Twitter and Sexuality

[Cloak]

Sorry, but I couldn't think of a title which wouldn't sound wrong..

So, a few twitter users have taken Brandon's essay on Dumbledore out of context and are terming him as a homophobe.. I guess it's twitter and it should be ignored, but I guess this is harming Brandon's potential book readers with some of them advocating boycotting of his books. And because it is twitter, it might blow out of proportions.

I know there was a recent WoB about homosexuality in the Cosmere (about Drehy being inspired from his friend), but Theoryland is somehow restricted in most parts of India. So if anyone has access to it and can tweet, maybe you can help. 

Here's the link: 

 

[Ammanas]

I honestly don't know why it matters what a authors personal views are. Some of my favorite authors hold opinions I couldn't disagree more with.

Brandon is not one of these. I think Brandon is one of the kindest man I have ever met.

That being said, people are going to get upset about stupid things and refuse to see reason because there mind is already made up; thats just how the world works in my opinion. 

I don't think Brandon is going to be hurting for money anytime soon. I am sure he will be fine.

I hope I am not being a wet blanket and don't want to discourage anyone who thinks it will make a difference though. Just my random musings.

[Windrunner]

Mod moment: I just want to say that conversations like these can become emotionally charged very quickly, so let's all be certain to be careful of others's thoughts and feelings. I don't anticipate any problems, but it's always good to take extra caution.

All right, all done. I've only seen a bit of discussion on this, but I don't think it really holds any water. That essay was written almost a decade ago. Brandon's views have continued to grow and change in that decade. Checking out this post, I think that it basically closes the door on claims of homophobia, particularly the bit at the end.

Quote

I'm not terribly worried about whether or not gay people are sinners. We're all sinners, and I'd rather spend my time figuring out where I'm going wrong than worry about what someone else is doing. (Honestly, after conversations with many of these people, I fully expect to see them in heaven before I get myself there.)

Definitely a good way to view the world, taking a look at how oneself can be better rather than trying to decide if others are doing something wrong.

[Yuoaman]

I'm of the opinion that an author's personal views do matter to an extent and if I believed Brandon was actually homophobic I would almost definitely stop supporting his works, it's why I'll probably never support Orson Scott Card unless he publicly renounces pretty much everything he's ever said on the topic. While a lot of Brandon's words on the subject are just plain wrong and even damaging those were written years ago and Brandon seems like a very reasonable person who has spent the intervening years listening to people in situations other than his own to form more nuanced views.

[Toaster Retribution]

I do think that the authors views matter somewhat (I would never buy a book if the author was a nazi). That said, I hate when people judge others for having differing opinions. I have more to say about this subject, but I put it in a spoiler tag because I went long.

Spoiler

When it comes to the subject of homosexuality, a lot of the religious communities are very conservative, and are, for example, against homosexual marriage. The reason for this tends to be belief in a certain religious scripture where homosexual acts are in some way condemned or forbbiden. I'm a catholic, and there are things in the Bible (a letter by Paul, I believe) which states something like that. This is something I have been troubled by, since I want to be kind and respecting against everyone, but I have that passage in the Bible, and the words of my religious leaders, which tells me that homosexual acts are wrong, and sinful. 

I try to find a balance here, and have basically taken the same stance as I know Brandon did on one occasion: let the church have their marriage, and the state have theirs. In the ears of a lot of atheists, or secular people, this might sound wrong, stupid, homophobic, whatever. The point I want to make is that those people don´t know what it is like to actually be religious, to believe in something. As a person, I am easily worried about sin, and ending up in hell. I don´t want to risk going there, and I don´t want others to go there either. So, if I take a stance against homosexual marriage, I do it because I think that, in the end, it is for everyones best, in the same way that those who advocate for same sex-marriages think that they are doing the right thing. If we can all try to understand that everyone has different backgrounds, different beliefs, different worries, then I think that the world would be a better place. 

What I am trying to say is basically that religious people like Brandon (or like me) usually have a reason to say the things we say, and that we want what is best for all. The only thing is that we have different ways to go about it. And I think that this is something that a group of the social justice warriors needs to understand (yes, I know SLJ is a bad term, but I really dont know what else to call them. I dont mean anything bad by it, though). We all try to do our best, simply, and I think that is what matters.

I hope what is in that spoiler tag is at least somewhat understandable to the people who read it. I´m not sure how controversial it was, or wether it made sense (English is my second language). 

[Oversleep]

Since most of them link to his essay on Dumbledore but clearly has not read it, throw them that:

And don't forget to mention that "marriage" as it is, is a religious ceremony.

My thoughts:
Well, religion usually has rules and stuff and yet they're still surprised when the Church says and does the things it does; well, what did you expect?

It's like being upset at the hunter organization for not claiming meat is murder. Their core values are centered about hunting and killing animals, what did you expect?

Edited June 28, 2017 by Oversleep

[Toaster Retribution]

@Oversleep I told them that. They dont care, apparently. 

EDIT: Not that marriage is a religious ceremony, but the whole state union thing. They seem to want specifically marriage for some reason.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Toaster Retribution

[Oversleep]

Actually, Brandon has commented on that essay and stuff he said earlier. Dig up this thread:

highlight:

[Calderis]

OK. As much as I want to, I'm not going to respond to anyone. I'm going to make some statements, try to be as civil as possible and leave it at that, cause this is a topic that is bound to cause problems. 

Marriage may have started as a religious ceremony, but it is a completely independent, legal oriented classification at this point. And that is the problem. 

Apply religion to law is, at least here in the United States, a problem. But Marriage has been the title for so long, and has so many cultural and societal ideas attached to it, that offering an "alternative" form of union comes across as offering an inferior union. 

Trying to put marriage back in the religious only category just isn't an option. 

So what is left is to make "marriage" a strictly open legal definition. This does not bar individuals from having a religious ceremony and partaking in the religious aspects of marriage if they wish. 

The moment you start trying to apply religious ideals to a legal structure though... You came across as either bigoted and hateful (worst case) or condescending and patronizing (best case) 

The intentions behind words should matter. When people speak from drastically different viewpoints though this is often lost. 

When the religious person speaks of marriage, it's loaded by their personal beliefs and the weight of consequences and caring (at least it should be. There are plenty of cases where people hijack religion to hide their negative feelings). 

When the person who argues for equality and rights speaks of marriage, they are speaking about legal and social structures. The desire for everyone to be granted the same level of protections and benefits (again how it should be, and again there are more than enough hateful people who will hijack a cause to spew their feelings). 

So realistically, marriage has becoming culturally significant, not just religiously. I don't think your going to convince anyone to forego "marriage" for a civil union, and if it can't be enacted across the board, then the legal definition of "marriage" should effectively be a civil union. This has no bearing on a person's personal religious beliefs, as it's not stopping anyone from having those. 

[Toaster Retribution]

@Oversleep thanks for the link. I've sent the picture to them. Dunno if they will answer though.

[Fedcomic]

The idea that I can't enjoy someone's creative work unless I approve entirely of their personal life and views is appalling.  As a writer, it makes me terrified to share my own political views for fear of being blackballed.  As a reader, it makes me sad that people will miss out on great art.  

When I was a little kid, I remember watching the movie Amadeus and being shocked to see Mozart portrayed as crass, selfish, irresponsible, immoral, etc.  Similarly, it felt like a personal betrayal to learn that the Beatles had used drugs, and I was determined to stop liking their later albums.  But that's childish.  In the end, the music has to be judged for its own virtues, not the virtues (or defects) of its creators.  Revolution No. 9 is terrible on its own merits.  Norwegian Wood is a beautiful song, despite being about John cheating on his wife with a groupie.  

Now, time for my unpopular opinion.  I truly respect the good intentions behind those devoted and dedicated Brandon fans out there engaging the pearl-clutching Brandophobes on Twitter.  But I think many such attempts are making at least one of two mistakes.  First, this probably will not change a lot of minds and may in fact just attract more trolls to the controversy-- bringing more oxygen to the fire, as it were.  The older I get, the more I suspect that people largely make their own decisions and come to their own conclusions.  My input is usually of little assistance, and may end up putting someone on the defensive and causing them to harden their own position.  Counterproductive.  

Second (and here I contravene my own advice, by offering my own two cents): to tell someone that it's okay to read Brandon's books because he's not really one of those awful neanderthals who cling to deplorable views is to concede a false and dangerous premise.  You don't have to agree with someone or approve of their behavior to appreciate their creations.  Should I hold off on reading Pride and Prejudice until I know how Jane Austen felt about gay marriage? No. Am I condoning Pablo Picasso's beastly treatment of the women in his life when I am amazed by his artistic genius? No. The world is full of people who think, and feel, and act differently than we do. Let's be grown-ups about it.  

[Ammanas]

38 minutes ago, Fedcomic said:

The idea that I can't enjoy someone's creative work unless I approve entirely of their personal life and views is appalling.  As a writer, it makes me terrified to share my own political views for fear of being blackballed.  As a reader, it makes me sad that people will miss out on great art.  

When I was a little kid, I remember watching the movie Amadeus and being shocked to see Mozart portrayed as crass, selfish, irresponsible, immoral, etc.  Similarly, it felt like a personal betrayal to learn that the Beatles had used drugs, and I was determined to stop liking their later albums.  But that's childish.  In the end, the music has to be judged for its own virtues, not the virtues (or defects) of its creators.  Revolution No. 9 is terrible on its own merits.  Norwegian Wood is a beautiful song, despite being about John cheating on his wife with a groupie.  

Now, time for my unpopular opinion.  I truly respect the good intentions behind those devoted and dedicated Brandon fans out there engaging the pearl-clutching Brandophobes on Twitter.  But I think many such attempts are making at least one of two mistakes.  First, this probably will not change a lot of minds and may in fact just attract more trolls to the controversy-- bringing more oxygen to the fire, as it were.  The older I get, the more I suspect that people largely make their own decisions and come to their own conclusions.  My input is usually of little assistance, and may end up putting someone on the defensive and causing them to harden their own position.  Counterproductive.  

Second (and here I contravene my own advice, by offering my own two cents): to tell someone that it's okay to read Brandon's books because he's not really one of those awful neanderthals who cling to deplorable views is to concede a false and dangerous premise.  You don't have to agree with someone or approve of their behavior to appreciate their creations.  Should I hold off on reading Pride and Prejudice until I know how Jane Austen felt about gay marriage? No. Am I condoning Pablo Picasso's beastly treatment of the women in his life when I am amazed by his artistic genius? No. The world is full of people who think, and feel, and act differently than we do. Let's be grown-ups about it.  

You just gave a more in depth explanation of my own world views. Great post!

[Oversleep]

Coincindently, the biggest Polish con announced that Orson Scott Card will be a guest in 2018.

Cremstorm is blowing up.