The only writers I don't read because of their general unpleasantness are Piers Anthony and Jerry Pournelle. Harlan has always been a jerk, and it's been a very long time since he's written something worth reading.

I have definitely not picked up new authors I might have otherwise read because they've been insane on the internet. Or are connected with people who are insane.

There are advantages to not caring what authors have to say outside the covers of a book.

I have definitely not picked up new authors I might have otherwise read because they've been insane on the internet. Or are connected with people who are insane.

Whoo, yeah. And I am always thankful that Ray Bradbury has come across as a reasonably sane person in all of his interviews.

I usually don't care, but I try to avoid some of the crazier parts of the internet. If an author has irritated me, I do the tiny rebellion of reading the book in a way that doesn't benefit the writer.

It's not like Scott Adams has anything worth saying, or that Orson Scott Card seems to have said anything newly interesting in decades, but there's just no way I can pretend I don't know and just pay attention only to their work. My brain doesn't shut off that way.

Plus, there's also the question of contributing to their personal coffers. I do watch where my money goes.

But, again, I don't presume to think I'm some true arbiter of character and that people have to be in any way exception to be worthy of my dollar. Just--be sensible enough in public, and we're cool.

OSC's writing has declined in almost perfect proportion to how much I like him as a human being, so it's not been a hardship giving up buying his new books. But it's also near impossible for me to reread Ender's Game and pretend I don't know about the character assassination he inflicts upon Petra in the Shadow books. (Ptui, may we never speak of them again.)

I have definitely not picked up new authors I might have otherwise read because they've been insane on the internet. Or are connected with people who are insane.

Dana speaks for me. And there are writers I once read with pleasure whose books will never accumulate dust on my bookshelves again.

Well, I'm a couple books behind, and perhaps very dense, but I'd not have read his tea leaves and worked any of that out. Which books do you think it bleeds through in?

1) Don't think there is a main character who is not a tough guy or tough woman - Vlad, the vampire, Lucifer, Cowboy Feng, the historical in Vlads universe

2)Gambling in most of the Vlad books.

But mostly a matter of voice and attitude. Two people mentioned a fear, one they though Brust had not justified. I agree he has done nothing to justify it, but mentioned a possible trigger. If not where it came from then not. But long before I knew any biographical details, I definitely thought of Brust as a writer with a tough-guy and somewhat macho voice. Which could arouse the fear mentioned without justifying it. If you don't see it, you don't. Not an easy thing to prove. Maybe I'm wrong.

Vlad's not a particularly tough guy. I mean, he's a killer and physically very capable, but that's not the same thing. He's emotionally raw for most of the 13 books. He's deeply in love, and very sentimental about his friends, and is often wracked by guilt that seems disproportionate for an assassin by trade. The other books I've read the most of, the Khaavren ones, are really truly not macho at all--they balance the mockery of the flowery higher fantasy level without me ever feeling like it's derisive.

Yeah, Vlad's not macho to me at all, and he's pretty much Brust's primary protagonist.

One of the things I like about Brust's fiction is just that--that his main man is introspective, not overly hesitant about feeling or acting on their emotions, and sincere about them. What's "tough guy" macho about that?