YAY OR NAY WEDNESDAY

Just after Anne Enright won this year's Booker prize, I read the following headline: Why Prize-Winning Author 'Dislikes The McCanns'. I didn't read the article, but it immediately made me dislike Anne Enright and not want to read her book. I know it's unreasonable, but that was my knee-jerk reaction.

Happily reading Jen Lancaster's second book, Bright Lights, Big Ass, I was more than a little disconcerted to find her waxing lyrical about Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Fox News.

Earlier this week on the Guardian books blog, Ben Myers wrote a piece entitled "Do  writers' filthy opinions soil their books?" with the subtitle "Reading the work of authors whose private opinions are unforgivably extreme is a very uneasy experience."

So are you bothered by the politics or opinions of an author? Would you read the books of someone with wildly opposing politics or would you avoid reading anything by anyone you wouldn't want to sit next to on a plane or at a dinner party (assuming you don't like to instigate food fights at dinner parties)?

Basically: Do you care about authors' personal opinions? Yay or Nay and Why?

[Don't forget it's Yay or Nay day at Hippyshopper, Bridalwave, Dollymix, Corrie Blog, Catwalk Queen, Kiss and Makeup, The Bag Lady, Shoewawa and Shiny Shiny, too!]

YAY OR NAY WEDNESDAY - Comments

  • I don&#39t care one way or another about an author&#39s personal opinions. What I do care about is if they&#39re a jerk about how they express them. Mentioning things they like to read and watch is no big deal, but I admit that I get turned off by authors who get mouthy in blogs or interviews and pretty much paint those who disagree with them as evil. I&#39m the same way with any celebrity. Feel free to have opinions and discuss them, but I might change my opinion about the person if they&#39re a jerk about the way they express their opinion, and that comes into play whether or not I agree with them. I&#39m just as turned off by a jerk I agree with as I am by one I don&#39t agree with.



    I recently had a sad experience where I found myself less than enchanted with someone who had been a favorite author when she was really aggressive and defensive about her political opinions in a situation where that wasn&#39t relevant. She went in like she was trying to pick a fight, and then escalated and became more abrasive about it when it turned out no one wanted to fight with her. I still love her writing, but I&#39m much less ardent a fan.

  • No I didn&#39t answer, did I? Sorry!



    If I found an author I loved was a paedophile ( or anything similar) then I probably would think twice about reading their books. But then again I do try not to be judgmental, after all how much do we really know about most authors other than those choose to make their opinions public?



    There is also the question about what may have happened in the past and is it relevant to our current view of a person...that was raised about Guenther Grass in the Guardian piece you quoted. (Sorry if I am going off topic but I did a German degree years ago!)



    It is a thorny question and actually I don&#39t know the answer... :))

  • No, I know you&#39re not disagreeing with me, Cathy! (We&#39ve had this problem before, haven&#39t we? :) )



    Also, I accept your point re the difference between someone&#39s politics and legal/moral issues, but I was just extending the question. And you didn&#39t answer it :)



    And I&#39ll give Anne Enright a break. I&#39m sure she&#39ll be relieved. :)

  • Keris, I don&#39t actually disagree with you, though I think I do see a difference between objecting to someone&#39s political views and objecting for moral reasons to their actions, e.g. being a paedophile. After all free thought is not illegal here, but paedophilia, child abuse/neglect, domestic violence, financial fraud etc etc are.



    The Enright article was, I think, actually written and published before she won the prize...it was in the London Review of Books (web page dated 4 October) but it only got a high profile due to her win. That is not her fault, though perhaps she should have considered the possibility? Anyway the publicity she got was rather negative so I don&#39t think it has helped her, after all I&#39m sure a lot of people had the same reaction as you...as I did too until I actually read the piece and found it wasn&#39t entirely what it had been made out to be. :)

  • Cathy, I&#39m trying not to read anything about the McCanns, which is why I didn&#39t read Enright&#39s article, but it wasn&#39t really the content that I had the biggest problem with. Enright had just won an award that would give her a massive bump in profile and practically the first thing she did was write something that was bound to give her an even bigger bump. It seemed a bit cynical. (And I appreciate that not having read it I&#39m in no position to comment, but I wanted to make the point that even your perception of an author&#39s opinions can have an effect!)



    And, no, we shouldn&#39t expect to like or agree with everything we read - surely that&#39s part of the joy of reading, taking on opposing views. Also, of course, it depends on the author. I happily continued reading the Jen Lancaster because she&#39s such an entertaining and engaging writer that her political affiliations (once I&#39d overcome my surprise) don&#39t bother me (and are none of my business).



    What if you learned that an author you loved was, say, a paedophile? Would you keep buying their books?

blog comments powered by Disqus

Came straight to this page? Visit Trashionista for loads more stories!