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

[clarienne.livejournal.com]

I agree with what's already been said - and want to add: I think the author's outlook must contribute to whether I will or won't like a book, but what I mean by outlook is usually far more subtle than "this person has religious/political label X".

For example, I like stories which contain the possibility of redemption and healing, even if there are dark themes on the way. This preference is probably accentuated by me being a Christian, but predates it, and the best example of such a author that springs to mind is Kahled Hosseini, who is afaik a Muslim. This hopefull v. nihilistic divide is the biggest one in fiction for me.

Political views I don't share I can easily live with if the writing is excellent and the author has a sense of humor. I'm not a feminist these days, but I will still swoop on a Sheri S Tepper - her imagination is brilliant enough that I can gloss over any wimmins preachiness quite easily.

It's a bit more difficult for me to enjoy work that has a very explicit anti-religious, or anti-Christian agenda, and what will get my goat is not lack of respect for God, but lack of respect for humans - a belief that the religious are all stupid and/or abusive. Terry Pratchett is a good example of an athiest author I can enjoy because he's as affectionate towards all his characters even when he's poking fun at neopaganism (Magrat) or Christianity (Mightily Oats). Whereas I've never bothered to even pick up Philip Pullman, because I suspect they would wind me up.

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

I don't think I need an author to be affectionate towards his characters or the human race, and I quite like nihilistic stuff - Moorcock and Donaldson probably fits this description. In a way, so does Jack Vance's Dying Earth series - every character knows the Sun may die at any point, so they are all at least melancholic, and often nihilistic.