I’ve recently learned about the slate voting problem in this year’s Hugo Awards, especially by two groups of conservative science fiction writers: the Sad Puppies and the Rabid Puppies. These two groups seem to feel feel white, heterosexual males are under attack and are being under-represented in speculative fiction awards. I’m going to table the ridiculousness of that statement, which is verifiably false, as well as some of the more offensive nonsense being spouted by certain members of this group. (Some Puppies are the also the viler #Gamergate folks, and frankly fuck that too.) But I’m setting all that aside because I’m more interested in asking a question: Should we be reading work by authors whose political and personal values contradict our own? [UPDATE: I have modified this paragraph slightly as I have learned more about the issue and gone deeper into both sides. You can see the original at the end of the blog post.]
First, it’s probably important that I make my own views clear:
- against war
- for diversity in the arts
- against laissez-faire capitalism
- for a well-regulated social safety net
- against money in politics
- for equality (regardless of gender, religion, race, or sexual identity)
- against religious fundamentalism
- for freedom of choice (including speech, religion, and lifestyle so long as it doesn’t harm anyone non-consenting in the process)
I’m aware that these beliefs put me firmly on the political and ideological left, and I self-identify as a liberal or progressive. The truth is probably more complex than that, as the truth tends to be, but I’m not going to waste too much time on hair splitting. Let’s just say I have an accumulated set of beliefs that favor compassion over competition.
So imagine my disappointment when I learned about how vocal Orson Scott Card is about being anti-gay, especially against same-sex marriage. I loved Ender’s Game, and it’s still in my top ten for science fiction novels. But I found the author’s personal views abhorrent, especially in light of the story of Ender Wiggins: a boy who is bullied, pushed around, and ultimately broken. I see a lot of echoes of the prejudice LGTBQ people suffer all the time. I’m conflicted. (He did write a non-apology in the wake of the film version of Ender’s Game being boycotted. Read it here.)
John C. Wright has held similarly anti-gay stances and has spoken up against homosexuality before. Again, surprise and disappointment. I loved The Golden Age, and in a society where even one’s humanity and fundamental mind patterns are a matter of flipping switch, I had thought that anything would go. But none of that gay stuff. I’m still conflicted. (Sadly, he has removed some of his less palatable blog posts, though he has written this response to the Hugos kerfuffle.) [UPDATE: Mr. Wright has responded to this blog post and disputes some of the content of this paragraph. I’m leaving it as originally written for now, but please feel free to follow our conversation below.]
I grew up reading Terry Goodkind’s The Sword of Truth series. Goodkind was distinctly hawkish in his writing and justified war and violence constantly. I eventually stopped reading the series not because of its ideology, but because it violated a fundamental principle of good writing — Chainfire was a novel-length introduction to the next novel. Combined with the proselytizing for the use of force, I gave up. Not so conflicted.
When it comes to Vox Day, Rabid Puppy extraordinaire, I’m not at all conflicted. On his blog, I’ve read him rail against perceived liberal conspiracies. There was also at least one article calling into question the value of giving women the vote. I’ve yet to read any of his fiction, but it was so burned in such an epic manner, I just couldn’t bring myself to do it. (John Scalzi referred to his 2014 Hugo-nominated novelette as “like Gene Wolfe strained through a thick and rancid cheesecloth of stupid.”) But I’ll admit that I’ve neither read his fiction nor met him personally. He may be a great writer and a real peach of a human being, though his blog doesn’t give me that impression.
And this brings me back around to my question: Even though I find these people’s personal views objectionable, should I be reading their work?
And the answer is: Yes.
I’m a progressive, an atheist, even a scientist after a fashion, and all those things are based on one fundamental principle: facts. Facts are best gathered by a broader perspective, which helps eliminate a lot of the selection bias I see in mainstream media. (I’m looking at you, Fox News.) As progressives, as liberals, or just as educated human beings, we can’t just ignore the far-right and just hope it goes away. We need to engage, preferably by taking a good long look at the work they produce and try to find some common ground. This “us” versus “them” mentality has to stop. On both sides.
Any reader or writer calling for more diversity is obligated to read these books. In addition to being a liberal, I’m also a heterosexual white English-speaking male raised in a Western upper-middle-class environment. To say that I identify with the stories of conservative writers is putting in mildly. I enjoy a rollicking good tale and can look the other way on unrealistically weak female characters as part of that particular story or trope. I also read stories by great female writers and writers of diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Sometimes, I even force myself to do so and deliberately seek out other voices and perspectives to add to my own personal experience.
Reading everything is the only authentic thing a liberal or progressive reader can do. Does that mean I’m going out to buy the latest offering by Bill O’Reilly? Hell no. There are limits to my tolerance. But will I re-read Ender’s Game or The Golden Age? Absolutely. Do I agree with the authors? Absolutely not. But a good read is about more than just the author, it’s about the story. So while I plan to judge writing for its own merits, and enter into an entirely different dialogue on the potential shortcomings of its author. Could putting an agenda ahead of a story make it a shitty story? Absolutely. But I have the same problem with far-left themes.
In that vein, I’d be happy to engage with a conservative author about the gender- and sexuality-bending future of my story Into Stillness. Or debate any of my other closely held beliefs. Just know that I’m not interested in slinging insults back and forth. I’ll walk away from that shit as quick as I walk away from a bad story.
*[DELETED FIRST PARAGRAPH: I’ve recently learned about the recent “ballot stuffing” or “bloc voting” problem in this year’s Hugo Awards, especially by two groups of conservative science fiction writers: the Sad Puppies and the Rabid Puppies. These two groups feel white, heterosexual males are under attack and are being under-represented in speculative fiction awards. I’m going to table the ridiculousness of that statement, which is verifiably false, as well as some of the more offensive nonsense being spouted by this group of conservative artists. (Some of these writers and fans are the same asshats as those Gamergate folks, and frankly fuck them too.) But I’m setting all that aside because I’m more interested in asking a question: Should we be reading work by authors whose political and personal values contradict our own? ]
I'm a writer, editor, nerd, and foul-mouthed cheerleader of creative people everywhere. When not trying to force words to do my bidding, I'm a husband and father. 
Just for the record, there was homosexuality in the society depicted in THE GOLDEN AGE, but it did not occur among the Silver Gray Manorials, who had deliberately adopted the values and customs promoted by the English Victorians. There are also more sexes than the two we know here and now: I thought that was perfectly clear from the text.
Just for the record, I don’t hate gays. I hate lies. When someone lies about gays, and tells them their choice of lifestyle is harmless and fruitful, and tells them that my objection to their practices is based on hate, I hate the lies being told.
Please do not join in those lies. Do not misunderstand me and do not say things about me that are not true.
Thank you for your expression of tolerance. True toleration of a divergence of opinion is more rare than you know.
Mr. Wright,
Thank you so much for responding. I read your comment and spent half my treadmill time in giddy fanboy mode. I spent the other half of my treadmill time mildly miffed at the tone. The rest of the workout was devoted to a response. I have a great deal of respect for your work, and I wanted to give a lucid response to your comment.
If I misread the text of your book, please let me know where I can find references to homosexuality. I specifically didn’t recall transgender references, so I was careful to leave it out. Regardless of whether I receive a response or not, THE GOLDEN AGE is next in my reading queue and I’ll correct any errors I’ve made.
As for lies… I really don’t get where you’re coming from. I used the word “anti-gay,” meaning “opposed to gayness/gay lifestyles,” which I think is fully supported by your comment. Not once did I refer to hate. There are also fundamental disagreements we have there, like the idea of “choice of lifestyle” and your implication that homosexuality is both fruitless and harmful. Genetic evidence is against the “choice” in sexuality, and anecdotal evidence (such as our heterosexuality) also points to the fact that these preferences aren’t a choice. I never chose to be straight, just as you likely didn’t. As for fruit and harm, I think that in a world of over-population and dwindling resources, non-breeding couples are a good thing. (Sorry for the crassness, LGTBQ folks, but I’m making a point.) And modern science does allow for homosexual couples to conceive biological children. So I don’t get where you’re coming from there.
Now, I very clearly disagree with you here, but I’m also very clearly publishing this comment. I whole-heartedly support your right to say things that I disagree with, and I’m happy to engage you in civil discourse. I’d also like to wish you all the best in life, love, and literature. I’m looking forward to getting back into Phaethon’s story and seeing where it goes.
Your comment is an oasis of sanity in the midst of a wasteland of madness, and so I thank you deeply for that. My stepsister’s biological father divorced my stepmother to pursue his dreams of a rewarding homosexual lifestyle, leaving his infant son and daughter, and abandoning his responsibilities as a father. He later committed suicide. It is my belief, based on both spoken comments and unspoken hints, that his disappointment in what he had been promised by modern thinkers like, with all due respect, yourself, telling him his choice was not a choice, telling him he could find satisfaction and happiness in a sterile and unnatural relationship by indulging rather than resisting his impulses, is what led to his death. If I an less than fully sympathetic to your view, that is why. You are like a man who offers a drink to a drunkard before driving. No doubt there is a genetic component to driving, but whether you tell the drunkard it is safe to drink and that alcohol will make him happy is not genetic: that is something you have decided. I mean you no disrespect, but I cannot see that decision as anything but utterly heartless. Certainly you are not the friend of the drunk, but his enemy.
There are no explicit references to homosexuality in THE GOLDEN AGE for the same reason there are no explicit references to racism. In that near-utopia, where anyone can swap sexes or species, change his psychology or body at will, it is never an issue. Off the topic of my head, I believe Gannis has both male and female bodies, and I believe mention is made in passing of Phaethon and Daphne traveling among a subterranean schola where they have seven sexes, not two, and taking on their forms while among them. JCJW
It seems that we have reached an impasse. We both have our own opposing deeply held beliefs, and since neither is likely to sway the other and our conclusions come from different places. I would argue that this person connected to you would have felt despair because of the prejudices against his lifestyle, which could have left fewer choices for him in his behavior. In a more tolerant environment, he wouldn’t have to abandon his children from societal pressures. Nor is suicide or abandonment a strictly homosexual behavior. That, however, will be the last salvo from me on the matter. A final rebuttal, if you will, at least for readers so that people are clear on both of our positions.
I’d certainly like to change the subject to something we could both enjoy more, if only to clear the bad tastes from our mouths, so I’d like to ask more about your writing. Of your work, what is your favorite? I”m always looking to add to my already extensive to-read list.
“In a more tolerant environment, he wouldn’t have to abandon his children from societal pressures.”
That is an outrageous lie. He abandoned his children, sir, and shame on you for throwing the blame on anyone else but he.
“I would argue that this person connected to you would have felt despair because of the prejudices against his lifestyle,”
But you did not know him and I did. You do not even know his name. You share the sad modern propensity of judging without even the slightest shred of evidence.
And yet you feel no shame when you hold forth on a topic where you are utterly ignorant, talking to me about my own life and my own family, but instead you feel considerable vainglory.
You may, if you wish, withdraw from the conversation and declare the differences insoluble: so be it. That is a self fulfilling prophecy on your part.
I am grateful that you are sane and courteous. We can be civil in our disagreement, and that is rare and precious.
My favorite work from my own pen is ‘One Bright Star to Guide Them’ which, by the gracious whim of fate, is on the slate for a Hugo nomination this year.
But if you are looking for high quality work, there are authors better than I. I recommend ‘Fifth Head of Cerberus’ by Gene Wolfe, and also his Book of the New Sun series and his Books of the Short Sun series; and then I recommend his eerie epistolary novel THE SORCERER’S HOUSE.
This is assuming you have read your fill of Jack Vance, Olaf Stapledon, AE van Vogt, EE ‘Doc’ Smith, and Robert Heinlein juveniles.
Mr. Wright,
Your response prompted some soul searching – or the atheist equivalent – and some wrestling with my pride. You are absolutely right in that it was not my place to comment on your family situation. I am ignorant of the facts, and it was presumptuous of me be apply generalities and my own perception of reality to a specific situation. I apologize, sincerely and without reservation.
Now I have an urge to make some other comment, to try to get the last word in, but I won’t. That’s my emotional immaturity showing through. Instead, I’ll thank you for the reading suggestions and wish you luck in the Hugos this year.
I accept the apology with considerable relief and pleasure. Thank you for being a civilized man.
Really blown away by your dialogue gentlemen. You may not have changed my opinions but you have gone a long way toward restoring my faith in humanity. An intelligent, civil and thought provoking exchanges of ideas, on the Internet? I didn’t think it could happen. I applaud you and I have also added Mr. Wright’s work to my reading list.