To what extent do you feel you have to agree with an author to like his work?

[philmophlegm]

Here's a question...

It occurs to me that many of the authors whose work I have been enjoying recently are or were people whose views on morality, religion, politics or economics I disagree with. In some cases those views are diametrically opposed to my views. In a few, their views are (to me at least) quite repugnant.

Examples? Well, there's the racist H.P. Lovecraft (see his poem that I added to ladyofastolat's journal here http://ladyofastolat.livejournal.com/310358.html). Or how about Michael Moorcock's argument that most of the people reading this journal are more or less Nazi sympathisers? "If I were sitting in a tube train and all the people opposite me were reading Mein Kampf with obvious enjoyment and approval it probably wouldn't disturb me much more than if they were reading Heinlein, Tolkein (sic) or Richard Adams." (Full essay* here: http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/moorcock.html .)

Now none of this makes me less likely to read 'Herbert West, Re-Animator' or 'The Warhound and the World's Pain'. In fact, I've read both those works and enjoyed them immensely. But, I get the strong impression from t'internet that many fans are not only fans of their favourite authors' works, but also agree with that author on moral / religious / political and economic issues.

Now I'm not sure what comes first. Do they find an author whose views they agree with and start reading? Do they start reading, but stop if they find out that the author holds unpleasant views? Do they read lots of authors' work, but only allow themselves to become a 'fan' of morally / religiously / politically / economically acceptable writers?

Dear readers, are you in this category? I'm not saying that it's wrong in any way. I'm not in it, but maybe that means I'm not identifying as closely with my favourite authors as you are. Be honest with yourself. Perhaps you hadn't appreciated this on a conscious level before. I would be interested to see your views.





* I say "essay". I mean rambling and confused rant.

Comments

[miss-next.livejournal.com]

It depends. Jane Austen, for instance, was horribly classist by today's standards, and if a modern writer put out novels with the same kind of attitude I would find it intrusive and irritating. But I read Jane Austen by the standards of her own time, and by those standards she was fairly enlightened; she certainly didn't hesitate to poke fun at the grosser results of class distinction, even though she upheld the underlying system itself as part of the natural order of things.

I also dislike historical fiction where the writer clearly thinks much the same way as I do, but is trying to put their ideas into the heads of historical characters who just would not have thought that way. That's not to say that there weren't, for example, Romans who thought gladiator shows were revolting; I'm sure there were. But I don't suppose for a minute that you'd get an ancient Roman who wanted to abolish slavery. It was such an accepted part of society - the Roman Empire pretty much ran on it.

So, yes. Really I'm interested in internal consistency. I dislike Heinlein because he was so clearly using his fiction to push his right-wing ideas, and, although it's true that I don't agree with said ideas, the sticking point comes not because of that but because there's a credibility issue about so many of his characters believing them.

If that all maakes reasonable sense.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

I seem to remember that Nero didn't like the Games - and they were far less popular than the chariot racing throughout Roman history.

[miss-next.livejournal.com]

That's interesting to know, and it also doesn't surprise me too much, since despite Nero's well-documented bloodthirsty tendencies he was also very short-sighted. I understand he used a cut emerald to try to see things at a distance. Being in a similar position myself, I can entirely understand that he didn't like the Games; I don't suppose he could see a blessed thing.

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

Like I said above, I agree with you on the anachronistic modern morality point.

You make an interesting distinction concerning whether or not the writer's views are expressed or pushed in the writing. I hadn't considered that. Would I dislike a book because it _pushed_ some agenda that I disagreed with? I don't know to be honest. My suspicion is that I have probably read some such book and missed the message! C.S. Lewis's Narnia books are supposed to be very pro-christian. I'm very much an atheist (not necessarily as "militant" as lil_shepherd though), but I don't think that's the reason I hated the three books in that series I read. (More to do with the twee setting and obnoxious posh children.) In fact, any christian allegory pretty much washed over me - you probably have to be reasonably knowledgeable about a religion to spot allegories in the first place...

So I suppose I might not mind a message being pushed if it was done subtly, or if the book was otherwise interesting enough to hold my attention.

Conversely, would I be more likely to enjoy a book if the message being pushed was one I was sympathethic to? It's funny that you mention Heinlein - I've never read any of his books, but one in particular ('The Moon is a Harsh Mistress') is often held up as one of the definitive libertarian science fiction novels. So maybe I should read it. Reading the wikipedia entry for him, I'm not convinced that 'right wing' is necessarily the most appropriate label for Heinlein anyway.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Thrown back to this thread by ladyofastolat recent post, but, passing through, I suggest you do read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress which is one of the most liked of RAH's books. Though I've only just realised that the heroine is a much sicker puppy than I thought at the time, it remains fun.