Points of View

Did all of August slip by without me writing a post? Wow. The middle of September is rapidly approaching.

I'm writing this in the new Google internet browser, Chrome. So far, I like it. It's very similar to Firefox, but I am not sure which one I will continue to use. The point to that is that I am not sure how the formatting will look, but it should be fine...after all Google also owns Blogger's parent company. I have noticed some sites being unresponsive: Facebook and Wired so far.

I've already made it clear which blogs I typically read. I found this off Wired maybe a week or 2 ago, and it raised an interesting point. One of my favorite childhood books was Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card. Think of it as Starship Troopers for kids, but less military oriented. Orson Scott Card, who has written over two dozen SciFi, fantasy, and religion related books in multiple series, and has written as a commentator for various political and religious events.

As a writer, Card is very passionate with either fiction or non-fiction. One glance at the bottom of his Wikipedia page chronicles them better than I can. I turn my attention to his article that was highlighted in the Wired article, which can be found at Mormon Times, a website that Card identifies with. He is a member of the Church of LDS (Latter Day Saints). Fine. Normally, at least for me, I don't care about anything personal about authors I read. White, Black, Asian, Mixed, Albino, Male, Female, Transgender, Jewish, Muslim, LDS, Christian, Wicca - All Fine By Me. I usually just care about when the next publishing is going to be.

When an author uses his "celebrity status" to endorse certain view points, like this one when Card calls anything pro-gay coming from the "propaganda mill." It upsets me to see someone so against a view. Propaganda is going to be spewed from either side in a major argument. But comparing Gay Marriage to abortion is absurd. They are totally different, the only thing they have in common is that 50 years ago they were all hush hush.

I can't really say enough how disappointed I am that Card has written like this, even if it was meant just for a Mormon audience. My question is: Do we read because the author is outrageous or his idea/story is outrageous. A (bad) example: OJ Simpson's unreleased book If I Did It was inflammatory. But was it such a big deal because of who wrote it, or the subject matter? Tom Clancy is not what I would think of as an inflaming writer. He writes military related stories - and usually meets our exceptions. Card has been injecting his religious views into his books for a long time, and it took me a long time to understand all of them, and finally get turned off by them. Maybe if his works were presented in that new section at Borders the Religious and SciFi and Fantasy cross section. Oh wait. That's not real.

We can't separate the writer from the tale unless its really engrossing. If JK Rowling (Harry Potter fame) wrote her next book about a raunchy orgy, people would be shocked. Shock sells BIG. I think that if we know the background of writers before we read their work, we will search out influences, instead of letting them get flushed out naturally, we loose part of the story. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and a story is just a story.

What do you think? Does the writer make the book? Or does the written word make the author? And how does this change with cross genre writers?