http://scalzi.com/whatever/?p=1887
Everyone who knows me or reads enough of my blog (yes the stuff that is often locked away from the public) knows I'm opinionated on matters that I am passionate about.
My opinions are not always mainstream and some do make some of friends uncomfortable. I like the fact that they remain my friends anyway - the same as I value their right to hold the opinions they have.
I found the above blog piece by John Scalzi a very interesting read - and something that is important I believe for all cross stitch designers and knitting designs and everyone who's income is affected by the thoughts of "Joe Public".
In some ways the attitudes and thoughts expressed while reading this blog will will be different by everyone who reads it - and I do encourage everyone who sells direct to the public to read it.
You do *not* have to agree with him - but it is definitely food for thought!
12 comments:
Right away reading his text sparks a number of ideas and questions.
First of all - couldn't agree with him more. It may not be 'smart' in view of the sale of his books, but why should any reader of substance deny an author the right to state their opinions on anything? (That might probably only be a reader who's jealous of not being able to formulate opinions in as elegant a way as the author)
But what really gives me food for thought is his remark on why he as a writer should shut up for fear of selling a few books less while others have to stop writing altogether because they face either prison sentences or have to fear for their very lives. How about putting a few matters into perspective?
Personally I think we should all get a thicker skin and not feel compelled to bully everyone else with all our exaggerated sensitivities. It's as you say - one must be able to take some bites from ones friends and still stay friends. Being so 'aware' of anyone's sensitivities all the time just makes us silly ninnies who can't take a punch - physical AND verbal.
Long story short: PC is rubbish.
I actually have one author who I refuse to read because of his political beliefs and that is John Ringo.
His first few books were very well written military science fiction and I would highly recommend them to anyone who loves a rollicking good story.
And then we have 9/11.
After this his books seem to take on a vicious edge. The French characters sell us out to the nasty aliens. Europe is destroyed because its too peace-loving.
The last book I read was Yellow Eyes, set in Cuba where the main heroes use cluster bombs, lay minefields and hold children at gunpoint to force their mothers to fight. Because we are the last line of defence against the nasty aliens.
After the end of the book Ringo and his co-writer write this diatribe about how the US will fail to win the war on Terror unless the US forces are allowed to use such measures against non-US supporters in the world. They say that the US way of life and everything the US stands for will be destroyed unless the US forces can use cluster bombs, and land mines, and hold children hostage to force Americans to fight.
That had my blood run cold. As you can guess Ringo is a neo con. I wont read any of his work now that I know the severity of his prejudices and his beliefs.
But he is one of the very few authors in which I allow their personal beliefs to colour my reading. And in his case, its because he rammed his beliefs down my throat under the guise of fiction.
Well, there is also the line in the sand; all of the Hollywood elite have this same ability to portray political figures and that kind of thing, produce movies of a political nature with a particular bent, but then somewhere, the line got crossed, when they started using their access to the media to tell all of us what we ought to be doing, and anyone not doing what they wanted were horrible, horrible people who should be forced to _________. It's one thing to express your opinion, but it's an entirely different thing to blindly denounce people that don't agree with you as almost subhuman. Michael Moore, who I pretty much think is a sleaze ball, at least has the common sense to use his movies to promote his agenda, and if I don't agree, I don't pay the $$ to see the movies. But when I am watching the Oscars, and this winner or that winner gets up to accept their award, and uses that particular platform to go on a political witch hunt, instead of thanking the Academy, then I have a problem with that; if I wanted to watch political commentary, we do have multiple channels that cover that. I'm watching the Oscars because I want to see what people are wearing and to see who's being honored with the Lifetime Achievement Award, because I like movies. I love The Shawshank Redemption, but Tim Robbins is a complete wanker, and I don't give a rat's ass what he thinks we ought to be doing, as he lives his millionaire's lifestyle, while I work full time and struggle to take care of my family....
Personally, actors don't really carry that much weight with me, getting paid to essentially live & play in Fantasy Land, but in this age of 24/7 Media Blitzkrieg, a hell of a lot of people are more inclined to listen to a celebrity than to someone who has anything resembling an informed opinion - and Hollywood is the Bandwagon Capital of the Universe. Writers of all genres should be free to write what they want, when they want - for every one they lose due to the nature of the work, aren't they just as likely to pick up another? But at this time, writers have such a small audience, compared to the Lindsey Lohans and Brad Pitts and Paris Hiltons of the world (at least from my perspective here) - when was the last time you saw an author on TV promoting a book - and not an author who was some sordid celebrity first?
Right now, I think writers have a hell of a lot more freedom than anyone else, if their publishers are open to it. I would think it's at the publishing level that the politics really come into play, and a few years ago, that would have been the stopping point. There's too much self-publishing available now to let that be a road block, except in cases where the author will lose his shirt for breach of contract issues; then they very well may be tied - and that's too bad, since the televised media can pretty much do whatever they want all day long with no repercussions besides the audience becoming nothing more than a spoon-fed, hive-thinking mass....
I can see where you're coming from on that one!
Sounds like this guy thinks like Bush. Reminds me of Hitler and his merry band of horror cabinet members. Didn't the US fight a very bloody war to drive out this very way of thinking?
Besides: WHO really wants to live the US way of life except for some Americans? I know for certain that I don't want that. I prefer my nicely regulated country with a sense of culture and democracy that the US seems to have mysteriously lost in the past decade or so.
Well, with that, I guess I'll leave this discussion - your generalizations kill me. Really.
Apparently the many many many immigrants both legal and illegal that come into the US every year. And well I like being American too. Guess my skin must be too thin because once again I am insulted by your generalization.
I think Mariann was trying to say that each country (at least in the Western World - North America, Europe and Australasia) have their own good parts about their country.
I would not like the parts I love about Australia to disappear to live "an American way of life". There are times when we should celebrate our diversity :)
Every country has its good parts and its bad parts. John Ringo and I disagree about what the bad parts of the US are - that's why he lives there and I don't :) Also why I don't read his books, but he is the number one most popular author read by members of the US Armed Forces (source: Baen Publishing website).
Karen is correct - every time an author states his political views he is losing some readers and gaining others. Do you think this is true for cross stitch designers? Knitting designers ??? Or do you think there's an economy of scale to these things?
Do you think the rise of actors over authors is due to the prevalence of TV over print - or is there another reason that Shakespeare's plays (political in their own time) are still being performed now?
Designers: matter of taste, I believe. No matter whether it's fashion or a crossstitch design, if it appeals to a person that person will buy it, if it doesn't then normally I believe people are not interested and won't buy. In fashion there may be some peer-pressure in some age groups to buying things that aren't really their taste, but I also think that's usually going on at an age where personal taste hasn't been fully developped.
Actors - well, I agree with Karen, an Oscars presentation is not the right place to state private opinions (I can see the reason, to a point, where the subject of the film has been a political theme, then it might just emphasize what the film's message was meant to be) or worse, force personal opinions on others.
So maybe they're rising over authors mainly because they receive respective platforms? Or just make more active use of the possibilities they've been given?
I don't think anyone would consider Shakespeare's plays to be political in the present. Even operas and musical comedies were political in their own time, but I suppose they'll be regarded as historical now.
Interesting question though. There is the Wagner Festival, which is a yearly festival in Bayreuth, where Wagner's operas are not only played, but celebrated. It's been set up by the Wagner family in the 1930s, with the active support of Hitler, and has been a VERY political stage when it was started, and it still has a certain aura of politics in it, though these days it's mostly reduced to culture politics.
Eep!
I am so glad I stayed out of this one.
It's very hard not to make generalizations about another country.
Unless you live there and understand it in its entirety, it's all too easy to make a comment which seems like a "poke" at it.
I think he is right and what I really hate is the creeping Americanisation of English speaking society. It's happened in the UK and will happen elsewhere. And why do we have to blindly follow the US without ever questioning the validity of the viewpoint being presented, especially when thrown as us by a weak president on a huge hidden agenda and an even bigger alcohol problem!
We are slowly losing our culture, language and national identity in an effort to almost become a Little USA and it is wrong.
As to politics - everyone is entitled to an opinion. Yours will differ to mine in many ways. I just abhor anyone who is so narrow minded and bigoted that only their opinion matters and we should all follow blindly. One author springs to mind - China Mieville who writes brilliant books but whose personal politics repel me. Anne Macaffrey who made a point of writing books without religion is another who has a different take on faith. I love Earlene Fowler and although her personal faith is not my cup of tea, she manages not to ram it down mt throat in every book.
Nuff said - I'm off to put my clothes on before I freeze this morning
What is he/she's politics? And do they carry it into their writings?
http://www.scifiaudio.com/authors/mieville.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Mi%C3%A9ville
Luckily he doesn't carry it through his writings as he is a hard-line ultra left winger!
That said, you will love his books and now I see he has a new book out next summer. That's Robin Hobb plus the second part of The Red Wolf Conspiracy AND a new China Mieville in the space of a few months next year!
Post a Comment