Post History
I think an author's personal stance can absolutely be a deal-breaker. I won't buy or read anything more from Orson Scott Card now that I know about his raging homophobia. It would be an endorsement...
Answer
#4: Attribution notice removed
by
System
·
2019-12-13T12:00:41Z (about 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/25755 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#3: Attribution notice added
by
System
·
2019-12-08T05:51:25Z (about 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/25755 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision
I think an author's personal stance can absolutely be a deal-breaker. I won't buy or read anything more from Orson Scott Card now that I know about his raging homophobia. It would be an endorsement of his views. (So this would be a counter-example to @MarkBaker's third point.) I could never completely separate an artist and his/her art, if for no other reason than money talks. It's the same reason I won't shop at certain stores: I'm expressing my positions with my wallet. I won't have anything more to do with Woody Allen, OJ Simpson, or Roman Polanski for similar reasons. If the book is semi-autobiographical, it's even more of a reason to join artist to work and to consider both when making the decision to read/watch/listen etc. If you as a writer are concerned about your personal views offending your audience, well, have the courage of your convictions. If you really believe whatever it is, there will be those who agree with you and those who don't. Your compatriots will buy your book and your detractors won't. There's no way to say which side is bigger without knowing the controversy in question.
#1: Imported from external source
by
System
·
2016-12-30T21:23:29Z (almost 8 years ago)
Original score: 1