Books you would never recommend to a non fantasy reader

[Liadin]

In general I would not recommend anything that cannot be read as a standalone to a non-sff reader.

This is good advice. I should try to follow it. Typically I at least warn people about the length and if it's ongoing; even outside of SFF there are plenty of authors who write series, so most non-fantasy readers have probably run into them before.... but still, if the person doesn't fall in love with the work, it would be nice for them to still get a resolution.

Also, I love your avatar.

[Contrarius]

You mean like Brandon Sanderson? Who I enjoy?

Sanderson and others (including Tracy Hickman, Larry Correia, Anne Perry, and a surprisingly large number of other authors). So....you'll read one "Fascist Mormon" but not another? How is that consistent?

And if you think Card's personal politics and religion isn't blatantly obvious in his work, then you've either never actually read any, or are willfully ignorant.

Ad hominems won't get you anywhere with me. If you think Card's personal politics and religion are blatantly obvious in most of his books, prove it. Although I must say, since you yourself claim that you don't want to read his work, it would surprise me a bit if you've actually read much of it.

Edit: And I don't have to research Card's views. He shouts them off of rooftops.

So -- you will only avoid authors who dare to voice their opinions in public? Those who are smart enough to keep their mouths shut are okay with you?

[Grack21]

Those authors aren't fascist Mormons. I think you thought I said all Mormons are fascists. I didn't. And I don't have to prove anything about Card's politics and relegion being blatant in his writing. It's been discussed here multiple times, and I had no idea people even tried and defend it. He admits freely that The Memory of Earth is a retelling of the Book of Mormon, The Maker books are about the founder of the Mormon faith, and I dare you to even try and defend Hamelt's Father as not blatantly homophobic. And I actually read quite a bit of Card when I was younger, before I knew better. Would you like a list?

[peterbound]

Snaderson is about the only Mormon author I'll read. And only because of his involvement with wot. I may not agree with grack about most things. But on this one we see eye and eye. There is no arguing that most of that faith have a hard time separating thier faith and their art. Lame.

And holy shit. I'm having a hard ass ti e typing replies on this fucking iPad

[Shael]

In general I would not recommend anything that cannot be read as a standalone to a non-sff reader.

That's good advice. However, I've recommended Dune, a book which can easily stand alone and did for years, a book which I think has been sorta kinda proven to be good, a book which I think alot of us would agree is a good gateway to fantasy/scifi, to loads of people who I was absolutely sure would love it, and none of them could even finish it.

Their loss I guess.

I'm not sure if this qualifies, because it's not typical fantasy, and also, I hate it, but Clan of the Cave Bear.

What's this about Anne Rice? I'll agree that 90% of her output is awful, especially her more recent stuff like Armand( :stillsick: ), but Interview With the Vampire is a great novel. Even Lestat isn't terrible. Credit where credit is due!

[Bronn is God]

Wouldnt recommend The Hobbit. That book probably put me off Tolkien forever (although LotR did bore me to tears).

Martin would be the first I would recommend and it worked surprisingly well. I managed to introduce a friend of mine to both First Law and Malazan after he started reading SoIaF, and he had never read fantasy bar Harry Potter.

[Contrarius]

Those authors aren't fascist Mormons.

How do you know they aren't? Have you interviewed each one of them? Or have they possibly just been smart enough to keep their views to themselves so as not to offend you?

I think you thought I said all Mormons are fascists.

Well, you were the one who put the words "Fascist" and "Mormon" together -- not me.

I didn't. And I don't have to prove anything about Card's politics and relegion being blatant in his writing. It's been discussed here multiple times, and I had no idea people even tried and defend it. He admits freely that The Memory of Earth is a retelling of the Book of Mormon, The Maker books are about the founder of the Mormon faith

Ahhh, sorry, I didn't realize that you objected to even reading a book that contains any allegorical content. I was actually referring to Card's specific religious and political views about Muslims and homosexuals, not his general religious background. I guess, then, that you would also condemn writers like CS Lewis, or books like Canticle for Leibowitz or Dune, or any of the many other more-or-less allegorical books out there?

and I dare you to even try and defend Hamelt's Father as not blatantly homophobic.

Hamlet's Father is a single novella, not "most of his work". Should we boycott all of Frank Herbert just because a villain in Dune is a pedophile?

And I actually read quite a bit of Card when I was younger, before I knew better. Would you like a list?

Heck no. You're the one who originally said you wouldn't read his books -- not me.

[Grack21]

Good lord.

Card's hatred of homosexual's and muslims is prevelent in his work. Here's some of the top of my head

Ender's game

Speaker for the Dead

Xenocide

Children of the Mind

Ender's Shadow

Shadow of the Hegemon

Shadow Puppets

Shadow of the Giant

Empire

Hidden Empire

Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus

I'm not sure what your argument is here. Orson Scott Card inserts his political and religious views into a majority of his work. I find his views reprehensible.

Of the aforementioned authors, I;ve read Hickman and Sanderson. Nothing I've read in their works or in multiple interviews have ever suggested they support anything like Orson Scott Card does. Hickman was involved at one point in a program to help erase the stigma that D&D is satanic and has always been very supportive of others beliefs.

Card's works are not "allegory".

NOUN:

pl. al·le·go·ries

1.

1. The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form.

2. A story, picture, or play employing such representation. John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress and Herman Melville's Moby Dick are allegories.

Taking a story form an old source and changing nothing but names and setting is not Allegory. You could call it a retelling maybe.

I don't know what your problem is. This isn't a new thing. Card's blatant insertion of his repulsive views into his books is nothing new.

I have no problem separating people's opinions from their views. I enjoy Roald Dahl quite a bit, and he was a famous anti-semite.

[Grack21]

Speaking of people who write about their messed up views. John Ringo. Oh no.

[SkynJay]

On the Card debate. While there are plenty of authors who no doubt have views i would hate, Grack is right in the fact that Card is highly vocal about his. I can't tell you if they are prevalent in his works, but 10 seconds on Google and i get a full list of his beliefs.

So, no I would not recommend him or his works to anyone, because his views are right out where you can see them. I don't usually research my authors and their complete belief system, not would i usually let it influence my reading choices. But shouting your idiotic thoughts out to the world can have consequences, and Card has cost himself at least one reader with his(me).

[emberling]

No matter what other tripe he wrote, in fiction and on soapboxes, Ender's Game is undeniably a classic of the genre - a very accessible classic, very appropriate for non-genre readers (with attendant warning to avoid further reading by Card). And if you seriously think it has any kind of integrated anti-Muslim, anti-gay propaganda that is perceptible to anyone who isn't specifically looking for such a thing, you're loonier than Card is.

I'm also pretty sure there's nothing one could be legitimately offended by in the Speaker series or Pastwatch except maybe some general ethnic insensitivity and fact-check-fail. But I'm not really sure; those do have some amount of political charge to them. There might be some allegory going on. But I don't look for it, so it might as well not exist as far as I'm concerned. Why look for reasons to hate something? I'd rather like things.

Hate the man for what he does and says: he deserves it. But don't hate him for what he doesn't do: that makes you as bad as him.

[Grack21]

The Shadow books have a very anti Muslim mindset. I don't see how you could possibly miss that. And Ender's Game supports the whole kill them all and let god sort them out mentality that I find very disturbing.

The Shadow books also have the gay character who relizes being gay is bad cause he has a responsibility to breed.

[Grogsmash]

The Shadow books have a very anti Muslim mindset. I don't see how you could possibly miss that.

Can you bring some quotes to support this? I have never seen any of this from reading it.

And Ender's Game supports the whole kill them all and let god sort them out mentality that I find very disturbing.

Well, that is a whole nother issue and isn't anti-muslim in any way. It is a military oriented book against an implacable foe and I am not sure at the time that they had any othre realistic option other than to fight. YMMV. However, Ender is essentially tricked into it, he certainly is torn up by the results.

As for Pastwatch, that book has no anti-muslim bias whatsoever. If anything, it is pro-muslim. I didn't know anything of OSC's political views until after I read Pastwatch and was shocked to find out he was rightwing at the time.

[Grack21]

Can you bring some quotes to support this? I have never seen any of this from reading it.

Well, that is a whole nother issue and isn't anti-muslim in any way. It is a military oriented book against an implacable foe and I am not sure at the time that they had any othre realistic option other than to fight. YMMV. However, Ender is essentially tricked into it, he certainly is torn up by the results.

Mayhaps I am remembering it wrong, but isn't the Shadow books the one were the Muslim nation takes over most of the world, and start killing anyone who refuses to convert? I believe it is also suggested in books/stoire set later that this results in the downfall of civilization on earth. And Ender's Game is one of those books that I will admit is open to a lot of different interpretations, but if you search on google for a bit Card's intentions when writing it are pretty clear.

Honestly, I don't want to have this argument anymore. If you don't see these things in his books then my arguments aren't going to make you. You may disagree but you can look around on the net to see I'm not alone in thinking this.

Edit: You may be right about PastWatch. I read that one a long time ago.

[Contrarius]

Good lord.

Card's hatred of homosexual's and muslims is prevelent in his work. Here's some of the top of my head

Listing book titles is not proof of anything. Are you now casting Alai as a villain? As for supposed homophobia, if anything Ender's Game has been accused of homoeroticism rather than homophobia.

Card's works are not "allegory".

NOUN:

pl. al·le·go·ries

Oh jeez. If you're gonna start correcting definitions, I may have to start correcting your spelling. ;)

Try answering at least one or two of the questions I've been asking you, instead of quibbling over whether books are properly classified as allegories or "retellings".

[Grogsmash]

Sorry I actually meant Ender's Game as not having a muslim bias from reading it, I don't remember too much from the Shadow series.

[Contrarius]

On the Card debate. While there are plenty of authors who no doubt have views i would hate, Grack is right in the fact that Card is highly vocal about his. I can't tell you if they are prevalent in his works, but 10 seconds on Google and i get a full list of his beliefs.

So, no I would not recommend him or his works to anyone, because his views are right out where you can see them. I don't usually research my authors and their complete belief system, not would i usually let it influence my reading choices. But shouting your idiotic thoughts out to the world can have consequences, and Card has cost himself at least one reader with his(me).

Nobody here denies that Card has some objectionable views, nor that he is vocal about them in his opinion articles and columns. The question is whether that constitutes a good reason to avoid his fiction.

You come much closer to answering that question than Grack has. To you, an author who keeps his mouth shut is evidently morally superior to one who exercises his rights to free speech. But is that really a good principle for us to adhere to?

[Grack21]

What the fuck am I not being clear about at this point? Card has disgusting views. He puts them in his books. I don;t read his books because I find them disgusting. Ringo does the same. I don't read his either. I don't have to justify that Card is blatantly anti-gay, this has been talked about a million fucking times before.

[Contrarius]

What the fuck am I not being clear about at this point? Card has disgusting views. He puts them in his books.

The problem with this assertion is that he does NOT actually put "disgusting views" in his books, for the most part. Sure, he's got one pedophilic villain -- big whoop, so does Herbert. Is that really enough to justify the condemnation of his whole body of work?

I don;t read his books because I find them disgusting.

Again -- if you don't read his books, then how do you know they're disgusting?

[Contrarius]

The problem is THAT HE DOES. IT IS TALKED ABOUT ALL THE TIME. THIS IS NOT NEWS. THIS IS NOT A NEW THING. DO SOME GODDAMN RESEARCH.

Many things that are not true are "talked about all the time". Lessee...Obama not born in the US, Obama's a Muslim, those are two obvious current examples.

As before -- Card obviously does have some objectionable views, which he is happy to pontificate on in public. But you have yet to produce any evidence that those objectionable views are prominent in his fiction. Which returns us to the original question -- if objectionable views are not actually prominent in an author's works, should we really banish those works from our shelves just because the author is willing to exercise free speech?