[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 7 KB, 225x224, niceguywojak.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13144451 No.13144451 [Reply] [Original]

Are you less likely to read a novel if you discover the author has done morally questionable things?

I don't understand how people can read a novel that deals with the issues of virtue, ethics, proper behavior etc if the author himself has done things which are unethical, immoral and so on.

>> No.13144767

Do you really only want to read Kant for the rest of your life?

>> No.13144982

>>13144767
Surely you have limits as to whose thoughts etc you are willing to read?

I read about Norman Mailer for example, stabbing his wife. I instinctively don't want to read a book by someone who does that. Same goes for the author of A Million Little Pieces, who sold it as memoir but invented a lot of major details.

>> No.13145008

>>13144982
>I'm a spooked sensitive moralfag
Good for u brah. Now what was the point of this thread?

>> No.13145020

>>13144451
More likely if anything- suggests they might have an interesting perspective.

Also I never get why people think hypocrisy is a huge deal. It's just an ad hominem. What's important is whether the argument is sound, not whether the speaker is a good person.

>> No.13145029

I guess it depends what the author is writing about. If the author is a cunt but writes stories/novels/whatever that comes across as morally righteous, then I see your point. But there are also writers like Graham Greene, for instance, who did questionable things throughout his life (as all people do) BUT creates characters who struggle with the fact that man is inherently a sinful creature bent on evil.

Any writer worth reading has at least a modicum of self-awareness. If they're shitty people but writer holier-than-thou shit then yes, they're not worth reading

>> No.13145035
File: 1.51 MB, 1000x1500, Anti-Tech Revolution_3b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13145035

>>13144451
How do you know if our society has the right moral standards? To what extent is a moral standard based on truth, or just social convention. To what degree is a moral standard in today's society more to do with propaganda and education than truth?Only cold hard reason and logic can lead to the truth here.

Kaczynski is a very interesting case study, if you're serious about studying the moral and ethical dimensions of this.

>> No.13145043

It obviously plays a part. It's very hard to seperate an individual and their work from their life. I've never read Foucault and I likely never will because I think he was a perverted wretch.

>> No.13145065 [DELETED] 

>>13144451
i basically disregard any author who has ever shown liberal opinions or political views at any point in their life

>> No.13145251

>>13145020
Yep. I unironically subscribe to “Do as I say, not as I do.”

Though if it’s a truly good philosophy, the creator should have no problem following it. If they don’t, it’s a sign that the philosophy is not applicable enough or they don’t genuinely believe it, which is a read flag that it’s not completely sound.

>> No.13145254

I'm a poo and I still enjoy Lovecraft despite his brazen hatred for Indians, so it's not a disqualifier. Of course, racial attitudes are far from the worst "morally questionable things" (I would never read a book written by neocon warmongers like Cheney or Rumsfeld, for example)

>> No.13145258

>>13144451
I’m more likely to read the novel if the author has done morally questionable things:

>> No.13145271

>>13145251
Interesting point actually

>> No.13145277

>>13145254
Try to avoid anything written by non-authors/philosophers. They usually have a selfish agenda to push (obviously authors/philosophers have an agenda to push, but if their job is just to write or philosophize, it’s likely to actually be something of substance and not near propaganda)

>> No.13145285

>>13145251
Good post except for “red flag,” that’s reddit terminology you goof

>> No.13145469
File: 250 KB, 526x572, goofi.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13145469

>>13144451
>if the author himself has done things which are unethical, immoral and so on.

>> No.13146714

>>13144451
No. The author's work and the author should remain as separate from each other as possible. It is this line of thinking that forced female authors to write under male pseudonyms for so long.

>> No.13146723

>>13144767
Stopped reading Critique of Reason when the foreword mentioned him never leaving his hometown. Sounded like a loser with too much time on his hands.

>> No.13146734

>>13146714
It's a noble principle, but time and again you will see people give lip service to it with eloquent rhetoric, only to turn around and disregard the principle when push comes to shove.

Take all the major book reviewers for example. Kirkus, Choice, New York Review etc. every single one requires an author name and does not allow pseudonyms.