Reading books by bigots.

[Masada]

For christsake, please do not take him too seriously. Already too many here on CFC do. I have never met anyone who is more closeminded, more convinced in his belief that anyone who thinks outside his intellectual framework is dumber than himself than aelf. Never. He is just an intellectually very boring figure who thinks entirely within the framework laid down by the academic textbooks and his required reading (no doubt following the interpretations laid down by his teacher to the minutiae). The fact that I may have expressed too pompously shouldn't distract from the points I am making, which unlike aelf I'm capable of doing as well as revising them whenever necessary.

I'm well outside aelf's intellectual framework and he treats me like an equal.

 

[aelf]

No, you're dumb and I hate your guts with every fibre of my narrow intellectual framework

Spoiler :

j/k

 

[Quintillus]

I suppose the line varies a bit by case. For example, if the book was written by someone who as actively using the profits to support their bigotry, that would be a good reason to not buy the book. If the author happens to be bigoted but it isn't their focus on life, perhaps, depending on the merits of the book itself. I do agree that only reading writing by people you agree with isn't necessarily good. Of course it would depend somewhat on the case. If the book is a polemic trying to convince me that their views are right, I probably won't be interested in it, but if it's not related to that, it might have a chance.

I can't think of any bigoted authors whose books I've read off the top of my head, but there may be some. That's another factor - I may not be aware of an author's bigotry. I've considered reading Ender's Game a few times in the past, but had no idea of Card's political views on... well, anything. Will this change how likely I am to read it? Not significantly, since it was near zero to begin with. Wagner is a good example of an artist who I've listened to despite his known bigoted tendencies. While I don't support them, I also don't feel like I'm supporting them by buying a $3 Wanger album on Amazon long after his lifetime, and the music is good.

I do agree with Kyriakos on Tolkein not being all he's made out to be. I've read one and a half of the three Lord of the Rings books, and they are among the most dry, boring books I've ever read. There was simple way too much description of the scene, and way too little actually happening. It's like reading about someone describing a detailed, but not particularly exciting, painting, without being able to see the painting itself, and then having them do the same thing for dozens of other paintings throughout a gallery. Some people may like it, but I eventually gave up, apparently just prior to when things actually started happening. The only book I've ever read that I'd consider more dry was The Pilgrim's Progress. I have had multiple people tell me that the movies are better than the books and I should give them a chance, but I'm little-inclined to after the books.

Although I'm not sure how Tolkein got in this thread in the first place. I may not be a fan of his books, but I'm not aware of him being a bigot, either.

 

[Kyriakos]

Although it is OT to discuss authors in regards to literary value here, it should be common knowledge that one does not have to read a lot of books by one author so as to form a view about them. It is not very correct to expect that if one of their books seemed like utter crap to you, the other ones may well be deemed as great by you. Don't live in a hole in the ground, like a hobbit

 

[Borachio]

I think it's a mistake to judge Lord of the Rings on the Hobbit. They're really not in the same category, imo.

Still, it's long time since I read either of them. And I feel no urge to read either again. But LotR is the superior product by a long margin. Though its target audience is, presumably, overwhelmingly adolescent, and male.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Maybe it is superior to the hobbit, but this is not really saying much in my view...

Moreover the discussion on Tolkien in this thread was centered on the claim that he was influencial in literature, and the counter-claim that he only is cited as influencial in the fantasy genre.
This is rather revealing, if one goes by what kinds of previous fantasy writers were influencial to other writers. For example:

1) E.T.A. Hoffmann, who is considered to be the main figure of German romanticism (and a sort of urban fantasy), was cited by many famous authors as a major influence (eg Dostoevsky, T. Gautier).

2) Dunsany, who wrote a bit before Tolkien, is cited by Lovecraft as one of his main two influences.

3) Most 'fantasy' writers prior to the mid-lkate 20th century were not writing about dwarves and trolls and related beings (although many painters of the genre had those themes, such as Kittelsen, and in music there was Grieg, both Scandinavians). Fantasy used to be not that distinct from main literature, and in my view this helped both (Gogol was the greatet Russian prose writer, in my view and that of many others, but he also wrote a number of fantasy-centered stories).
I think that Tolkien did prove instrumental to defining fantasy as a genre on its own, and (in my view) this led to the demise of most good writing in that vein. Parody and satire also used to have frequent fantasy-elements, as in the work of Swift, or in the antiquity the works of Lukianos of Samosata.

 

[Ajidica]

If you think parody and satire have left fantasy, then you've clearly read nothing by Terry Pratchett.

 

[Borachio]

^Maybe it is superior to the hobbit, but this is not really saying much in my view...

No. I think you're right. Nevertheless, I still think to judge Tolkien on the Hobbit is ill-considered.

Moreover the discussion on Tolkien in this thread was centered on the claim that he was influencial in literature, and the counter-claim that he only is cited as influencial in the fantasy genre.
This is rather revealing, if one goes by what kinds of previous fantasy writers were influencial to other writers. For example:

1) E.T.A. Hoffmann, who is considered to be the main figure of German romanticism (and a sort of urban fantasy), was cited by many famous authors as a major influence (eg Dostoevsky, T. Gautier).

2) Dunsany, who wrote a bit before Tolkien, is cited by Lovecraft as one of his main two influences.

3) Most 'fantasy' writers prior to the mid-lkate 20th century were not writing about dwarves and trolls and related beings (although many painters of the genre had those themes, such as Kittelsen, and in music there was Grieg, both Scandinavians). Fantasy used to be not that distinct from main literature, and in my view this helped both (Gogol was the greatet Russian prose writer, in my view and that of many others, but he also wrote a number of fantasy-centered stories).
I think that Tolkien did prove instrumental to defining fantasy as a genre on its own, and (in my view) this led to the demise of most good writing in that vein. Parody and satire also used to have frequent fantasy-elements, as in the work of Swift, or in the antiquity the works of Lukianos of Samosata.

I don't know anyone who seriously claims that Tolkien had any influence on literature (does fantasy count as literature? I suppose it must), at all. Though I suppose there have been a number of copycats. (Oh, what's that guy's name? The one who did the ringbearer series? Thomas Covenant(?) was the main protagonist. Anyway, dreadful stuff.) I'd guess his biggest influence would be on George R.R. Martin. But that's more of a marketing influence on how to display an author's name, isn't it?