Like the work, don't like the artist?

[Bit Fiend]

Hello.

Today I read a thred on the OotS-comic forum started by a somewhat frustrated illustrator who complained about the Giant's comic raising nearly a million dollars despite being "just stick figures". I don't think it's wise to link to this closed thread but some of you may know what I'm talking about.

Now on this forum and especially said illustrator's blog some people admitted his project looked interesting but stated they wouldn't support his kickstarter because they didn't like his attitude.

So my question is the following: Are there artists (writers, actors, directors, musicians) who you think are major <lessthanfriendlyword> but would spend money to buy their books/movies/music nonetheless? Would you never support such people? Do you even care about an artist's personality?

For me it doesn't really matter. For example I heart some rather ugly things about Paul van Dyk but still (happily) own many tracks, an album and several mix compilations of his. In fact I didn't even bother to research if the stories were true because I know I wouldn't care either way.

Your opinions?

Edit: (By the way, I don't know if this is the right forum for this thread. While it is essentially about media it doesn't discuss any specific media per se...)

[Knaight]

It depends on the specifics. If I think the artist is simply using their platform to push some really dumb ideas I'll probably still support them. If, instead, they are peddling hate (or have done horrible things) my willingness to support them at all goes way down. Mere arrogance or similar usually doesn't provoke any reaction.

[Raistlin1040]

I love The Smiths, but I don't like Morrissey as a person. I'll buy their music and his solo stuff, but I won't support him in any other ways like contributing to his mythos (watching specials about him, buying books by/about him) or seeing him live.

That's the only example I can think of.

[Pokonic]

I realy just say to myself that everyone can seem like a jerk to someone out there, and it is true that some are more jerky than others. I dont let that stop me from enjoying, say, a song that was most certently made while on drugs or something. :smallsmile:

EDIT: This might belong in Freindly Banter, because this actualy is not about and individual artist or group.

[Goosefeather]

I think there are certainly times where the artists behaviour justifies a boycott of their work (the particular example I have in mind is Chris Brown).

Generally being a **** might put me off someone's work, but you do miss out on a lot of quality stuff that way. I mean, the Gallagher brothers are by all accounts complete redacteds, but I still listen to Oasis.

I think there are multiple issues involved, among which are:
- money. Do you want to financially help the person in question by paying for their work?
- enjoyment. Can you still enjoy a work knowing its author is an unprintable redactedhead? Does the work itself increase the sum total of human happiness? Can you completely disassociate a work from its author (à la Death of the Author?) - can a work exist in a contextless vacuum? Should it?


The converse is much simpler, however. Finding out Dave Grohl seems to be a pretty chill guy increased my appreciation for his various projects. Nice and simple!

[Zocelot]

I hope that any fans of the black metal band Burzum don't support Varg Vikernes, the lead singer who also murdered the lead guitar player and burned a church.

I also am a big fan of Orson Scott Card's work, particularly the Ender's Game series and Empire. However, OSC is fairly religious and has made some anti-gay marriage statements, which I don't support*. His religious views also start to creep into a few of his books, like A War of Gifts and Hidden Empire, which both suck.

*He later clarified that he was only against calling gay Christian marriage, saying that you can either be Christian or gay, but since the bible calls being gay a sin, you can't be both.

[Knaight]

I think there are certainly times where the artists behaviour justifies a boycott of their work (the particular example I have in mind is Chris Brown).
That is one of those cases where a full boycott is practically mandatory. Domestic violence is not cool, particularly when the reaction to it ends up being "eh, [the victim] must have earned it".

[Bit Fiend]

Wow, just googled Chris Brown's domestic violence case, didn't know about it, as I'm not into that kind of music and don't care about celebrities in general... This actually goes a fair bit further than what I was thinking about when I opened the thread. Not that it doesn't belong here, I just didn't expect it.

Maybe I'm just lucky that the general offense level in the music scene I'm in, EDM (electronic dance music), is more along the lines of arrogance, cheating (prerecorded sets e.g.) or general diva-ness... but then again maybe the genre just doesn't get enough media attention to reveal the really ugly things...

[eyeofsaulot]

I hope that any fans of the black metal band Burzum don't support Varg Vikernes, the lead singer who also murdered the lead guitar player and burned a church.

Yup, this is most Burzum fans. This goes for Dissection fans and fans of any band that has featured Bård Eithun, both for very similar reasons to Burzum. I love Varg's music and find Varg as a person to be extremely interesting. But do I support his views or the actions that landed him in prison for so many years? Of course not.

[ThePhantasm]

I don't really like Frank Miller's art, although some of his earlier writing is actually pretty good. The same with the Batman story The Long Halloween. I can't get past the art there. I don't know why, I just can't.

[Zen Monkey]

I don't approve of the fact that Roman Polanski apparently slept with a teenage girl, but The Ninth Gate is one of my favorite films.

On the other hand, I won't even buy a compilation CD if it has a Marilyn Manson track on it because I refuse to contribute even the small royalty that he would receive from my purchase. Whether genuine or just for show, he very vocally advocates some things I just find to be intolerable.

I guess we all have a line where we will or will not separate the art from the artist.

[Grinner]

A few bands I listen to tend to alternate between profiteering and spouting religion of the most fanatical variety. But they're still good at what they do.

[Raistlin1040]

I don't approve of the fact that Roman Polanski apparently slept with a teenage girl, but The Ninth Gate is one of my favorite films.

On the other hand, I won't even buy a compilation CD if it has a Marilyn Manson track on it because I refuse to contribute even the small royalty that he would receive from my purchase. Whether genuine or just for show, he very vocally advocates some things I just find to be intolerable.

I guess we all have a line where we will or will not separate the art from the artist.Not to criticize your judgment (because there are things that Manson does that are objectionable if you are of a certain political or religious bent), but his message is actually pretty positive, especially if you hear him talk in interviews. He doesn't do anything "for show", but a lot of the things he does are social commentary in a musical/performance form. You can not like his music, or even dislike the things he's commenting on, but claiming that he "advocates intolerable things" is sort of missing the point of his work.

[Goosefeather]

Not to criticize your judgment (because there are things that Manson does that are objectionable if you are of a certain political or religious bent), but his message is actually pretty positive, especially if you hear him talk in interviews. He doesn't do anything "for show", but a lot of the things he does are social commentary in a musical/performance form. You can not like his music, or even dislike the things he's commenting on, but claiming that he "advocates intolerable things" is sort of missing the point of his work.

Agreed - look at his song 'This is the new s***'. It's sarcastic criticism of those fans of his who just listen to his music because it's 'controversial', rather than looking for the message beneath the dramatics.

It's a similar idea to Rammstein's 'Links-2-3-4' - a heavy sounding song, in German, with a strong march feel to it. It also happens to be about the left-wing sentiments of the group, and constitutes an ironic response to those who accuse the group of being neo-Nazi's and don't actually listen to the content of their songs.

[Telonius]

Of currently-living people? George Lucas is the biggest one whose works I'll pay to see, even though I think the guy is a total douche. Honestly, the artist's personality doesn't really matter all that much to me. He can be a total jerk, but as long as he (or she) is producing genuinely good art, I'll overlook a lot. I think I draw the line at people who use their celebrity to advocate for political positions I find truly abhorrent. (Can't get more specific than that due to forum rules).

I could rattle off dozens of dead folks who would come off as absolute raging jerkwads, but whose works I enjoy. (Richard Wagner comes to mind first; Robert Howard directly after; Lewis Carroll; Rudyard Kipling; and the list goes on from there). I don't think it's really fair to list them in the same way, though; they lived in very different times with very different prevailing morals. Besides, it's not like they're directly benefiting from my purchases.

[Elrik]

So my question is the following: Are there artists (writers, actors, directors, musicians) who you think are major <lessthanfriendlyword> but would spend money to buy their books/movies/music nonetheless? Would you never support such people? Do you even care about an artist's personality?


I do, but I will sometimes stomach their personality as long as they aren't insanely bigoted or antisocial/inept with being nice or at least tolerable. I still buy stuff like back issues and the like from DC comics but can't stand a few of the people who work there or write said issues, because of their indifferent and egotistical attitudes towards readers. Somer writers with a big track record in insensitivity I won't buy from, but I might if my money doesn't benefit them out of the fact that they're deceased.

It's tough, sometimes I look at a creator and find out they're not very friendly and begin to judge their work harder than usual. If they only reach obnoxious territory then I'll still buy from them, but if they hit jerk/bitter/prejudiced person territory then I'll usually back off their work unless they apologize for it.

[Mx.Silver]

Well I still listen to U2 so... :smalltongue:

Generally I'm not really that bothered about a creator being an arse when I'm evaluating his/her work, unless it's obviously bleeding into the work itself.

[Das Platyvark]

H.P. Lovecraft is probably my top one.

[WalkingTarget]

H.P. Lovecraft is probably my top one.

First thing I thought of, honestly.

Dude had a death grip on some petty race-theory crap long after it was debunked scientifically and, as far as I can tell, remained fairly homophobic even though it turns out that some of his friends were gay without him knowing (although he softened on some of his other prejudices eventually - he married a decidedly non-WASPish tradeswoman and had less complimentary things to say about Hitler once word started getting out about what was really going on in Germany behind the strongly nationalistic rhetoric that appealed to him).

Doesn't mean that I can't enjoy his fiction (and things derived from it).

[Copper]

If it's just the person's personality and they're kind of a jerkass, yeah I'll support their work despite their jerkiness. However, if I find that they're actually just a horribel person, then no I won't support their art. I may still like it, but I won't buy it or advocate it.

[Tengu_temp]

I like Dilbert, but Scott Adams is a sexist jerk, atheist basher and climate/evolution denialist who uses sockpuppets to defend his views and goes with the old "didn't you see that was a joke?" excuse when people boo him instead of clapping.

I like Firefly, but find Joss Wheddon pretty creepy and his attempts to sell his waif-fu fetish as legitimate feminism laughable and kinda disgusting.

Lesser offense: Nerf Now is a pretty funny webcomic, but when Jo decides to go with video game community commentary*, I facepalm. Stick to humor and fanservice please.

* - it usually boils down to "people who are better at this than me are no-lifes who don't play for fun", unless the game in question is Team Fortress 2 when it tends to be "people who are worse at this than me are noobs".

[dehro]

Noir Desir.
liked the music, dislike the woman-beater/killer moron who was the lead singer.

but there are many more people out there who are part of the so called star system whom I think should really try working a year in a mine, for a change..in the hope they'll get back in touch with reality.
I still like their work though..

[DomaDoma]

I love Orson Scott Card's work, and heck, some of my political views, say, on urban planning, I actually got from him. But when he goes all Bulldog Heterosexual Mormon, I'm suddenly and immediately repulsed. It's worst when it seeps into his fiction (at its nadir, it completely ruined Petra Arkanian) - but the thing is, most of the time it doesn't. Reading him is like eating Lucky Charms from the box - fast, ravenous reading until you hit the one stale piece.

On the flip side, it's downright weird how hopeful George R.R. Martin is in real life.

[Gnoman]

There's actually a lot of early science fiction authors I have very little admiration for (due to the popularity of the "science debunks God" mentality several of them pushed, and pushed, and pushed,) whose works I still can appreciate.

[Velaryon]

Sometimes my dislike for the artist in question detracts from my enjoyment of their work, sometimes it doesn't. I have to have a strong dislike for that person, their actions, or the views they espouse before I will refuse to buy their stuff, and even then it's on a case by case basis.

For example, I used to be a fairly big fan of an industrial band called Nocturne. I even met their singer Lacey (the same Lacey who would later be the rotten, obnoxious person everybody hated on that joke of a reality show Rock of Love), and she seemed pretty cool in person. But although I watched the show, I inadvertently caught bits and pieces of it at a friend's house, and saw the kind of person she was on the show. The mere fact that she would appear on a trashy show like that lessened my respect for her and for her music, and her actions on that show even moreso. I think maybe I was outgrowing that kind of music anyway, but I definitely like Nocturne's music even less because of what I saw of Rock of Love.

On the other hand, I can still watch a Chris Benoit wrestling match and enjoy it, despite his heinous crime he committed at the end of his life. There's significant doubt whether he was in his right mind when he did it, but even so I can respect the wrestler that he was and enjoy his body of work. Although the question of whether I would financially support him is rather moot, I suppose (for the record, I would not).

[Bit Fiend]

I used to like the music of Andy Hunter, but I was somewhat grinding my teeth when I found out he made the sountrack for the infamous movie "Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed". I still think a lot of his tracks are awesome, heck I still like to drop "Stars" at parties, but the tracks always come with a certain uncomfortable feeling ever since.

[Seraph]

I enjoy the earlier works of Tim Burton but intensely dislike his blatant fanpandering and lack of creativity in his later works.

Buffy was good. Firefly was decent. Joss Whedon is everything terrible about nerd culture.

Of course, this sort of thread would be incomplete without Harlan Ellison, one of the most influential fiction writers of the 20th century who is also one of the world's biggest living douchebags.

[Copper]

I like Dilbert, but Scott Adams is a sexist jerk, atheist basher and climate/evolution denialist who uses sockpuppets to defend his views and goes with the old "didn't you see that was a joke?" excuse when people boo him instead of clapping.
Wait, really? I was unaware of this.

Damn, I just googled him and he is... certaintly a character. I think my soul just died a little reading all that men's rights stuff.

[Maxios]

I love Watchmen, but I don't like Alan Moore.

[Goosefeather]

There's actually a lot of early science fiction authors I have very little admiration for (due to the popularity of the "science debunks God" mentality several of them pushed, and pushed, and pushed,) whose works I still can appreciate.

Not sure I understand this one - wouldn't that mentality suffuse and form an integral part of the works in question?

[Gnoman]

To some degree, yes. I don't generally mind fictional characters pushing concepts and agendas that I find distasteful, so long as it's not the entire moral of the story, especially when handled by a fairly skilled author. It's when it's difficult to read prefaces to works or lectures on science (which many early Scifi authors were excellent at reducing to more comprehensible levels) with such thing being stated as plain fact. Clarke was pretty bad about this later in his career, for example.

[Bastian Weaver]

Now my respect towards Orson Scott Card has grown significantly.
Speaking of the topic... liking the work while not liking the artist is totally the correct way to deal with such things. Unfortunately, I often find myself unable to do the right thing. If I hate the art, it's really hard for me to think good of the artist.
Fortunately, pretty much all the people whose art I hate are really nasty.

[The Glyphstone]

I still keep CAD in my Guilty Pleasures webcomic folder, despite Tim Buckley being an awful person.

[Tyndmyr]

It depends on the specifics. If I think the artist is simply using their platform to push some really dumb ideas I'll probably still support them. If, instead, they are peddling hate (or have done horrible things) my willingness to support them at all goes way down. Mere arrogance or similar usually doesn't provoke any reaction.

Pretty much, same. Arrogance doesn't bother me, especially if the person really is doing awesome stuff. However, hating on other people is not really going to engender positive reactions.

People need not be fantastic for me to enjoy their stuff, they just have to not actively work to anger me.

[Inglenook]

I'm generally able to separate the artist from their work. Heck, sometimes their a-holishness is part of their charm (e.g. Harlan Ellison).

I can't take it when the awfulness starts to bleed into the person's work, though. Robert Heinlein is a prime example; the dude was a fascist old pervert, a fact that's readily apparent if you read pretty much any of his books.

Special cases:
- Kanye West is a toolbox and quite happily broadcasts his arrogance into his music. I'm still fond of his stuff, though.
- Not that I ever held out much hope of finishing Ulysses, but any remaining hope pretty much died when I discovered James Joyce's fart fetish. I can't read anything he writes without imagining the nightmarish smells/sounds that made up his love life. :smallfrown:

[Weezer]

I can't take it when the awfulness starts to bleed into the person's work, though. Robert Heinlein is a prime example; the dude was a fascist old pervert, a fact that's readily apparent if you read pretty much any of his books.


Erm, where are you getting that? Yes, he advocated free love, doesn't make him a pervert, we aren't puritans anymore. You can argue that his later fixation on sex ruined a few of his books due to about faces in tone (Cat Who Walks Through Walls the worst example of this), but it's not present at all in the first half of his life and even later, barring a few egregious examples, it isn't all that bad.

And the fascism thing? His main characters were all way, way too individualistic for that. One of his books had a democratic government where the requirement for suffrage was public service (Starship Troopers). That's the closest thing to fascism that ever pops up in his books and is no wheres close to actual fascism in any way, shape or form.

Okay, I'll give you old, but only for the last chunk of his works, but can you really hold that against him? :smallsmile:

EDIT: Also, not reading something because of an author's fetish that is unconnected to the book seems like you're being a bit uptight about sex there...

[Inglenook]

I don't consider myself sexually uptight at all, really. It's not that Joyce has a fetish that bothers me, but rather the nature of the fetish. My revulsion is completely knee-jerk, and I totally agree that the fact that it turned me off his work is irrational. :smallfrown:

As for Heinlein, eh, different strokes, I guess. Perhaps "fascist" is too harsh a word, but suffice it to say I don't agree with some of the political opinions he glorifies/mouthpieces. And I don't mind the free love stuff, really, so much as the fact that he fixates on it to such an extent. Oh, and the incest thing (e.g. The Number of the Beast).

Though you're right, most of his works I've read HAVE been his later stuff, aside from Red Planet and Starship Troopers.

[Jaros]

I still keep CAD in my Guilty Pleasures webcomic folder, despite Tim Buckley being an awful person.

Yeah, one of my first thoughts on seeing this thread was Tim Buckley. I used to kinda like CAD, not love it but I still see something linked every now and then that I think is pretty darned funny. However after learning what he's like it was like I gradually started to find his stuff less and less funny, and stopped going to the forums and checking the comic after a few months.

Lovecraft is a different story (though I haven't read many of his works). While I dislike his personal beliefs, it is incredibly easy to take a far more favourable reading (in my views) than the one he supported. Screw authorial intent.

Hitchcock's a weird one when it comes to this stuff. I usuaklly love his films, it's well known the man was pretty much insane. You know how he got Tippi Hedren to look so scared in The Birds? He threw real live birds at hear for like three days of filming. Seriously, just rolled the camera while getting the assistants to keep throwing birds at her.

[Weezer]

I don't consider myself sexually uptight at all, really. It's not that Joyce has a fetish that bothers me, but rather the nature of the fetish. My revulsion is completely knee-jerk, and I totally agree that the fact that it turned me off his work is irrational. :smallfrown:
Probably shouldn't have said that in my response, sorry, personal accusations of any sort were uncalled for. I just have some fetishes/kinks that most people react somewhat negatively to, so I tend to be defensive in that area. Again, sorry about that.


As for Heinlein, eh, different strokes, I guess. Perhaps "fascist" is too harsh a word, but suffice it to say I don't agree with some of the political opinions he glorifies/mouthpieces. And I don't mind the free love stuff, really, so much as the fact that he fixates on it to such an extent. Oh, and the incest thing (e.g. The Number of the Beast).

Though you're right, most of his works I've read HAVE been his later stuff, aside from Red Planet and Starship Troopers.

Read his earlier stuff if you enjoyed his writing outside of the sex stuff, when you're in the mood for something kind of light a lot of his juveniles hold up to adult reading and tend to avoid political stuff outside of the individualist bent that pervades everything he does. And obviously, being intended for the young adult crowd, they are largely free of sex.

I'll admit when it takes over the book, the sex stuff does get in the way, and that's one reason that his earlier stuff tends to be my favorite. Though in my eyes that's more of a case of bad writing than anything to do with authorial beliefs.

Yeah, the incest thing is a bit out there, but when you think about it, once you take procreation out of the picture there is nothing 'wrong' with incest, assuming valid consent of course, once you get past our rather strong cultural taboo. But that is incredibly off topic...

[Zen Monkey]

Not to criticize your judgment (because there are things that Manson does that are objectionable if you are of a certain political or religious bent), but his message is actually pretty positive, especially if you hear him talk in interviews. He doesn't do anything "for show", but a lot of the things he does are social commentary in a musical/performance form. You can not like his music, or even dislike the things he's commenting on, but claiming that he "advocates intolerable things" is sort of missing the point of his work.

Yeah, can't get into too many details about religion on these boards, but leading an arena in a five minute chant of "F* You God" is a sentiment that I just can't get behind, even if it is just a ploy to sell albums or generate press. Later pauses between songs included things like "This middle finger is for Jesus." I don't know if it's offensive or just sad, probably both.

Disclaimer: I wasn't there myself; it was one of many unpleasant details explained by a very reliable source who attended for their deviant psychology research.

[kyoryu]

I generally don't hate on any artists for their political views, regardless of how they may clash with mine. Of course, I also try to understand those who have different political views, rather than demonize them.

I will hate on artists, and refuse to support them, based upon their *actions*. Opinions are cheap, but actions are where the rubber meets the road.

[Omergideon]

Lady Gaga.

I really cannot stand almost all of the stuff she pulls from the outfits, the actions and the personality including the (too me) faux depth. And the fact I have seen her do nothing in her videos and/or style that impresses me. Or seems even remotely origninal.

But a lot of her music is incredibly good. And she is sickeningly talented as a singer and musician, even if the lyrics are often fairly weak or lacking sincerity in my opinion.


And I will admit if I find a person objectionable enough I will conciously avoid their stuff. But more often I truly dislike the works a person produces, though with perhaps less objective reasons.

[Inglenook]

Probably shouldn't have said that in my response, sorry, personal accusations of any sort were uncalled for. I just have some fetishes/kinks that most people react somewhat negatively to, so I tend to be defensive in that area. Again, sorry about that.
Ain't no thang. :smallcool:

[Goosefeather]

Yeah, can't get into too many details about religion on these boards, but leading an arena in a five minute chant of "F* You God" is a sentiment that I just can't get behind, even if it is just a ploy to sell albums or generate press. Later pauses between songs included things like "This middle finger is for Jesus." I don't know if it's offensive or just sad, probably both.

Disclaimer: I wasn't there myself; it was one of many unpleasant details explained by a very reliable source who attended for their deviant psychology research.

I see this as still falling under his social criticism, though expressed in a highly provocative manner -but of course, your response is highly understandable, most people don't like it when something precious to them is criticised or insulted.

Thing is, he expresses those same sentiments in his music (see Fight Song, for example), so I would assume you disapprove of his work just as much as of the artist himself - and given that I'm a fan of both, they really don't fall under the purview of this thread, either from your perspective or from mine!

Probably best to leave it there before we venture into Forbidden Topics! :smalltongue:

[Knaight]

Pretty much, same. Arrogance doesn't bother me, especially if the person really is doing awesome stuff. However, hating on other people is not really going to engender positive reactions.

People need not be fantastic for me to enjoy their stuff, they just have to not actively work to anger me.

Exactly. Meet the minimum basic standards for a decent human, and I won't dislike the work due to the person. Drop below those standards (see: Chris Brown) and I very much will.

[Whiffet]

It really depends. I've stopped paying attention to some works I liked because I discovered the person behind them was horrible, like with Dilbert. But that doesn't happen every time.

Now, what if we flip it around and discover the artist/writer is a wonderful person? I end up enjoying a work even more if I find that out. And I'm certainly more willing to throw my money at it.

[dragonsamurai77]

I believe that this topic is applicable to anyone who plays Yu-Gi-Oh!.

[Othesemo]

Miles Davis springs to mind. His rudeness to fans was absolutely legendary. Doesn't keep me from having over 100 of his albums on my computer.

[An Enemy Spy]

Do displays of athleticism count here. Because no matter how weel football players like Ben Roethlisberger and Michael Vick do, I will never ever ever cheer them on because I know what despicable forms of life they are.
In the same vein, I love to root for Tim Tebow despite not being the greatest quarterback on earth because he is such a friendly, loving person with very strong convictions who invites special needs children to every single one of his games.

[dehro]

Miles Davis springs to mind. His rudeness to fans was absolutely legendary. Doesn't keep me from having over 100 of his albums on my computer.

didn't know that many existed :smallbiggrin:

[Knaight]

Do displays of athleticism count here. Because no matter how weel football players like Ben Roethlisberger and Michael Vick do, I will never ever ever cheer them on because I know what despicable forms of life they are.
In the same vein, I love to root for Tim Tebow despite not being the greatest quarterback on earth because he is such a friendly, loving person with very strong convictions who invites special needs children to every single one of his games.

I'd consider it basically equivalent (and would include coaches in that), and in my case at least the same caveats apply. I'm not big on football anyways, but I would never support Michael Vick, given of his dog fighting ring, or Joe Patern, given his rape coverups. Tebow I find mildly annoying for a few reasons, but that certainly wouldn't prevent me from liking his work.

[Omergideon]

I'll be honest, I don't get where the dislike of Scott Adams is coming from. Having read parts of his blog (including the "controversial" posts) I do not see how he is despicable in any way.

[ThunderCat]

Speaking of people to hate (and not to hate), I think this would fit here:

http://www.cracked.com/article/96_7-beloved-celebrities-awful-****-you-forgot-they-did/

[Tyndmyr]

Erm, where are you getting that? Yes, he advocated free love, doesn't make him a pervert, we aren't puritans anymore. You can argue that his later fixation on sex ruined a few of his books due to about faces in tone (Cat Who Walks Through Walls the worst example of this), but it's not present at all in the first half of his life and even later, barring a few egregious examples, it isn't all that bad.

And the fascism thing? His main characters were all way, way too individualistic for that. One of his books had a democratic government where the requirement for suffrage was public service (Starship Troopers). That's the closest thing to fascism that ever pops up in his books and is no wheres close to actual fascism in any way, shape or form.

Okay, I'll give you old, but only for the last chunk of his works, but can you really hold that against him? :smallsmile:

EDIT: Also, not reading something because of an author's fetish that is unconnected to the book seems like you're being a bit uptight about sex there...

Look, the presence of adult sex with a female teen in a book is, if potrayed in the right light, perhaps only edgy. But when you've got the second and third books covering the same topic, sometimes in lots of detail, even the most open minded of readers is forced to imagine that the author has gone well past the line.

It's a pretty fair thing to mention as a flaw in Heinlein's works.

[Tengu_temp]

I'll be honest, I don't get where the dislike of Scott Adams is coming from. Having read parts of his blog (including the "controversial" posts) I do not see how he is despicable in any way.

Hating on atheists and considering women to be inferior to men is not despicable? And while refusing to believe that evolution and climate changes are real might or might not be, depending on circumstances, it sure is stupid in any case.

[kyoryu]

Hating on atheists and considering women to be inferior to men is not despicable? And while refusing to believe that evolution and climate changes are real might or might not be, depending on circumstances, it sure is stupid in any case.

Do you have links to those posts? I've read some of his posts, and hadn't seen those.

[Tengu_temp]

How's this for a start? (http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/03/25/scott-adam-sexist-mens-rights/) And you can't find the controversial posts on his blog because after something creates too much controversy and his sock puppets fail to defend it, he just deletes it.

[bloodtide]

So my question is the following: Are there artists (writers, actors, directors, musicians) who you think are major <lessthanfriendlyword> but would spend money to buy their books/movies/music nonetheless? Would you never support such people? Do you even care about an artist's personality?

I have a totally different moral, spiritually and political outlook then 90% of the artists (writers, actors, directors, musicians). So from a very early age I had to learn to just ignore the real person and focus on liking there work. And there have been a couple cases where an artist would try to push their agenda by doing something like 'all proceeds go to this'. And in that case I have been careful to only buy the item second hand, so my money would not directly go to something I don't want to support.

[Weezer]

Look, the presence of adult sex with a female teen in a book is, if potrayed in the right light, perhaps only edgy. But when you've got the second and third books covering the same topic, sometimes in lots of detail, even the most open minded of readers is forced to imagine that the author has gone well past the line.

It's a pretty fair thing to mention as a flaw in Heinlein's works.

I'm just wondering, where is this? There is certainly a lot of sex, but I don't remember any adult-teen sex, especially not in depth and not in 3 different books.

[kyoryu]

How's this for a start? (http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/03/25/scott-adam-sexist-mens-rights/) And you can't find the controversial posts on his blog because after something creates too much controversy and his sock puppets fail to defend it, he just deletes it.

I did read the men's rights post when it was posted, but never saw the atheist one.

It was pretty clear to me that the post was basically telling men's rights advocates to STFU and deal with. Did he use hyperbole? Sure.

I also (just now) read some of his exchanges with people from sites that had criticized his post, and frankly, he came off as more rational than them, as they appeared to have a "guilty, and anything which can be interpreted as supporting my argument will be" mentality.

I'd love to see the atheist thing.

[Weezer]

I did read the men's rights post when it was posted, but never saw the atheist one.

It was pretty clear to me that the post was basically telling men's rights advocates to STFU and deal with. Did he use hyperbole? Sure.

I also (just now) read some of his exchanges with people from sites that had criticized his post, and frankly, he came off as more rational than them, as they appeared to have a "guilty, and anything which can be interpreted as supporting my argument will be" mentality.

I'd love to see the atheist thing.

I'm with you on this one, Scott Adams' post seems to be a pretty well reasoned attack on the ubiquitous claim in Men's Right's circles that since men can point to a few specific instances of 'discrimination' that men and women are equally discriminated against and thus sexual inequality should be ignored. Don't see where the problem is.

I fail at reading. Everything I said up there was totally wrong. Please ignore it.

[Tengu_temp]

Just because he attacks MRA's claims doesn't mean he avoids being offensive to women at the same time. Remember, in the same blog post he also claimed that women should stop complaining they don't get get paid as much as men.

I can't be arsed to find more of his deleted blogs. I doubt they're hard to find if you want to look for them.

[Copper]

I'm with you on this one, Scott Adams' post seems to be a pretty well reasoned attack on the ubiquitous claim in Men's Right's circles that since men can point to a few specific instances of 'discrimination' that men and women are equally discriminated against and thus sexual inequality should be ignored. Don't see where the problem is.

Hmm.. I read it more as him saying "Yeah life is unfair, but it's easier to not try to change anything and whatever, men and women have it the same anyway", a point I find very disagreeable as I am of the opinion that if something is unfair you need to change it and not just ignore the problem. However I could have misinterpreted it.
He was also very rude to some people who disagreed with him, saying that since they didn't like his post it was because they were less well-read and less educated than most Dilbert readers and therefore had no right to complain.

[Gnoman]

Do displays of athleticism count here. Because no matter how weel football players like Ben Roethlisberger and Michael Vick do, I will never ever ever cheer them on because I know what despicable forms of life they are.

Vick I can agree with you on, but Ben is much less clear. The accusations against him were never substantiated, the persons making those accusations were acting in a very unbelievable fashion, and the accusations were made at a time right before several cases of using such charges as a form of harassment or extortion were uncovered.

[Weezer]

Just because he attacks MRA's claims doesn't mean he avoids being offensive to women at the same time. Remember, in the same blog post he also claimed that women should stop complaining they don't get get paid as much as men.

I can't be arsed to find more of his deleted blogs. I doubt they're hard to find if you want to look for them.


Hmm.. I read it more as him saying "Yeah life is unfair, but it's easier to not try to change anything and whatever, men and women have it the same anyway", a point I find very disagreeable as I am of the opinion that if something is unfair you need to change it and not just ignore the problem. However I could have misinterpreted it.
He was also very rude to some people who disagreed with him, saying that since they didn't like his post it was because they were less well-read and less educated than most Dilbert readers and therefore had no right to complain.

Wow. I totally misread that. Somehow I was reading it as if it was Adams himself writing the page you linked as opposed to someone else tearing apart things that Adams said. So yeah, I take back everything I said. Complete failure on my part.

[An Enemy Spy]

Vick I can agree with you on, but Ben is much less clear. The accusations against him were never substantiated, the persons making those accusations were acting in a very unbelievable fashion, and the accusations were made at a time right before several cases of using such charges as a form of harassment or extortion were uncovered.

It's not just the accusations. Big Ben is pretty notorious in the Pittsburgh area for being an extremely unpleasant person to be around. He constantly belittles people in the service industries, refuses to pay paltry entrance fees at night clubs, and once got a waiter fired for wanting to check his date's ID. He's the sort of celebrity who likes to say "Do you know who I am?" and is basically an all around jerk. There's actually a restaurant where every member of the Steelers is allowed to eat free except for Ben Roethlisberger because of his behavior there.

[Omergideon]

Wow. I totally misread that. Somehow I was reading it as if it was Adams himself writing the page you linked as opposed to someone else tearing apart things that Adams said. So yeah, I take back everything I said. Complete failure on my part.

When I read the full post it seemed to me he was saying something more like "you know guys, if you think something is unfair, and it is an emotionally charged issue, just take the path of least resistance as fighting does not seem worth it" He grants things to both sides as unfair, but says that until we stop being emotionally charged about it we likely won't get anywhere.

My take anyways. The linked post of the "review" of it seemed to miss the point to me, over simplify things and ignore the context. Just my 2 cents.

Not that Adams is not condescending a lot of the time. That he is, and that can be annoying.


I failed to see the "athesit bashing" one though.


Men's Rights thingy................a looong debate not to be had here. But I think sometimes they do have some good points. And that is all I am saying.

[Gnoman]

It's not just the accusations. Big Ben is pretty notorious in the Pittsburgh area for being an extremely unpleasant person to be around. He constantly belittles people in the service industries, refuses to pay paltry entrance fees at night clubs, and once got a waiter fired for wanting to check his date's ID. He's the sort of celebrity who likes to say "Do you know who I am?" and is basically an all around jerk. There's actually a restaurant where every member of the Steelers is allowed to eat free except for Ben Roethlisberger because of his behavior there.

Ah. That's a little different. Jamie Farr's been known to act the same way. I'm just really sick of teh "accusation=unquestionable guilt" idea that is so common nowadays.

[Goosefeather]

Another one: I don't actively avoid films featuring Tom Cruise, but certain details of his personal life make it incredibly hard for me to take them at all seriously.

The man is insane.

Jason Lee, from 'My Name is Earl', causes a similar effect in me, and I was never quite able to look at Isaac Hayes the same way again, though for some reason I can still watch John Travolta - maybe because he doesn't seem to take himself quite so seriously (see Hairspray), and I find it easier to ignore the lifestyle choice in question. Also, he doesn't give ridiculously stupid interviews (at least, not that I've seen) or jump up and down on sofas on Oprah.

[The Glyphstone]

Another one: I don't actively avoid films featuring Tom Cruise, but certain details of his personal life make it incredibly hard for me to take them at all seriously.

The man is insane.

Jason Lee, from 'My Name is Earl', causes a similar effect in me, and I was never quite able to look at Isaac Hayes the same way again, though for some reason I can still watch John Travolta - maybe because he doesn't seem to take himself quite so seriously (see Hairspray), and I find it easier to ignore the lifestyle choice in question. Also, he doesn't give ridiculously stupid interviews (at least, not that I've seen) or jump up and down on sofas on Oprah.

Tom Cruise is Tom Cruise Crazy,
Just be glad it's him, not you
Cause if you had Tom Cruise's troubles,
You might be Tom Cruise Crazy too...

[kyoryu]

Another one: I don't actively avoid films featuring Tom Cruise, but certain details of his personal life make it incredibly hard for me to take them at all seriously.

The man is insane.

Jason Lee, from 'My Name is Earl', causes a similar effect in me, and I was never quite able to look at Isaac Hayes the same way again, though for some reason I can still watch John Travolta - maybe because he doesn't seem to take himself quite so seriously (see Hairspray), and I find it easier to ignore the lifestyle choice in question. Also, he doesn't give ridiculously stupid interviews (at least, not that I've seen) or jump up and down on sofas on Oprah.

Well, it's pretty clear what your specific issue is...

And I can't say I blame you, but I don't actively avoid any of those people because of it.

[Goosefeather]

Well, it's pretty clear what your specific issue is...

And I can't say I blame you, but I don't actively avoid any of those people because of it.

I am a subtle person :smallbiggrin:

To be honest, I don't actively avoid media containing these people, I just find it exceedingly hard to take them seriously. It kills my immersion, basically, which then retroactively puts me off the work in question. Tom Cruise is by far the worst for this, as I cannot see him as whatever character he is playing - I just see him as Tom Cruise, with all the crazy that entails.

[Themrys]

There are people who are just not very likeable because of their personality - quick-tempered, constantly nagging, such things.
Then there are people who have the wrong principles.

The work of the former, I can like.
The work of the latter...highly unlikely, since I mainly read books and it really shows through if the author is an extreme sexist, racist or whatever. Also, I don't want to give such people my money.

[Tyndmyr]

I'm just wondering, where is this? There is certainly a lot of sex, but I don't remember any adult-teen sex, especially not in depth and not in 3 different books.

Door into Summer(fairly central, dealt with heavily), Farnham's Freehold(with incest! Also, castration and such. Also, racist themes, cannibalism, etc. It gets fairly out there in the weeds), and of course To Sail Beyond the Sunset(also with incest, yay!).

Other works contain it in a less central role, as well.

Yeah, I've read rather a lot of his works in the course of my perusal of sci-fi in general, and while certain aspects of his writing might be positive, I would definitely classify the author himself as overrated, and certainly of bringing his extremely unusual sexual themes into his books quite heavily. It's a definite con I'd caution people of with regards to his works, much like how the sword of truth books contain a rather suspicious amount of rapey scenes.

[Friv]

Now my respect towards Orson Scott Card has grown significantly.

Not sure that I follow. It's grown since you've now read about people who are worse, it's grown because you like his work despite his views, or it's grown because you respect his views?

One of those three will precipitate a bit of a rant from me. The others will not.



More on-topic, I can usually accept a person being kind of an awful person as long as their actions aren't actively hateful or repugnant, and it takes some pretty serious stuff for me to throw aside their works completely. I even read Goodkind until he finished his trip down Insanity Lane and let his crazy opinions infect his books openly.

[Tyndmyr]

More on-topic, I can usually accept a person being kind of an awful person as long as their actions aren't actively hateful or repugnant, and it takes some pretty serious stuff for me to throw aside their works completely. I even read Goodkind until he finished his trip down Insanity Lane and let his crazy opinions infect his books openly.

I admit I did finish the SoT series. I just sort of wished I hadn't.

I mean, I get it. Guy hates commies. That's great. Thing is, the books in the fantasy section, and I want to read about dragons and crap when I pick it up, not about socialism. It's not his political opinions per se that I have a problem with, it's that I'm buying what's advertised as a fantasy book and getting a political rant instead.

I admit I'm fairly anti-goodkind now, as while it started out as a perfectly fine book, I'm pretty sure that I now dislike both author and books.

[dehro]

Amy Winehouse

...what? too soon?

anyway, I never bought one of her records purely because I disliked her as a person, for how she brought herself down. also.. ultimately she paid the highest price of all.. but that doesn't change the facts.

[Giggling Ghast]

Man, I used to love the game show Win Ben Stein's Money. His comments comparing evolutionists to Nazis? Not so much.

[Mx.Silver]

Men's Rights thingy................a looong debate not to be had here. But I think sometimes they do have some good points. And that is all I am saying.

I will grant there might conceivably be some legitimate matters they raise (such as disparity in alimony and custody rulings, for example). It's just rather hard to tell under all the sweeping generalisations, misuse of evolutionary psychology, failure to understand the concept of social privilege, misogyny trying to create a veneer of credibility for itself and the misogyny that isn't even bothering to hide.

[Weezer]

Door into Summer(fairly central, dealt with heavily), Farnham's Freehold(with incest! Also, castration and such. Also, racist themes, cannibalism, etc. It gets fairly out there in the weeds), and of course To Sail Beyond the Sunset(also with incest, yay!).

Other works contain it in a less central role, as well.

Yeah, I've read rather a lot of his works in the course of my perusal of sci-fi in general, and while certain aspects of his writing might be positive, I would definitely classify the author himself as overrated, and certainly of bringing his extremely unusual sexual themes into his books quite heavily. It's a definite con I'd caution people of with regards to his works, much like how the sword of truth books contain a rather suspicious amount of rapey scenes.

Well apparently those are 3 of the 6 novels of his that I haven't read (I just checked), which explains why I hadn't come across it. Can't say how valid a criticism it is without actually reading them, but still if it doesn't show up in the other 29 novels he wrote, I dunno how good a criticism is can be. Either way, not having read it, I'll have to leave it as is.

[Velaryon]

I admit I did finish the SoT series. I just sort of wished I hadn't.

I mean, I get it. Guy hates commies. That's great. Thing is, the books in the fantasy section, and I want to read about dragons and crap when I pick it up, not about socialism. It's not his political opinions per se that I have a problem with, it's that I'm buying what's advertised as a fantasy book and getting a political rant instead.

I admit I'm fairly anti-goodkind now, as while it started out as a perfectly fine book, I'm pretty sure that I now dislike both author and books.

I have to agree, Goodkind's series went to hell when he started blatantly retconning things to be about The Glorious Fight Against Communism and so on. I mean, they weren't perfect even before that, but once he cranked the political rhetoric up to eleven, he also turned Richard into the single biggest Mary Sue character I have ever seen.

Then there's the angry-looking picture and single-sentence author bio in the back of the books, which gives me the impression (accurate or not) that he's kind of a jerk anyway. I actually started a topic on this board once asking if anybody knew why Terry Goodkind looked so angry that I had read his book.

As hokey and terribly unfaithful to the source material as Legend of the Seeker was, I like to imagine Goodkind going on an Alan Moore-style, bulging-veins-in-the-neck-and-forehead angry rant when he saw it. Because he just seems like that kind of guy to me.

[Astrella]

Now my respect towards Orson Scott Card has grown significantly.

Because he's homophobic or? :smallconfused:

[Omergideon]

I will grant there might conceivably be some legitimate matters they raise (such as disparity in alimony and custody rulings, for example). It's just rather hard to tell under all the sweeping generalisations, misuse of evolutionary psychology, failure to understand the concept of social privilege, misogyny trying to create a veneer of credibility for itself and the misogyny that isn't even bothering to hide.

OK. I think a lot of the people have more to say that can actually be backed up. But meh.


To be honest, if there is anything in an artist that turns me off their work it is incessant whining or complaining about things. When they complain that project xyz did not get a fair shake or was clearly screwed over. not that sometimes they aren't right. But too often it comes across as bitter and taints my viewpoint of them.

More often though, if anything turns me off a work it won't be the artist or creator. It will be the fans of it. Especially the ones who won't shut up and take any criticism of the work as a personal affront. It's bad enough when the work is considered merely decent by people at large. But having a neutral opinion of something that is considered perfection itself by some fans......that gets to me. It often leads me to nitpicking the flaws more than I would if they did not worship it so much.

And vice versa, if something is hated as the antichrist by too many loud anti-fans I will often end up defending it more, as it usually isn't o bad.

So creators don't put me off too much, but often the fans will.

[Sunken Valley]

I believe that this topic is applicable to anyone who plays Yu-Gi-Oh!.

Why?


_________________________________
Nobody mentioned Michael Jackson I see. He's a demon.

[hamishspence]

More often though, if anything turns me off a work it won't be the artist or creator. It will be the fans of it. Especially the ones who won't shut up and take any criticism of the work as a personal affront. It's bad enough when the work is considered merely decent by people at large. But having a neutral opinion of something that is considered perfection itself by some fans......that gets to me. It often leads me to nitpicking the flaws more than I would if they did not worship it so much.

And vice versa, if something is hated as the antichrist by too many loud anti-fans I will often end up defending it more, as it usually isn't o bad.

So creators don't put me off too much, but often the fans will.

I've been beginning to develop a "don't entirely trust what the fans/haters say- look for yourself" attitude over time.

As a result I ended up concluding that while Karen Traviss was a bit abrasive, often the accusations directed at her are exaggerated or directed at the wrong people (the numbers controversy, for example).

I enjoyed Clone Wars: No Prisoners and, to a lesser degree, Republic Commando: Order 66 and Imperial Commando: 501st- though I can understand the complaints about them, as well.

[Yora]

I have a very strong aversion towards scientology members and sympathizers. Which is unfortunate because they lured some actors who did pretty entertaining movies. But now I don't really enjoy them as much anymore.

Good example would probably be Mel Gibson. There's a lot of really fun movies with him, but they all have become kind ouf sour to me the last years. Yes, the movies are still fun, but I feel kind of conflicted watching them again.

[Omergideon]

I've been beginning to develop a "don't entirely trust what the fans/haters say- look for yourself" attitude over time.



Oh this is certainly a better attitude to have. And when I am lucky enough to come into a film without having heard about it I enjoy getting my own opinions.

However when they are especially loud I do find myself logging the complaints/pros I have on a work just to use if I get into a discussion with them that goes against orthodoxy. And that can affect how I enjoy the film.

[dehro]

I have a very strong aversion towards scientology members and sympathizers. Which is unfortunate because they lured some actors who did pretty entertaining movies. But now I don't really enjoy them as much anymore.

Good example would probably be Mel Gibson. There's a lot of really fun movies with him, but they all have become kind ouf sour to me the last years. Yes, the movies are still fun, but I feel kind of conflicted watching them again.

oh, yes.. can I have a "Tom Cruise and John Travolta" please?

also, this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cjeOKxnVB8)

[Tyndmyr]

Well apparently those are 3 of the 6 novels of his that I haven't read (I just checked), which explains why I hadn't come across it. Can't say how valid a criticism it is without actually reading them, but still if it doesn't show up in the other 29 novels he wrote, I dunno how good a criticism is can be. Either way, not having read it, I'll have to leave it as is.

I admit, the more popular novels are more popular for good reason. Most people, if they haven't read it all, have only seen the better stuff.

You've also got stuff like For Us, The Living, that is pretty terrible, as well.

[ThunderCat]

I have to agree, Goodkind's series went to hell when he started blatantly retconning things to be about The Glorious Fight Against Communism and so on. I mean, they weren't perfect even before that, but once he cranked the political rhetoric up to eleven, he also turned Richard into the single biggest Mary Sue character I have ever seen.

Then there's the angry-looking picture and single-sentence author bio in the back of the books, which gives me the impression (accurate or not) that he's kind of a jerk anyway. I actually started a topic on this board once asking if anybody knew why Terry Goodkind looked so angry that I had read his book.
If by “jerk” you mean “obnoxious and incredibly arrogant”, your impression is quite correct.

http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/3123

Luckily, I don't like his work. I think Roman Polanski is the only artist on this thread I whose work I like. Oh, and George Lucas, but I don't have quite the same moral qualms liking his work.

[Yora]

I may be a bit apologetic with this, but I don't think too bad about Lovecraft. Yes, he was a very strong racist, but I think that was a product of his environment and not just him being an awful person. Even if he was racist compared to his contemporaries, but he quite clearly got mental problems as well and paranoia is the major theme of his work. Such a man would probably very susceptible when exposed to racist propaganda.
He was still wrong, but I don't feel like blaming him too strongly for that.

[Weezer]

I admit, the more popular novels are more popular for good reason. Most people, if they haven't read it all, have only seen the better stuff.

You've also got stuff like For Us, The Living, that is pretty terrible, as well.

I can agree with this. Heinlein is one of my favorite authors, when he's at his best, but at his worst he is barely worth reading. For Us the Living is a good example of his horribly written works. I think Heinlein is one of those authors who needs a firm editorial hand to rein him in. This I think is a problem I've seen with a number of genre authors once they get popular enough to really defy editors.

[Velaryon]

More often though, if anything turns me off a work it won't be the artist or creator. It will be the fans of it. Especially the ones who won't shut up and take any criticism of the work as a personal affront. It's bad enough when the work is considered merely decent by people at large. But having a neutral opinion of something that is considered perfection itself by some fans......that gets to me. It often leads me to nitpicking the flaws more than I would if they did not worship it so much.

And vice versa, if something is hated as the antichrist by too many loud anti-fans I will often end up defending it more, as it usually isn't o bad.

So creators don't put me off too much, but often the fans will.

Agreed. When it comes to TV shows I often wait until the whole series has been out on DVD for awhile, then watch it straight through. Not only can I get instant gratification this way without having to wait for weekly airings, but I can also wait until the hype dies down and people aren't proclaiming it as the greatest thing ever, which tends to sour me on things pretty quickly.

For example, people on my dorm floor used to claim 24 was the greatest show ever. If it was your second-favorite show, you were wrong. Because of that (and the incessant beeping right before and after they cut to commercial), to this day I avoid that show. Similarly I have never seen Lost (and from what I've seen of J.J. Abrams' other work I'm not particularly eager to change that).



I've been beginning to develop a "don't entirely trust what the fans/haters say- look for yourself" attitude over time.

This is the best way to go about it, I think. By thinking this way I was able to enjoy Spartacus: Blood and Sand for what it is (a pretty decent gladiator series) even though two of my friends touted it as the most amazing thing on television (which it's not).


As a result I ended up concluding that while Karen Traviss was a bit abrasive, often the accusations directed at her are exaggerated or directed at the wrong people (the numbers controversy, for example).

The first Traviss book I ever read was her novelization of the Clone Wars movie, which wasn't anything special save for a couple added anti-Jedi/pro-Mando scenes that I doubt were in the movie. In particular, I would bet good money that Count Dooku never sat around reminiscing about what a great guy Jango Fett was, and what a pity it was those awful Jedi killed him.

Other than that, all I've read from Traviss are her three contributions to the truly awful Legacy of the Force series. Aside from jamming Boba Fett and the Mandalorians into a story that doesn't involve them and misrepresenting characters (including Jedi) to take an anti-Jedi stance, they weren't any worse than the rest of the series.

If I ever muster up enough faith in the Star Wars EU to continue reading the books, I might give her Republic Commando stuff a try. If she could contain her prejudices and either tell a Star Wars story that actually fits well with the rest of the Star Wars universe, or at least leave Jedi (and preferably Mandalorians as well) out of her book entirely, she would be a pretty good author.



If by “jerk” you mean “obnoxious and incredibly arrogant”, your impression is quite correct.

http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/3123

Thanks for that! My mental image of him having a fit when he first saw the TV series is now even sweeter.:smallbiggrin:

[Knaight]

Good example would probably be Mel Gibson. There's a lot of really fun movies with him, but they all have become kind ouf sour to me the last years. Yes, the movies are still fun, but I feel kind of conflicted watching them again.

Yeah. The whole "on record making death threats" thing doesn't exactly count for him. Then there's the bigotry.

[hamishspence]

Other than that, all I've read from Traviss are her three contributions to the truly awful Legacy of the Force series. Aside from jamming Boba Fett and the Mandalorians into a story that doesn't involve them and misrepresenting characters (including Jedi) to take an anti-Jedi stance, they weren't any worse than the rest of the series.

If I ever muster up enough faith in the Star Wars EU to continue reading the books, I might give her Republic Commando stuff a try. If she could contain her prejudices and either tell a Star Wars story that actually fits well with the rest of the Star Wars universe, or at least leave Jedi (and preferably Mandalorians as well) out of her book entirely, she would be a pretty good author.

There's two Traviss novels with no Mandalorians at all- only clones and Jedi.

The aforementioned The Clone Wars novel, and a second one: The Clone Wars: No Prisoners, which focuses on Pellaeon, and Callista's splinter Jedi faction.

The first two Republic Commando novels, I'm told, dial the disapproval of the Jedi's willingness to lead the clone army down a bit.

[GolemsVoice]

I may be a bit apologetic with this, but I don't think too bad about Lovecraft. Yes, he was a very strong racist, but I think that was a product of his environment and not just him being an awful person. Even if he was racist compared to his contemporaries, but he quite clearly got mental problems as well and paranoia is the major theme of his work. Such a man would probably very susceptible when exposed to racist propaganda.
He was still wrong, but I don't feel like blaming him too strongly for that.

I'd agree. I love his work and his world, and especially the games and other stuff it spawned, but I in no way support his ideas on for example women, "races" and other stuff. I have no problem supporting him because of what Yora said, but also because of the fact that he's dead. So none of my support actually reaches him (and since he didn't believe in an afterlife, very likely it doesn't even reach him there), he doesn't get any of my money, on account of being dead, and he's no longer around to spout his beliefs, so I can let those rest, safe in the knowledge that I can disagree, but he can't.