I see many Mormon ideals in OSC's writing. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Mostly I judge his books on whether they work as books, but you can see how his religion and politics inform his choices for stories, character arcs, and the like.

It's tougher to see that with Wagner or Dodgson's work. Wagner's music doesn't have anti-Semitic words, and beyond two books featuring a young girl as the protagonist, Dodgson's literary work doesn't map to pedophilia. (There's also the point that Dodgson's pedophilia is subject to controversy, and by no means as proven as OSC's Mormonism). I think it's much easier to appreciate Wagner and Dodgson's work independently of their politicial, religious, or moral personal tendencies.

Pound I'll let stand as a comparison. His politics do show up in The Cantos, which is the Pound most people will read, so appreciation of his poetry does have to be informed by an understanding of his politics.

There's also the point that Dodgson's pedophilia is subject to controversy, and by no means as proven as OSC's Mormonism.

I was going to note that while Dodgson's interest in Alice Liddell was certainly obsessive and charged with intimacy, the culture in Victorian England and what it allowed and didn't allow is so different from ours that to call him a pedophile distorts more than it conveys. He didn't molest children. I rather doubt he was masturbating while thinking about them, and he would've been scandalized at the implication. And even the weirdness of the staged tableau type pictures he took of children, was not an uncommon practice in his time.

There are a lot of authors whose personal hangups -- political or otherwise -- show up in their work. It's very rare for me that the quality of a work can overcome the obvious psychodrama of the author's journey. Sometimes it can happen (especially if an author left behind only one work, or if we as readers have winnowed him to just his best book), but, usually I can't bear to read three works by a single author in a row, because I go unconsciously uncovering authorial patterns, and usually end up psychonalyzing the author rather than reading the story. When I read Thomas Hardy, I am always thinking about Hardy, and not about his characters.

I've long wondered whether that kind of transparency was a failure, or just a different kind of writing; either way, I find it irritating and distracting.

There are many things to criticize in Card, not least of which is his massive lack of behavioral science knowledge in a writing field that praises science accuracy. But the authorial flogging issues, as stated, are (a) the mary suedom of the perfect, oppressed child and (b) the preachiness of Mormon doctrine shoehorned into the plot.

When I read Thomas Hardy, I am always thinking about Hardy, and not about his characters.

When I had to read Thomas Hardy, I was thinking "Why am I an English major? And why was I born?"

Well, that's disappointing abut Petra. I really liked her in these 2 books.

Not sure if I'll read anymore. I tried reading u Pastwatch a long, long time ao, but just couldn't get into it.

OSC pissed Joe off a couple of months ago with some article - I never read it - about how he supported W and the war, etc et etc. Or summat.

Um, Mormon church -- quite homophobic.

I tried reading u Pastwatch a long, long time ao, but just couldn't get into it.

See, I rather liked it... sort of. That is to say, I really enjoyed the idea, but wasn't thrilled by the writing.

Fred it is, and misogynst too. But there are Mormons who oppose to homophobia. And Reid is not exactly a liberal Democrat (though not a far right one either). I'm not defending the "Latter Day Saints" - just not allowing it be used as either excuse or full explanation for loony views.

Oh, now I feel bad by dropping that into the thread and disappearing. I should say that I stopped reading Card before I became aware of his politics: his writing simply stopped working for me. The politics has made me less likely to pick him up again, but then I wasn't likely too, anyway.

To change the topic. I just finished reading a fantasy series by someone who is also a ficwriter, although I didn't know that when I started reading the series. This has caused some wonkiness in my brain, because now that I know this, I'm mapping two of the characters in her original novels onto the television characters--and frankly, one of them fits perfectly. Down to the name being kind of similar. Now, I've not read her fic in that universe, but I remember thinking there was an awful lot of unwritten backstory to these people when they showed up in the first novel. Apparently I was right.

Not really sure how I feel about this. This is, in fact, the second time I've witnessed it from a novelist who is also a fan. I find it a bit disconcerting; but on the other hand, if the story works regardless, it's okay.

Hmm.

Irish Breakfast tea:

Great essay here about the genre ghetto and reclaiming 'fantasy' as a label. [link]