realize that, wow, people actually think this place exists.
• Aslan=Jesus only works for the first book The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe. The Narnia mythos is filled with things incompatible with no Christian parallel. What about the area between worlds that you can get to by using rings? The silver chair? The half-frog marsh-man? Which Biblical message does the story of Eustace Scrubb reference? I think C.S. Lewis adapted aspects of Christian legends into his stories, but Narnia is hardly allegory "all the way".
• incompatible
• It's been way too long since I read it for me to argue any of this properly. But, yeah, you're right. I overstated things.
• O.S. Card apparently has never heard the old "if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging" axiom. Which would explain why the "Ender's Game" series started such a rapid decline after "Speaker for the Dead". On preview, what ian would say said.
• I liked George Saunders' Huck Finn vs. Tom Sawyer analogy. Me too. I actually avoided reading Huckleberry Finn all the way through high school (how you ask? By volunteering to read Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man instead as a solo study); finally I decided that I couldn't have advanced degrees in Lit and NOT read it, so I did. I was really digging it right up until the point Tom Sawyer came back, and then Huck seemed to lose all the burgeoning moral awareness and personal growth that he'd been building toward the whole time, sublimated instead to Tom's fairy-tale silliness. Grrr.... Anyway, apt analogy.
• Oooh, O.S. Card bashing. My favorite pastime. I've read many who consider homosexuality to be a threat to civilization, but very few make that argument in as many words as Card does. Homophobic, and windy to boot.
• Narnia.. The Aslan=Jesus allegory kind of works in most of the books, but it is most obvious in the first and the last book(The Last Battle) as they're from Genesis and Revelations(IIRC). And from my experience and what I've read, the last book is the least-liked book, mostly due to the negative concepts introduced from Revelations. But yes, thankfully there were a lot of nonbiblical elements in the books. Now to make this more on topic... who would Lewis have voted for in this election, I wonder? If he was american and not dead, that is... Anybody know what his political views were?
• It's Revelation.
• TenaciousP, you're not alone there. Twain should have ended it the moment Huck left the river for good. Up to Tom's reappearance, it's perfection, IMO.
• I think that an author/artists politics don't necessarily get in the way so long as they're incidental rather than central to the story. For instance, the Aslan==Christ thing--that stands up, and is definitely somethign that Lewis was writing into the story, but it's not imperative that you believe Christ is the Son of God for you to enjoy the story. Whereas if you're reading the "Left Behind" novels, chances are the only way you enjoy them is if you're already in the choir. People write fiction taking Greek Myth as patterns, too, but that doesn't mean you have to be a polytheist to enjoy them. On the other hand, maybe it's a question of restraint. Lewis had the Christian stuff pumpin', but he wasn't preaching--he was telling a story, and it seemed to fit. I mean, he wasn't trying to convert anybody with Aslan, just trying to tell some truths (as he saw it) in an interesting way. Whereas you probably don't enjoy Upton Sinclair's The Jungle unless you have a healthy suspicion of the deregulation of business and the labor force, not to mention the general wisdom of having an FDA. I gave "The Jungle" to a libertarian friend to read once, and he was entirely unmoved (so he claimed). I'm sure people can't enjoy "Native Son" or "Invisible Man" for political reasons still. But those are both pretty preachy books. Narnia, LOTR, things like that--they're a little less so. I've always thought that authors succeed most when they write first to tell a story, rather than first to make a POINT. Not that they should exclude political points, just that the points should flow from the narrative rather than vice versa.
• Just one comment about Card (because I can't let a good old Card bashing go without getting in my licks). Has anyone read his OTHER novels? Yeah, I too was 12 once. Damn my lack of taste. But even then I got so sick of reading the same damn plot over and over. Some child is thrust upon the Great Secret that they and they alone can save world/universe/whatever. Of course if goes against every belief they have but in the end they go through and save the world against much personal struggle. Oh the humanity. Heavy handed, poor characterization, and general blah. Why oh why is Card given so much respect? Oh did anyone else notice that 2 out the other 3 Bush voters wrote typical hard boiled detective novel fare? Although I've always considered books like that guilty pleasures, I'm not surprised as to how the authors are voting. Most of those types of books have a pretty strong libritarian-Republican worldview. (As opposed to libritarian-Democrat or libritarian-anarchist or even libritarian-batfuck look,aka big L -Libritarian)
• I wrote a hard-boiled detective novel, and I'm about as left as I can be. Of course my detective doesn't carry a gun and smokes weed with his landlord...
• Has anyone read [Card's] OTHER novels? I liked Enchantment. Though it had many many flaws, it was overall an interesting story. The Ender's Game plot I got bored of before I finished Ender's Game, so I haven't felt the need to read the re-tellings. The sequels to Ender's Game (Speaker For The Dead, Xenocide, Children Of The Mind) I found to be uniformly terrible. I couldn't force myself to read his alternate history of Columbus, Alvin Maker, and women from the Bible series. I think Card is overrated.
• Mr Orson Scott Card is a Mormon who makes indefensible statements from time to time. Agree fully with aspo's succinct revierw of his work.
• Card is a Democrat? Man, I always figured with his views on women and homos that he was hardcore reactionary conservative. In another thread about the Nobel Peace Prize winner, someone mentioned Ezra Pound. He was a brilliant poet. And a fascist. The problem comes when inherent assumptions about politics cloud the work. Then and only then do politics become a liability. The best example I can think of is Ayn Rand. Her politics and "philosophy" so pervade her work that it is essentially unreadable as literature. But I'd extend it even further to say that I really don't enjoy books that purport to tell me how things are, from the left or the right. I prefer books that create complex situations and leave the meaning ambiguous, generally (though I love a good Futurist polemic).
• I think all I need to say here is: Pigasus for President!
• I've always thought that authors succeed most when they write first to tell a story, rather than first to make a POINT. I agree with this as a general rule, but there some incredible stories that can pull it off regardless. One of my favorite books is Voltaire's Candide, and it's definitely about the philosophy first. I agree re: Card. Even Ender's Game was, IMO, dull and predictable.
• One more comment about Card: a few years ago there was an interesting and revealing interview with him which reflects my feelings when I sought to learn more about him after reading his books.
• Dashiell Hammett was pretty 'left'.