Poll: Should a creator's opinion matter for a work?

[Klumpfot]

Stephen King is almost a militant atheist, a huge supporter of gun control, and a super liberal, all of which I despise with my soul but I have read most of his books (still trying to get into the Dark Tower, just can't get through the Gunslinger). As long as he makes a good story, I don't give a damn about his opinion.

Stephen King is not an atheist. Source: http://www.stephenking.com/faq.html

OT: I was thinking about this stuff recently, spurred by the Ender's Game trailer and my thoughts on OSC. I think he is an (occasionally) excellent writer, but his association with the 'family' group has soured my opinion on him as a man. I found myself in a bit of a predicament in considering how to recommend the book to a gay person, though. This led me to consider why I am more comfortable supporting the music of a second-degree murderer and satanist who openly hated pretty much everyone, than I am supporting someone who hates (the sexuality of) 5-10% of the population. The closest I could come to a satisfactory answer is that of their relative ideological consistencies, but that didn't leave me particularly satisfied.

In short, I'm a flip-flopping amd inconsistent man. As such, I didn't answer your poll. Sorry!

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well, here's the thing.

people say his opinion doesn't matter, and they can enjoy the work. And I get that idea to a point.

But a celebrity is a celebrity. Regular People listen to them as long as they are topical. And as long as they have money and clout, they will force their opinions down other people's throats and/or fund groups to do so. If the celebrities didn't embrace Scientology as a thing, would just googling the word show me that there's four Scientology Churches [https://www.google.com/search?q=Scentiology&aq=f&oq=Scentiology&aqs=chrome.0.57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&gs_rn=12&gs_ri=psy-ab&tok=EYoJtOjjn_I64YBWZR2OnA&suggest=p&pq=scientology&cp=11&gs_id=l&xhr=t&q=Scientology&es_nrs=true&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=Scientology&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.46340616,d.dmQ&fp=8c5178c670f68b98&biw=1920&bih=965] in the tri state area?

... which I find very sad...

Should I go on to talk about the Vaccine-Autism Connection that Jenny McCarthy won't let go? Or Oprah's 'meat is bad'? Or how her saying 'carbs are bad and bread is carbs' made freaking wraps a thing that is indelible from our Culture and almost sunk all bread?

Anyway, enjoying his or her work is by no means adopting his or her views as your own. However, if you have to pay money to experience his or her own work, you're more than likely going to fund the views you don't agree with or even have a problem with.

Yeah, second that. OSC isn't just some random bigot, he's known for being OSC. Sticking celebrity names on things increases their sales if people like them, I don't see why it shouldn't decrease them as well.

...

As an aside, always funny to see some people have read the title and nothing beyond that before jumping in.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I generally don't care about the author, what they have to say about their own work, or what their opinion is on whatever's going on in the world.

I tend to let the work speak for itself. And if it doesnt come across hateful/racist/anything else I might despise, then I'm fine with it.

 

[josemlopes]

I think an author's views should be relevant if they're active in actually carrying them out.

For instance, Jeremy Irons doesn't really support gay marriage in that he made some really stupid comments, but I'll still go see his movies because comments as far as his views are going and he's still a good enough actor to warrant it.

Orson Scott Card, however, is an active board member of the National Organization for Marriage, the same group that was instrumental in passing Prop 8 and opposes both civil unions and gay adoption. You're damn right I'm not going to give my money to someone who's actively smashing down the rights of others, no matter how good his books may be (or the movie from them).

I dont know... I think that you can totally argue and take a stand or whatever about what his ideals and opinions are but I dont think that its fair to deny a completely unrelated work that he has done based on said ideals and opinions.

I think that his work has to be judged entirely on itself in the same way that if a great person wrote something then that should be based on the work itself and not if the person that wrote it is great or not.

Hitler was an awfull guy but his paintings were mediocre (just your typical landscape stuff) instead of the obligatory awfullness by judging his art by his other unrelated actions.

Edit: If the work is good but has those ideals and opinions in hit then its fine to not like it based on that (a work can still be good even if you dont agree with it), like if the Hitler paintings misrepresented the jews or if the Enders Game was homophobic literature.

 

[Kennetic]

Stephen King is almost a militant atheist, a huge supporter of gun control, and a super liberal, all of which I despise with my soul but I have read most of his books (still trying to get into the Dark Tower, just can't get through the Gunslinger). As long as he makes a good story, I don't give a damn about his opinion.

Stephen King is not an atheist. Source: http://www.stephenking.com/faq.html

I don't know what I article I was reading was talking about then lol.

 

[mitchell271]

I've seen many people against Orson Scott Card and the books he made and the movie coming out because of his stance on gay marriage. My question is should the creator's opinion really matter if the work doesn't represent it?

Usually, no. Card is a special case though because he's a member of the [a href="afa.net"]American Family Association[/a] that promotes "traditional family values" (read: bigots against gay marriage) and he makes reasonably large donations to it. Every book you buy supports that organization because of his donations. That's why people have an issue about it.

 

[Something Amyss]

I thought this would be a somewhat different topic.

I don't want my money going to OSC, I must say. However, I'm not going to proclaim people evil for buying his books.

It really depends, If the work is an extension of the beliefs of the author(Like any of Ayn Rand's works) or is it merely circumstantial. If the former then yes, if the latter then no.

The original post specifies his opinion doesn't impact the work.

Why should it matter for books when it clearly doesn't for other art forms e.g. despite allegations of child abuse both Michael Jackson's music and Roman Polanski's films are still popular today.

There's a difference between allegations and confirmation. There's nothing "alleged" about Card's beliefs on homosexuality. Meanwhile, there have been numerous musical boycotts, including Jacko. You can even find numerous boycotts of Roman Polanski, so it seems your argument that this is somehow outside the norm for media is incorrect.

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't know what I article I was reading was talking about then lol.

But you believed it readily, which may well have been the point.

 

[Klumpfot]

Stephen King is almost a militant atheist, a huge supporter of gun control, and a super liberal, all of which I despise with my soul but I have read most of his books (still trying to get into the Dark Tower, just can't get through the Gunslinger). As long as he makes a good story, I don't give a damn about his opinion.

Stephen King is not an atheist. Source: http://www.stephenking.com/faq.html

OT: I was thinking about this stuff recently, spurred by the Ender's Game trailer and my thoughts on OSC. I think he is an (occasionally) excellent writer, but his association with the 'family' group has soured my opinion on him as a man. I found myself in a bit of a predicament in considering how to recommend the book to a gay person, though. This led me to consider why I am more comfortable supporting the music of a second-degree murderer and satanist who openly hated pretty much everyone, than I am supporting someone who hates (the sexuality of) 5-10% of the population. The closest I could come to a satisfactory answer is that of their relative ideological consistencies, but that didn't leave me particularly satisfied.

In short, I'm a flip-flopping amd inconsistent man. As such, I didn't answer your poll. Sorry!

Heh, probably because Varg isn't going to take Burzum profits and construct a Christian-seeking rocket launcher. I'd only refrain from giving him money if I thought he'd use it to hurt other people; as to what he has already done, that matters little to me.

I was actually referring to Jon Nödtveidt from Dissection. That said, I am also considerably more comfortable with giving mr. Vikernes more money and attention than I am someone like Mel Gibson. I am still not fully sure why.

 

[MammothBlade]

"for a work"

You mean their work. Of course it should.

 

[Something Amyss]

Hitler was an awfull guy but his paintings were mediocre (just your typical landscape stuff) instead of the obligatory awfullness by judging his art by his other unrelated actions.

I suppose the next question is, would you like to put money in Hitler's pocket?

 

[josemlopes]

Hitler was an awfull guy but his paintings were mediocre (just your typical landscape stuff) instead of the obligatory awfullness by judging his art by his other unrelated actions.

I suppose the next question is, would you like to put money in Hitler's pocket?

Nah, I get it. I guess that the best way to apreciate art is when the only thing that changes by apreciating it is within you (basicly wait for the guy to die, for whatever thing he is doing to end, etc...). As of now putting money in Hitler's dead pocket isnt going to influence anything so there wouldnt be any problem.

 

[ajr209]

Should a creator's opinion matter for a work? Well that depends. There are actors/directors/authors/game devs/comic book creators who are perfectly capable of keeping their personal views and their professional lives separate. But there are those whose personal stances bleed into nearly everything they do in some way or another. There's also The matter of whether one wants their money to eventually wind up in the hands of organizations whose purpose they don't agree with, as can very easily happen thanks to residuals and profits from one project going to fund the next.

 

[Something Amyss]

Nah, I get it. I guess that the best way to apreciate art is when the only thing that changes by apreciating it is within you (basicly wait for the guy to die, for whatever thing he is doing to end, etc...). As of now putting money in Hitler's dead pocket isnt going to influence anything so there wouldnt be any problem.

No money is going to Hitler NOW, so that's kind of pointless anyway. However, we do have people and companies who exist who are actively doing bad things, and that includes artists. I merely used hitler because he was brought up. Orson Scott Card is very much alive and an anti-gay activist who has put money towards anti-gay causes. While this may not change my estimation of his work, it certainly does make me reticent to put money in his pocket. Money he partially spends attacking gays.

While nothing he does is as bad as Hitler, the question remains: are you okay with empowering people to do bad things? One of the above examples was a dude who fervently opposes Stephen King on gun control but buys his books. Stephen King has contributed a sizable amount of money to gun control groups. Seems like if you're that bothered by gun control, maybe you shouldn't send your money his way.

And it doesn't have to be all or nothing. I've got a ton of music by artists who are conservative but whose music isn't directly informed by their beliefs. And even some that is. Yeah, I can live with the works of people with opposing viewpoints. Or I'd be royally screwed in my social life, since I'm left even for my über-blue state. I'd have to move to socialist Europe or something. >.>

The major thing is, though, none of these folks are actively putting out an effort or money to wreck people, far as I know. And that's the crux of the matter for me, and what I'm getting at in my question.

Now, I don't know your ideology (aside from being anti-Hitler, which is up there with being pro-chocolate), so I can't phrase it directly, but would you put money in the pocket of an artist who is paying it forward to some cause you ideologically oppose?

 

[josemlopes]

Nah, I get it. I guess that the best way to apreciate art is when the only thing that changes by apreciating it is within you (basicly wait for the guy to die, for whatever thing he is doing to end, etc...). As of now putting money in Hitler's dead pocket isnt going to influence anything so there wouldnt be any problem.

No money is going to Hitler NOW, so that's kind of pointless anyway. However, we do have people and companies who exist who are actively doing bad things, and that includes artists. I merely used hitler because he was brought up. Orson Scott Card is very much alive and an anti-gay activist who has put money towards anti-gay causes. While this may not change my estimation of his work, it certainly does make me reticent to put money in his pocket. Money he partially spends attacking gays.

While nothing he does is as bad as Hitler, the question remains: are you okay with empowering people to do bad things? One of the above examples was a dude who fervently opposes Stephen King on gun control but buys his books. Stephen King has contributed a sizable amount of money to gun control groups. Seems like if you're that bothered by gun control, maybe you shouldn't send your money his way.

And it doesn't have to be all or nothing. I've got a ton of music by artists who are conservative but whose music isn't directly informed by their beliefs. And even some that is. Yeah, I can live with the works of people with opposing viewpoints. Or I'd be royally screwed in my social life, since I'm left even for my über-blue state. I'd have to move to socialist Europe or something. >.>

The major thing is, though, none of these folks are actively putting out an effort or money to wreck people, far as I know. And that's the crux of the matter for me, and what I'm getting at in my question.

Now, I don't know your ideology (aside from being anti-Hitler, which is up there with being pro-chocolate), so I can't phrase it directly, but would you put money in the pocket of an artist who is paying it forward to some cause you ideologically oppose?

Yeah, but thats what I "kind of" said, wait for Orson Scott Card to die to then enjoy his stuff.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

I dont know... I think that you can totally argue and take a stand or whatever about what his ideals and opinions are but I dont think that its fair to deny a completely unrelated work that he has done based on said ideals and opinions.

I think that his work has to be judged entirely on itself in the same way that if a great person wrote something then that should be based on the work itself and not if the person that wrote it is great or not.

Hitler was an awfull guy but his paintings were mediocre (just your typical landscape stuff) instead of the obligatory awfullness by judging his art by his other unrelated actions.

Edit: If the work is good but has those ideals and opinions in hit then its fine to not like it based on that (a work can still be good even if you dont agree with it), like if the Hitler paintings misrepresented the jews or if the Enders Game was homophobic literature.

The question is would you actively PAY hitler, knowing he would spend it on a campaign against the Jews, for his work in the full knowledge he is fine using violence to remove the Jew problem and donates sums of money to the nazi party? Its alright to appreciate it but would you FUND him?

Personally ill try and get the books second hand. Im tempted to go see the movie but pay for a ticket for a different one. Or after hes dead.

EDIT: Another user totally ninjad me Dont worry i get where youre coming from.

 

[AngelOfBlueRoses]

I think an author's views should be relevant if they're active in actually carrying them out.

For instance, Jeremy Irons doesn't really support gay marriage in that he made some really stupid comments, but I'll still go see his movies because comments as far as his views are going and he's still a good enough actor to warrant it.

Orson Scott Card, however, is an active board member of the National Organization for Marriage, the same group that was instrumental in passing Prop 8 and opposes both civil unions and gay adoption. You're damn right I'm not going to give my money to someone who's actively smashing down the rights of others, no matter how good his books may be (or the movie from them).

I dont know... I think that you can totally argue and take a stand or whatever about what his ideals and opinions are but I dont think that its fair to deny a completely unrelated work that he has done based on said ideals and opinions.

I think that his work has to be judged entirely on itself in the same way that if a great person wrote something then that should be based on the work itself and not if the person that wrote it is great or not.

Hitler was an awfull guy but his paintings were mediocre (just your typical landscape stuff) instead of the obligatory awfullness by judging his art by his other unrelated actions.

Edit: If the work is good but has those ideals and opinions in hit then its fine to not like it based on that (a work can still be good even if you dont agree with it), like if the Hitler paintings misrepresented the jews or if the Enders Game was homophobic literature.

Your example of Hitler falls short for one, hugely glaring reason: Hitler's dead. He's not actively harming anyone anymore because he's six feet under. I won't feel bad about potentially enjoying his artwork because he's dead. Hell, I wouldn't even feel bad about -buying- his artwork. Because he's dead. He's not actively harming anyone.

Orson Scott Card, on the other hand, -is- actively harming people. I cannot, in good conscience, give my money to a man like that, not when it can potentially be used to harm others. And even still, I just don't want to financially support someone who's harming other people.

My views are concrete and draw a clear line. That clear line is the amount of activity in which someone carries out their views. I'm not going to restate them. You can go back and read my post. My line, however, is clear, and since OSC is constantly doing active harm towards the LGBT movement through his involvement in the National Organization for Marriage, I will not and cannot offer any form of support towards that man.

I can support that you can. I don't care. Go ahead and enjoy someone's artwork, I'm not going to stop you. I'm not even going to try and convince you to stop. If you enjoy Ender's Game, more power to you. That's great. I've heard it's a good book and if you enjoyed it, that's awesome. But I can't, and I won't. I won't touch Ender's Game, I won't look at Ender's Game, and I won't even pirate Ender's Game. (I know he's written more, but I'm just using that as an example since people rave about EG) None of my support is going to that man while he's actively harming others.

As I've stated in another post, maybe I'll get to read Ender's Game by the time I'm fifty. I can reserve my judgment on the actual artwork itself until then, but until that moment comes when OSC is no longer harming people, he's not getting a penny from me.

And that, in itself, makes his views relevant. They don't harm my actual judgment of the material at hand, but they're still relevant in what it means for me in actually making that step to get his artwork, thus answering the question at hand because there's no other way I can answer it. I'm not going to pirate it and I'm not going to read it until activity ceases.