4 ms·

There is only a limited amount of time available to me. I can only consume so much media. If I have a choice between two books, one written by someone with a ta

by ses1984 7y ago

There is only a limited amount of time available to me. I can only consume so much media. If I have a choice between two books, one written by someone with a tainted legacy and one written by someone without a tainted legacy, I'm going to pick the book with a nice author. Of course you can't really apply ceteris parabus to books, but normally you have to decide what you're going to read on limited information, two very different books might seem close enough given you know little about either. When you choose what to read you reduce all the context and comparison to a decision. "author was a creep" definitely makes me less likely to want to read his work, especially if they are still alive and could personally profit.

thrower123 7y ago
Which one is good though? Saints rarely make anything that is above mediocre quality. It's sad, but it is empirically true. Jesus, if we had omniscience into the personal lives of every person, and were to chose to disregard their works if they did things that are objectionable to the taboos of the day, we'd be naked, looking over our shoulders fearfully for leopards.
- ses1984 7y ago
  There are more people in the world than just saints and creeps. There are also a ton of normal people who didn't grope hundreds or thousands of girls.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    Normal people rarely make good art. Even Bach, once considered a good family guy, was a heavy drinker and has knifed a few people in his time. Also, do you by any chance listen to Led Zeppelin or some such band? Speaking of "groping girls", that is.
    - ses1984 7y ago
      I never said bad people never made good art. I personally would rather not glorify those people nor do I go out of my way to take in their art. I don't feel like I'm missing much. If I find out art I like was made by a bad person I don't clutch my pearls.
coldtea 7y ago
>There is only a limited amount of time available to me. I can only consume so much media. If I have a choice between two books, one written by someone with a tainted legacy and one written by someone without a tainted legacy, I'm going to pick the book with a nice author. The choice should be for the best book. Not the nicest author. In fact the "nicest author" would probably have the most boring work -- personal failings add spice to fiction writing (and poems, songs, etc).
- ses1984 7y ago
  How can you know which book is best until you read both? I don't want to read scifi all the time. So when I do read a scifi book, I have tons of good ones to pick from. I actually recently read Foundation by Asimov and I don't see what all the big deal is about. It presupposes faster than light travel but not the spread of ideas. Also his sexist attitudes are apparent. He basically states that the entire female population planet of the foundation planet isn't important. That's probably the last Asimov work I will read in my lifetime, based purely on the quality of the work, and nothing to do with his character.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >How can you know which book is best until you read both? There are reviews, excepts, literary fame, word of mouth, tv adaptations, and several other things to get an idea about that. How moral the author was during their time on earth is hardly on my list of such things. >I don't want to read scifi all the time. So when I do read a scifi book, I have tons of good ones to pick from. Sure, but that's neither here nor there as to the point we're discussing. We'd have the same issue with any other genre (or even any other art rather than literature).
    - ses1984 7y ago
      >There are reviews, excepts, literary fame, word of mouth, tv adaptations, and several other things to get an idea about that. How moral the author was during their time on earth is hardly on my list of such things. I don't have time to read all Sci fi books, nor do I have time to read all reviews. I have to make a decision on very limited information. That's why I said between two seemingly equal books, meaning equal reviews, prestige, whatever, if one author is a creep and the other isn't, I'll pick to read the book by the author who isn't a creep. >Sure, but that's neither here nor there as to the point we're discussing. We'd have the same issue with any other genre (or even any other art rather than literature). I'm not discussing the abstract concept of separating art from artist. I'm discussing how it applies to me. This topic has pretty extensive treatment in literary/critical theory. The reason this is applicable to me is that I have a goal to consume all the best scifi, and I don't have enough time in my lifetime to consume all the best scifi. Therefore I can afford to be more picky. I personally choose to limit myself to the best of the best Sci fi that happens to not be written by creeps. If someone told me the best scifi novel ever was written by Hitler, I would probably read it. But if someone told me Hitler wrote a pretty good scifi novel I would skip it until I read all the really good ones. And then maybe I'll switch to reading a really good book from another genre before reading a pretty good book by Hitler. Also I find it much, much more important to apply this principle to authors who are still alive. I don't want to financially support authors who are creeps. If they are dead, then it just is really some completely arbitrary selection criteria that I choose to apply to limit the total number of works I could read from some super huge number I could never hope to consume in my lifetime to some slightly smaller super huge number I could never hope to consume in my lifetime.

thrower123 7y ago

Which one is good though? Saints rarely make anything that is above mediocre quality. It's sad, but it is empirically true. Jesus, if we had omniscience into the personal lives of every person, and were to chose to disregard their works if they did things that are objectionable to the taboos of the day, we'd be naked, looking over our shoulders fearfully for leopards.

ses1984 7y ago
There are more people in the world than just saints and creeps. There are also a ton of normal people who didn't grope hundreds or thousands of girls.
- coldtea 7y ago
  Normal people rarely make good art. Even Bach, once considered a good family guy, was a heavy drinker and has knifed a few people in his time. Also, do you by any chance listen to Led Zeppelin or some such band? Speaking of "groping girls", that is.
  - ses1984 7y ago
    I never said bad people never made good art. I personally would rather not glorify those people nor do I go out of my way to take in their art. I don't feel like I'm missing much. If I find out art I like was made by a bad person I don't clutch my pearls.

coldtea 7y ago

>There is only a limited amount of time available to me. I can only consume so much media. If I have a choice between two books, one written by someone with a tainted legacy and one written by someone without a tainted legacy, I'm going to pick the book with a nice author. The choice should be for the best book. Not the nicest author. In fact the "nicest author" would probably have the most boring work -- personal failings add spice to fiction writing (and poems, songs, etc).

ses1984 7y ago
How can you know which book is best until you read both? I don't want to read scifi all the time. So when I do read a scifi book, I have tons of good ones to pick from. I actually recently read Foundation by Asimov and I don't see what all the big deal is about. It presupposes faster than light travel but not the spread of ideas. Also his sexist attitudes are apparent. He basically states that the entire female population planet of the foundation planet isn't important. That's probably the last Asimov work I will read in my lifetime, based purely on the quality of the work, and nothing to do with his character.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >How can you know which book is best until you read both? There are reviews, excepts, literary fame, word of mouth, tv adaptations, and several other things to get an idea about that. How moral the author was during their time on earth is hardly on my list of such things. >I don't want to read scifi all the time. So when I do read a scifi book, I have tons of good ones to pick from. Sure, but that's neither here nor there as to the point we're discussing. We'd have the same issue with any other genre (or even any other art rather than literature).
  - ses1984 7y ago
    >There are reviews, excepts, literary fame, word of mouth, tv adaptations, and several other things to get an idea about that. How moral the author was during their time on earth is hardly on my list of such things. I don't have time to read all Sci fi books, nor do I have time to read all reviews. I have to make a decision on very limited information. That's why I said between two seemingly equal books, meaning equal reviews, prestige, whatever, if one author is a creep and the other isn't, I'll pick to read the book by the author who isn't a creep. >Sure, but that's neither here nor there as to the point we're discussing. We'd have the same issue with any other genre (or even any other art rather than literature). I'm not discussing the abstract concept of separating art from artist. I'm discussing how it applies to me. This topic has pretty extensive treatment in literary/critical theory. The reason this is applicable to me is that I have a goal to consume all the best scifi, and I don't have enough time in my lifetime to consume all the best scifi. Therefore I can afford to be more picky. I personally choose to limit myself to the best of the best Sci fi that happens to not be written by creeps. If someone told me the best scifi novel ever was written by Hitler, I would probably read it. But if someone told me Hitler wrote a pretty good scifi novel I would skip it until I read all the really good ones. And then maybe I'll switch to reading a really good book from another genre before reading a pretty good book by Hitler. Also I find it much, much more important to apply this principle to authors who are still alive. I don't want to financially support authors who are creeps. If they are dead, then it just is really some completely arbitrary selection criteria that I choose to apply to limit the total number of works I could read from some super huge number I could never hope to consume in my lifetime to some slightly smaller super huge number I could never hope to consume in my lifetime.