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]

I win the Conflicted Prize, though. Because I'm a feminist. And a James Ellroy fan. I hate how he writes women, like a lot. Had a hate-on all through L.A. Confidential(and one day one of my women will smack a man, just for parity's sake) But I happened upon an essay of his in some magazine and the descriptions knocked me back. I wanted to lie to myself about it, too, but that is a talent, if not a talent I'd trust with my panty drawer. And this is not like the Roth thing...I'm not gonna be able to even pick out one passage to say he's not a misogynist...maybe I could say that he doesn't think humanity, as a whole is worth the sweat it took to conceive us(Which, if I truly believed that, I'd kill myself, so it's not even a like-finding-like thing.) I don't even understand that, but there it is.