by VorJack
So it seems that Anne Rice still loves her some Jesus, but she’s calling it quits with Christianity. She says, “It’s simply impossible for me to ‘belong’ to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group.”
Being called “deservedly infamous” by the author of gothic vampire novels and s&m stories must sting a bit.
I doubt she cares, but she’s managed to make folks on both sides a bit huffy. Hemant gets cranky at people who try to distance themselves from Christianity, while still being, you know, Christian. And of course, many Christians are irritated that Anne Rice isn’t acknowledging that there are other types of Christianity that aren’t anti-gay, anti-woman’s equality, and so forth. Has she never heard of the Episcopal Church or the UCC?
Does knowing a writer’s (or director’s, or actor’s, etc) religious belief affect your enjoyment of their work? Will you refuse to buy a book from an author whose beliefs you strongly disagree with?
The only time the writer’s beliefs matter is when it show up in their work. For instance, I wouldn’t be caught dead listening to christian music because it has strong christian overtones. *However*, I would have no problems listening to a non-christian song by the same artist(Assuming it’s not bad in and of itself).
I feel the same way as DDM. I enjoy the Penny Arcade web comic and am impressed by their charity, but I had to stop watching their web videos because of their religious rubbish.
I’m still curious as to why anyone gives a shit about anything Anne Rice has to say at this point, regardless of the subject matter.
Of course, this takes us to the argument about whether anyone can really call themselves a Christian if they disagree with any part of the bible. That leaves almost no-one to call Christian.
I must say I can’t stand Christianity in fantasy novels. It strikes of a very narrow and uncreative worldview when you can not even conceive of another faith but your own.
Does knowing a writer’s (or director’s, or actor’s, etc) religious belief affect your enjoyment of their work?
It can help to understand why an author chooses to use one set of symbolism instead of another, and whether they are using those symbols straight or ironically. Otherwise, not really.
Will you refuse to buy a book from an author whose beliefs you strongly disagree with?
No.
I stopped buying Anne Rice books years ago because she sued fans who wrote fan fiction for violating her copyright. So yeah, knowing a writer’s personal beliefs can influence me to stop buying their work. I love me some Orson Scott Card but I’ve had a hard time making myself buy anything new of his since I found out what a douchenozzle he is to his fans in person. Used books only on both counts. I do applaud Ms. Rice for denouncing the crazier members of Christianity, though, even if there were other things she could have done that might have been better.
Depends on how obvious it is. To use the glaringly obvious example, but when a Mormon writes a book in which a teenage girl falls instantly in love with an (deeply creepy, unpleasant stalker) old man and immediately wants to spend her whole life with him (yet the subject of fucking is never raised), then you’re into the territory of religious quirks that are dangerous being written about as though they’re normal. I’ll let Mark read shit like that for me, so I don’t have to.
Mark read for your sins!
I wouldn’t refuse to support an artist just because I disagree with their views. If the views and the art were intertwined to where support for the artist would automatically include support for their religion or pet cause then I’d have to examine those views and determine on an individual basis whether the art was good enough to outweigh the cost.
For example, Kevin Smith and Mel Gibson are both catholic (the religious belief I disagree most strongly with), but I could buy a ticket to a Kevin Smith film without feeling dirty and violated like I just bought a ticket to a Mel Gibson film or something.
Actually, I would stop buying/reading books by authors if I strogly oppossed what they believe,especially if what they believe is truly ahborent to me. Generally I don’t run into the issue to often as mild beliefs,or mild espousals of belief seems to be the norm rather than those with extreme belifs that affect their work. Granted this is not always the case, but more often than not extremists seem to cloak their work poorly if at all. Two authors I will not read anything by because of their beliefs(or secondary money machine in one case) would be L.Ron Hubbard of dianetics and scientology and Orson Scott Card( of the intense virulent form of Mormonisim he seems to espouse,mostly outside of his fiction). I will admit though,if Hubbard hadn’t been a hack and I enjoyed anything I had read by him in my youth perhaps I would read his books, more or less I feel the same about Card,yet in his case he just seemed to take things others had already done and at best tweak them a touch therefore I found him derivitive of better writers at best and mildly plageristic at worst.
The author’s beliefs really mean nothing to me. I have enjoyed Tom Kratman’s politically charged works (heavily neo-con) and Orson Scott Card’s religiously tinted fiction. I like Mel Gibson’s movies, for the most part. I DON’T like L.Ron’s stuff because, well, he’s just not that good a writer.
Is the book good? Is the movie good? This is the meter by which I measure the work.
Sundog,I get your point, and I disliked the works by the people long before I knew anything else about them,it just so happens that in their case ideals and reality meet perfectly for me…it’s not like I go out and do research on every author I read either(or artists of any medium,unless I like them, for instance I read up a bit on Johnny Cash because I liked him,and his relegious beliefs didn’t have any effect on my enjoying his music.Yet, I will say I think in films,music and ‘art’ particularly it’s easier to divide the artists beliefs from an enjoyment of the work than that of authors whom often inject so much of themselves into what they write,after all it’s said write what you know, but I can’t think of a similar phrase about the other 3). Again though in the end this is just the way I feel and think,it’s not like this question has a right or wrong response,lol.
Oh, quite so. Many things go into the enjoyment of any work of art, different for everyone. I totally agree that there is no one “right” answer to this question; only what is important to those answering.
The author’s beliefs are irrelevant–unless it permeates their work fictional works & preaches at me. I suspect that many writers (actors/artists/musicians), whose work we enjoy/admire, hold beliefs that we disagree with. It would be tragic if we ignored their “art” simply because we do not share their ideas.
I don’t know about authors but there are a few actors that overshadow their roles for me. Tom Cruise and Mel Gibson.
Doesn’t matter to me. It doesn’t even matter if it’s apart of the subject matter –as long as they tell a good story, then that’s what I’m into.
Maybe if it’s some nonsense that is very racist, homophobic, sexist, etc, then I might be less inclined to read it (with that said, I could still read something like that). However if I were to choose to not read any book just because they’re a Christian and I’m not; I’d find it quite hypocritical.
For example I like Maya Angelou, V.S. Naipaul and a host of others. I couldn’t care less what they personally believe. As long as they weave a good story then I’m in.
Art is art. No matter what inspired the beauty, you have to still be able to find it beautiful.
I don’t find most Christian things beautiful, though. At least, absolutely -nothing- modern that was inspired by belief in a deity. Some of the religious art in the middle ages were pretty phenomenal, regardless of the inspiration behind them.
Writers, actors, singers – if they have shown they are complete vermin or that they are bats**t insane, I will avoid them most of the time.
I have not seen a new Mel Gibson or Tom Cruise movie since each of them went off the wall. I will turn off any program (and commercial) with Ben Stein in it since he showed himself to be both evil, duplicitous, and bats**t insane in the way he handled his “Expelled”. Toby Keith – radio gets a new station immediately. Victoria Jackson? Hers is the picture the Oxford English Dictionary will put next to their definition of “bats**t insane”.
FWIW – I enjoy christian fiction. I listen to the soundtracks of “Godspell” and “Jesus Christ Superstar” quite a bit. “Ben Hur” is a classic for a good reason – it is a great movie. And some of my favorite books growing up (and now) are the Chronicles of Narnia. Shoot – I’ve even enjoyed the two Narnia movies so far.
But before any christians get any ideas of my turning to their dark side, I am also a big fan of Lord of the Rings (books and movies), Star Wars (Episodes 4, 5, 6), and Harry Potter (again, both books and movies), yet I do not see myself suddenly owning a belief in magic or The Force, or heading out to Walmart for Bertie Bott’s Every Flavor Beans…
Those Bertie Bott Every Flavor Beans are pretty amusing though… Yum, boogers!
This.
Ditto!
If a celebrity is f**ked in the head — politically, religiously, beating their girlfriend/wife, luring children to their playground estates — it absolutely affects how I feel about supporting them. Everything they do from that point on becomes tainted. I simply will not patronize them.
The same rule would apply to people in the normal outside world, too. Artists shouldn’t get a pass.
I ABSOLUTELY refuse to spend my hard earned money to line some koo-koo assh*le’s pockets. I will not give my money to support any “artist” of any kind (writer, actor, sculptor, etc) who spews hate/rubbish or who has seriously hurt other people (like Polanski). Why should they get rich off of us? Why should they have that kind of freedom and power when they are bad people? Hellz no! That money belongs in MY pocket. It is MY freedom and power.
If an artist’s work is really art that will stand the test of time, then I might consider checking it out after the person is dead and can no longer benefit from it. Yes, art is art, but it is also a commodity.
With you on this actually. As consumers we have the power, particularly over holywood, to put people out of work – if enough people refuse to pay to watch a Polanski movie or anything with Mel Gibson in it, the studios will stop paying them, and that suits me just fine.
Since Michael Jackson’s death, I know longer feel guilty about liking his old music. When I hear it played, I can sing along and remember how it links to moments in my childhood rather than shudder at what he became while changing the station.
hello! still waking up! know=no. duh!
Come and help me b*tch-slap this John McCalister teabagger over on the ground-zero Mosque thread, you’ll perk right up :D
Yet I must ask – can a work of art not transcend it’s creator? Or even it’s subject?
Two of the greatest and most influential films of the twentieth century were Olympia and Triumph of the Will, by Leni Riefenstahl. They are beautiful, majestic and powerful pieces – and it would not be wrong to say they celebrate the existence of one of the foulest regimes in history, Nazi Germany. Would you consider enjoying them “support” for something no sane person could consider worthy?
I can’t really answer that because I haven’t seen them.
Two of the greatest and most influential films of the twentieth century were Olympia and Triumph of the Will, by Leni Riefenstahl.
They were very influential pieces, especially on the technical side, and perhaps great for their time. However, it is a long distance between appreciating the technical merits or even the aesthetic of a work and appreciating the work-in-itself.
But when I saw Olympia, I was simply thrilled. It was marvellous, breathtaking, amazing – and that was with subtitles, I don’t speak German.
I appreciated the technical side, yes, but the work itself was WONDERFUL. And it took me quite a while to reconcile those feelings with my distaste for Nazism – it was something I had to consider deeply about myself. To me, that WAS a case of transcendent art – art that went beyond it’s subject.
Someone saw my 9′ poster of ‘Tomb Raider’ and said ‘You an Angelina fan?’ and I replied ‘No I’m in lust with Lara Croft!’ Which is the main point as I have always known there is the actor and the character. Yes most characters do have some of the actors personality but they are usually under control of the director and the script. So yes I often read books and watch movies whose writers/actors are less then good people. But you can see this same effect in sports, as there are many sports people you do very well professionally but as people they are real schite for brains crazy.
ALL personalities should not be accepted as role models just because they are personalities.
I think consuming content from people/artists/writer/bloggers with whom you disagree is very important to being a well-rounded person.
So you’re going to give your money to Benny Hinn? To Scientology? To Roman Polanski?
These people are morally reprehensible, but you want to make them *more* powerful with stronger voices by giving them money? Really???
Nah, you pirate their stuff. That way, you don’t support them, and yet still are enriched by exposure.
Those aren’t exactly the people I had in mind … I was just making a general statement about what’s true for me. Of course, there are exceptions. And no, I would not give my money to them.
But, I never said anything about paying anyone for content. I’m not a pirate myself, but there are plenty of ways to access completely free content for the people you just mentioned regardless. E.g., I read several atheist blogs, such as this one, frequently. That’s more what I had in mind than supporting Benny Hinn’s tv programs.
Yes and no.
I will buy nonfiction books from authors with religion, provided I have some reasonable expectation that the book will truly be non-fiction, and not religious nonsense pushed forward as truth.
I will buy fiction books (and other “seriously creative” works, such as music) from religious authors only if I don’t know about their religion. I take the stance that if I know their religion, it has become an issue, which means they probably bang you over the head with it at some point in their work, and I don’t feel like dealing with that sort of thing.
Oh, and I feel very ambivalent about the Penny Arcade charity mentioned above, because it gives overpriced entertainment to people whose lives are not in danger. Every dollar donated to them, whether it’s in the form of money or in games you have purchased, is a dollar not being given to a charity which really saves people’s lives. It’s a kindhearted idea, but unthinkingly cruel.
Frankly, most of the time – except for a few artists – I know nothing at all about who created what I’m currently reading, watching or listening to. When I look at art, most of the time, unless I actually like it a lot, the person who created it doesn’t matter – the art does. One of the reasons why I rarely ever know the name of musicians or even know how they look like. I just don’t care about them, I care about their music.
Now, if I do get to know about the person, I probably will be put off about their art – I’ll be biased. I don’t think I’ll ever be able to see a Polanski movie the same way, knowing it is Polanski’s. Hell, I probably wouldn’t see it on principle (or I’d pirate it, nyah). Mel Gibson’s someone I never truly liked. Tom Cruise is harder, because the movie itself usually has nothing to do with him personally – he’s just a piece in something larger. One of the reasons I haven’t read C. S. Lewis yet is his lametastic apologetics. I’m a bit put off by it. I read Orson Scott Card before I knew he was batsh*t.
Then again, bar the truly batsh*t, dangerous or criminal – different point of views don’t bother me in the least. I did read The Shack, after all (and found it outrageously inane). Unless they’re actually, actively harmful, who cares?
I’m sort of with Hemant. Rice claims she’s “not a Christian,” yet is still “committed to Christ.” Sorry. Doesn’t work. The definition of “Christian” is someone who “follows Christ” — or “is committed to Christ,” or whatever other euphemism one wishes to cook up.
I find it surprising that a professional writer has difficulty with the definitions of words, but there you go.
She seems to fall into the common misconception that “Christianity = organized Christianity.” That equation fails, however. It’s possible to be a Christian but belong to NO “Christian organization” at all. The same is true of pretty much every religion you can name. “Organization” is NOT a criterion for religion … there is such a thing as “solitary practitioners” as well as small, independent, ad hoc groups of practitioners.
Rice should summon the courage to admit that’s what she is now … a “solitary practitioner” of Christianity. I get that she doesn’t want to be associated with the “typical” Christian and is trying to shed that name, but too bad … if the shoe fits, she should wear it.
Her Vampire Lestat books were entertaining, but I stopped reading her books when I first heard about her beliefs. As others already wrote above, I don’t want to give someone like that my money. I feel the same about the various actors, like Tom Cruise, who are Scientologists.
On the matter of the ‘following Christ but not being Christian,’ I’ve heard that song and dance many times from Christians who are understandably ashamed of the behavior of many of their co-religionists. When you point out to them the inconsistencies and horrible teachings of the Bible, they respond with, ‘Oh, I just follow the words of Jesus,’ or something to that effect. Yeah, whatever – they’re basically just trying to have their cake and eat it, too.
Okay, it’s time to address this. There is no reason why you cannot have your cake and eat it too. What are you supposed to do with a cake, anyway? Look at it until it goes stale? What’s the point of a cake if you can’t eat it, either? That analogy is terrible. Really awful.
Good, I’m glad someone else noticed this. The correct expression is “You can’t eat your cake and have it too.” In other words, you cannot eat a cake, but then still possess it, once you’ve done so.
I heard then the expression is to eat your cake and have it too. You can’t eat it and then still have it. I sympathize, there are a number of delicious foods I eat and then get sad I can’t eat more of it because it’s all gone because I ate it, two more bites or standing in the fridge ready for me to eat it. Of course the analogy is regarding cherry-pickers who think the bible is the divine word of god, but only the parts they like. Is what you like to be true true, or is the bible the divine word of god? Where did one get the ability to disregard whole hunks of the bible in favor of parts they like? I guess it’s kind of nice that Rice distances herself from the extreme hateful Christians. It’s somewhat refreshing for a supposedly moderate Christian to say what is wrong with her religion rather than what we’re used to, someone moderate defending Christian beliefs no matter how extreme to atheists.
Once again, I do not understand the cherry-picking moderate though. It’s kind of crazy to read this and say, good for you Anne Rice, step in the right direction, and go back over it with the idea she supported these beliefs she’s now against a couple hours earlier. I never read her books anyway, so I guess it doesn’t matter that much to me. If you can see the bible for the foul hate-mongering falseness it is, but only partially, why stop there? That boggles me.
To answer the actual question, I don’t normally have any idea what beliefs someone has before I read, look at, or listen to their work. It might be clear, it might not be clear, after I consume it. I know a couple musicians I like who seem to be Christian after listening to a sample of their work, but if I like it, I listen to it again, if I don’t like it, I don’t. There have only been a handful of artists who I become disappointed to find out they actually believe this nonsense, god and/or jesus and/or heaven, I still read/look at/listen to artists but I feel a little let down when I do, not that I should expect my good taste to be drawn mysteriously toward artists who are also atheists; Christians of all flavors outnumber us, so they are producing works that I probably like, and I don’t just like a work of an atheist better if he or she is an atheist — that would be quite the same as Christians listening only to Christian-themed rock instead of mainstream fare. There are other artists I have no expectations, so if they believe, it doesn’t bother me as much. I am thinking of the song by Iris DeMent, “50 Miles of Elbow Room” and how I sing along with it in the car, it doesn’t bother me. I am only guessing at her beliefs to include such a song on her album that I bought and don’t bother to dig into it, see if she’s one of those hateful creationist gay-haters. Hey, I want 50 miles of elbow room, I don’t care if it’s a reference to heaven, it’s a good song that’s fun to sing along with. A friend I made on the internet a few years ago made a compilation of music from his collection for me, and I deduced a number of works to be also about god/jesus and/or heaven, but those are also some of my favorite songs. He knew I was an atheist and I don’t believe he was trying to get me to convert from listening to music. I think he just likes music, really odd stuff I wouldn’t have heard if I didn’t know him.
I would have to be made pretty well aware to avoid someone’s art on principle, like your Roman Polanski, Tom Cruise, or Mel Gibson. Unfortunately for a lot of things, I consume goods and services in general until there’s a real public noise about something I might ought to boycott on principle.
Absolutely affects the way I enjoy the books. Even in fiction it’s tough to figure out what questions the author might be interested in, what symbols to look out for and what they might mean. One of my favorite writers ever is Gene Wolfe, who’s Catholic, and that sure didn’t stop me from liking him. A newer writer that I discovered is China Mieville; an atheist I believe, but also apparently a hardcore socialist (I’m capitalist-libertarian) but I don’t care, cause the boy can write. I use these two specifically because Mieville mentions that he looks Wolfe despite their diametric opposition in ideology. If a religious writer (or anyone with a cultural/ideological background very different from mine) would put together a novel based on themes that I find boring, pointless or incoherent since I don’t share the assumptions or focus, then I wouldn’t read it.
You might find Iron Council hard going, Michael. I’m somewhat left wing, and I found the preachyness of his descriptions of the Glorious Workers Revolution mighty tiring. The Scar just rocks, though!
(The City and The City is awesome, though….I was disappointed by the ending)
I have some sympathy with Anne – having your coreligionists threaten to kill your son can dampen your spiritual high. She just needs to come up with her own version of Christianity. Perhaps one in which the priests are slim angsty young men who have bromances, where the churches are decadently gothic, and where the sacraments are really bloody. That would be the wholesome part. Worshiping a celibate man turned zombie would be the kink.
“It’s simply impossible for me to ‘belong’ to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group.”
Wow. The irony is simply blinding.
No, it doesn’t….with regards to art, music, and movies…I’m a huge Charleston Heston fan…The Ten Commandments and Ben Hur, two great movies and superb acting.
However, I do not subscribe to Mr. Heston’s politics or religious beliefs.
With that in mind, I can still separate enjoyment and escapism from my personal life and convictions. I hope others can as well, if not, there is a lot of excellent ART that you will miss…
I would be bothered mainly if the author’s beliefs are such that repellant elements influence the plot. for instance; I’ve never been a fan of the Ender’s Game stories.
For me, it’s not so much an intentional boycott as much as a growing, semi-conscious distaste. I don’t intentionally avoid Woody Allen movies or Jean Claude van Damme movies, but I just can’t get past the fact that this otherwise funny or appealing character sleeps with his adopted daughter or beats the shit out of his wife or whatever.
It really depends with me. I haven’t watched anything from Mel Gibson since Passion of the Christ.
Woody Allen, though his personal life seems kooky, is funny to me so haven’t stopped that. It’s more a matter of if they’re work shows personal beliefs or attitudes that I find distasteful. I read the Honor Harrington series, even though some of its politics can get annoying and seem to have strawmen themes or characters heavily at times. On the other hand, I have Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card but haven’t read it, because I’m too aware of his personal beliefs, which I’m very opposed to. Still I might get around to reading it. I don’t know how much it features in his work.
I don’t read Ann Rice much, but that’s mostly because I’m not a huge fan of her writing. I recently found out Orson Scott Card is a homophobic jerkhead, so I don’t plan on buying anymore of his books (and, by extension, supporting him), but if I get one on loan, I’d probably read it. I wouldn’t read Glenn Beck or Stephanie Meyer unless I was being paid good money (preferably to eviscerate their writing), but that’s (again) because their writing style is nauseating and painful (I did make the mistake of reading some of Beck’s blog posts and Meyer’s Twilight. Never again.)
Thing is, I strongly disagree with at least one of these author’s beliefs/ social views (Card), but he’s a great writer. Very talented and incredibly amazing. I dislike the man, but I love the writing. I can still read and enjoy Ender’s Game — I just feel a vague regret that I spent money on it, and thereby supported a bigoted homophobe.
On the flip side, I used to love the movie Braveheart, but it’s been completely ruined by Mel Gibson’s shenanigans. And I can’t watch Tom Crusie movies at all. I’m just nauseated by the guy. I can’t separate their in-your-face, real-world, public personas from the characters they play on-screen. I have a vaguely similar problem with Skeet Ulrich — great actor, I actually really like him, but he’s creepily similar in looks and facial expression to an ex-boyfriend. The visual aspect of these actors substantially detracts from any real enjoyment in their work.