# Will you keep reading Marion Zimmer Bradley?



## LynPerry (Apr 8, 2013)

When you find out about an author's personal life and come to know some of the things they've done that repulse you, do you keep reading their books or watch their films? Should you? Does such a situation warrant a boycott? Or a social media shaming? Or can you separate a person from their art and simply deal with each work of art on its own merits?

Case in point: Recent child abuse allegations swirling around Marion Zimmer Bradley.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jun/27/sff-community-marion-zimmer-bradley-daughter-accuses-abuse

Here's one writer's response:
https://twitter.com/GWillowWilson/status/481643540267556865

Other questions to consider: 
Is there a difference between a Bradley and a Polanski or a Woody Allen?
What about things that happened in the way back, like Anne Perry at 15 helping a friend murder the friend's mother?
Does one's political/religious views cause you to skip their books? Orson Scott Card's pillorying comes to mind or the reaction to Philip Pullman's anti-Catholic bias.
Can one bounce back from saying stupid stuff? I'm thinking of Hugh Howey's attempt at humor gone virally wrong awhile back and the reaction of the interwebs saying they'd never read him again despite his apology.


----------



## D. Zollicoffer (May 14, 2014)

Some people can still enjoy someone's work even if they're a major creep -- I'm not one of those people! Like the stuff with Anne Perry may have happened ages ago, but she's a murderer in my eyes, and I'll never read any of her books. Woody Allen? I refuse to watch his movies too because the guy obviously adopted his daughter with perverted intentions. 

I don't care about political views or religious views. You can worship a sheep, and vote for Ralph Nader, I don't care. But when your actions start to ruin other people's lives -- we have a problem. So murder, abuse, rape, etc. All of these things will make me refuse to buy your books. 

Oh and if you're a racist, gay-hating, idiot


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

As much as I detest Card's views on equality, Ender's Game is an all-time classic. Of course, I read it long before I knew anything about him other than he's LDS (which is like... nothing to me, since I grew up in southern Idaho, which is really just northern Utah). I've often wondered if it would have colored my opinion of the book(s), but when I read them, I was just a kid. I'm now 41 and a lot of opinions have changed or formed or hardened over the years. I did read the first book last year a week before watching the movie, as I was curious about how I'd feel. The book was still a classic, even with my stupid writer-social activist brain trying hard to equate every single sentence to some perceived or imagined ideology or such. The movie... sheesh. It's like Avatar and Prometheus had an abortion and Ender's Game fell out. 

I guess you could say "damn the internet!" for everyone's personal/private lives getting out. I guess you could also say "there's two sides to every story." And even "I read stories for the story, not for the person who wrote it." There's also the ever wise "don't say / do / act / reveal stupid or bigoted shit because the internet is instant, global, and forever." 

The only person I absolutely refuse to ever read is Theodore Beale, aka Vox Day. Beyond him, I've no doubt that some of my favorite books were written by child abusers, spouse abusers, drug addicts, murderers, possibly even rapists and/or pedophiles. I guess that's the beauty of not knowing? It can't color a good story. Then again... maybe some stories need to be colored, so we can feel good about not supporting someone that is a bad human being?


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2014)

This is a good question.  I would love to say that I don't read books or watch movies created by creeps, but I would be lying if I said that.  Woody Allen, for example, is one of my favorite directors.  His recent "Blue Jasmine" is one of the best movies I've ever seen.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

I've lost all interest in watching anything having to do with Mel Gibson. Of others I'm more 'forgiving'. I don't really know why I'd draw the line for some and not others.


----------



## LynPerry (Apr 8, 2013)

These answers are honest, thanks! I'm the same way - I draw the line with some, ignore the line with others. Not sure why. I too wish I didn't know about the person, but then as said above (below? lol) stories are often (always?) colored by the writer's experience.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

I'm so far left politically it's a wonder I don't tip over sometimes. But I have no issue with folks more conservative than me, unless they act in ways that are harmful to my fellow citizens and this wonderful world we live on.

What authors, actors, politicians and the like do does affect how I view them and their work. I draw the line at hurting people, and being rabidly vocal about issues that hurt people. Thus, no Orson Scott Card, no Mel Gibson, no Tom Cruise, no MZB, no Anne Perry, and so on. I especially despise Woody Allen, but I'll admit I never really liked him anyway. Learning about his -- proclivities -- knocked him off my radar.


----------



## Lady Vine (Nov 11, 2012)

Let's just say, when it comes to movies and music by people like this, they don't get a cent from me. That's what streaming is for.   And no, I don't feel bad about that at all. As for books, there are so many authors to choose from, I could drop my favourite without giving it a lot of thought.


----------



## Paul Huxley (Feb 27, 2014)

If we knew what most bands actually got up to on tour, we wouldn't listen to any music ever.


----------



## VEwoodlake (Jul 11, 2014)

"Allegations"?


----------



## alawston (Jun 3, 2012)

I wasn't a huge fan of Marion Zimmer Bradley anyway, but I won't be reading any more of her books.
I won't read any more Orson Scott Card either.
Woody Allen? Well, again I'm not a huge fan. But film is a bit different. Auteur theory is a convenient tool for critics, but making cinema is literally an industrial process, and that's as true for Blue Jasmine as it is for the latest superhero nonsense. Boycotting a film because of just one of its contributors (however central) seems a bit excessive to me. I'll see how I feel next time he has a film out, I suppose.

We all have our checks and balances and red flags, and extents to which we can disassociate an author from their work. But I have a very simple acid test: do I want to give this author some of my money? Do I want this author to gain increased exposure through Amazon jacking their sales rank as a result of me giving them some of my money?

I'm more than happy to miss out on the odd Arthurian fantasy or spaceships novel when authors fail that simple test.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

I read Mein Kampf, so I guess that answers that question.


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

Considering she's been dead for fifteen years, I've probably read everything by her that I wanted to, and there won't be anything new, so... moot issue for me. Still... weird and messed up.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

I do not financially support those I consider having loathsome behavior. And because of this post, I now have to get rid of my Anne Perry books. I had no idea. 

But Bradley was worse. That one makes my skin crawl, although I will admit that I read The Mists of Avalon in junior high school and it made me very uncomfortable. Perhaps my subconscious caught onto things that my conscious was not ready to process.


----------



## Karen Mead (Jul 2, 2012)

I've never read any of her work and her books are not on my TBR list, but if for some reason I had a burning urge to read one of her books, I'd just take it out from the library. It's certainly not a perfect solution, but for me, I can separate the person enough from their work to enjoy the story, but that doesn't mean I want to give them (or their estate) money if I can avoid it.

I guess I'm hesitant to boycott an artist's work over something in their lives because that could easily lead to boycotting someone for something they haven't done. Granted, the examples given in this thread are pretty much all artists who have made it abundantly clear what their beliefs are and acted on those beliefs (and it's become increasingly difficult to give Woody Allen the benefit of _any_ doubt), but we don't know these people and we don't know what really happened. I don't want to boycott an author just because they've been accused of something bad even though the accusation could be baseless.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

So, if someone has paid their debt to society, that means nothing? I'm thinking specifically of Anne Perry. Not only did she pay her debt to society, but she made something of herself. In the last 30-40 years, she's led a decent life.



Paul Huxley said:


> If we knew what most bands actually got up to on tour, we wouldn't listen to any music ever.


That is certainly true.

As for Marian Zimmer Bradley, would you have refused to read her books if you'd known she was a Pagan? I forget who her writing partner was, but I remember reading a forward in one of the books by the partner condemning Bradley for turning Christian. I know that's quite a bit different from allegations of child abuse, but it's still one of those personal things that might make someone not read her books.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> As for Marian Zimmer Bradley, would you have refused to read her books if you'd known she was a Pagan?


Being Pagan is not harmful to another person. I specifically have a problem with those that harm others. Bradley is the worst kind of offender ever, and I'm ashamed that she thinks she spoke for women. She doesn't speak for any women I know. The women I know don't condone, much less participate, in the abuse of children.


----------



## ricola (Mar 3, 2014)

Some of the participants in child abuse are STILL GETTING MONEY FROM HER ESTATE.

So, uh, NO


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

It's interesting to see some of the names mentioned here and where people draw the line. Interesting - not right or wrong by any means.
Tom Cruise could arguably be considered a nutcase but has he harmed anyone? Ann Perry was sentenced and did her time according to the justice system of the era. Isn't that why we have jail sentences? Do we _really_ know what happened with Polanski? How much is media interpretation and how much is fact? And yet, the sum of our experiences shape how we instinctively perceive these people.

The themes of redemption, persecution, guilt and regret are what give life to our stories. The scope of this is reflected in this thread, a useful view on the spectrum of what people find acceptable, even if they don't really know why. All in all, fascinating. 
As writers, we can use this to learn more about our readers and how they might react to our characters.

(It's actually made me look up some of these folks - so I've learned some things  )


----------



## Chris Northern (Jan 20, 2011)

There are unforgivable things. Child abuse is top of the list. With a great deal of effort I'm going to move on and try and answer the question. It comes in two parts.

1) I don't think I could face picking up a title with MZB on the cover. I had no particular plans to do so but now would find it pretty much impossible.

2) In other cases I don't much relate what the author thinks, says or does outside the work to the work itself. There isn't anyone at all whose views I will likely completely agree with over all subjects, so I see no sense not reading Orson Scott Card, to pick a mentioned example, because he adopts a point of view I don't stand by. I don't agree with him about something. So what? The world's full of people I don't agree with about something or another. Some are friends. What are you supposed to do? Give people a questionnaire to fill in before you will talk to them? How arrogant would you have to be? Let other people be the judge of what work you read? Not going to let anyone have that much power over me. No, I'll read the work of people I might not much like, might disagree with about something or other, who I might think totally wronghead, whose opinion on any given subject might irritate the heck out of me.

But there are limits. See answer one.

Modified. Spotted a typo. Fixed it.

While I'm at it, and only very slightly off topic, I will refuse to read any author if and when I find an outright factual lie in the work, regardless of the subject.

Also, what Joe Nobody says here certainly has relevance and value.


----------



## Carol Davis (Dec 9, 2013)

When it comes to people like Tom Cruise and Mel Gibson -- their behavior serves as an enormous distraction, to the point that the character they're portraying is lost and all I can see onscreen is a reflection of their behavior and/or political and social views.  It completely puts me off enjoying their work, although I do regret that, because I'm also saying "no" to the work of everyone else involved in their movies.

I refuse to support anyone who's guilty of child abuse, child endangerment, or abuse of women.  Heck, abuse of ANYBODY.  I don't care if they've written the best book in the history of the world.

I don't believe I've ever read anything by Marion Zimmer Bradley, so there's no issue for me there.  And I never did like Woody Allen's movies.  However... back about 20 years ago, I pulled a particular author's books off my shelves and threw them all in the trash.  So yes, I take a stand when I feel strongly enough about the issue involved.


----------



## travelinged (Apr 6, 2014)

Joe_Nobody said:


> I read Mein Kampf, so I guess that answers that question.


!!!! Good point.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

If I only read authors whose viewpoints I agree with, only spoke with people who share my political and social views, only socialized with the pure of heart and spirit... I would be living alone in a large hole in the ground.

Still, it's hard for me to separate the author from the work. There is so much material out there these days that it's easy to pass on Marion Zimmer Bradley or Orson Scott Card.

Woody Allen's a problem, since I admire his films, even when I don't really enjoy them. Some of them... _Sleeper, Annie Hall, The Purple Rose of Cairo, Alice, Midnight in Paris_... are favorites. His work is tainted for me now, though, and viewed through a lens that makes it harder to enjoy.

Mel Gibson... well, now we have Hugh Jackman, so who cares? But yes, his behavior turned me off totally.

I don't read Anne Perry and didn't know her story until now! She paid for her crime, and she was only 16 years old at the time, a time of life when a lot of us do very stupid and sometimes horrendous things. I'm not excusing her act, but she served her sentence, and now I'm actually intrigued.


----------



## Ancient Lawyer (Jul 1, 2013)

Quiss said:


> I've lost all interest in watching anything having to do with Mel Gibson. Of others I'm more 'forgiving'. I don't really know why I'd draw the line for some and not others.


Agreed. But with the others - I suppose it depends how you feel about the crimes of which they are accused. Or the faux pas they have committed.

Some of the people cited by the OP have not been convicted of anything. They have been accused, but not convicted. In the other cases, where the person had committed a crime, and been convicted - I think it's too easy to rush to judgement.



Quiss said:


> It's interesting to see some of the names mentioned here and where people draw the line. Interesting - not right or wrong by any means.
> Tom Cruise could arguably be considered a nutcase but has he harmed anyone? Ann Perry was sentenced and did her time according to the justice system of the era. Isn't that why we have jail sentences? Do we _really_ know what happened with Polanski? How much is media interpretation and how much is fact? And yet, the sum of our experiences shape how we instinctively perceive these people.
> 
> The themes of redemption, persecution, guilt and regret are what give life to our stories. The scope of this is reflected in this thread, a useful view on the spectrum of what people find acceptable, even if they don't really know why. All in all, fascinating.
> As writers, we can use this to learn more about our readers and how they might react to our characters.


Quiss said this much better than me.


----------



## Kia Zi Shiru (Feb 7, 2011)

I have all the Avalon books and they've been in my top series list since I started reading them (at 12). Right now, I don't know what to think about this, especially _because_ she has been dead for so long and, as the daughter says in the article (linked in the first post), these days when you make accusations like that people will believe you. I might think about it differently in a few days, but at this moment I also question why the daughter spoke up right now.
Yes, child abuse, any abuse, is bad. And I do think that it should reflect how a person is perceived.
I never had much interest in MZB apart from her Avalon series, never really had the need to read any other work, so I don't really know how to feel about the whole issue.

There are definitely authors I refuse to give money to (a certain female fanfiction author turned trad author being one of them, not writing her name for fear of retaliation by her fans) and actors I refuse to watch (Tom Cruise, among others). Some for religious believes, some for things they've said and some for other reasons all together. It also helps weed out what to read or to watch, since there are so many others to choose from instead.

On the topic of internet and social media. I'm following many of my fav authors and I do feel a bit double about it. On the one hand, I love seeing what they're doing and to know what is going on. On the other hand, I do sometimes hold my breath when they talk about topics that mean a lot to me, because I do know that if they say the wrong thing, it will forever taint my view of them. This is the side that I like less. I like to see them, to see them interact, but I don't want to see their bad sides...

Then again. I actually also read authors or watch actors because I hear about them in different contexts and their character appeals to me. There is that.


----------



## . (Sep 19, 2013)

D. Zollicoffer said:


> I don't care about political views or religious views. You can worship a sheep, and vote for Ralph Nader, I don't care. But when your actions start to ruin other people's lives -- we have a problem. So murder, abuse, rape, etc. All of these things will make me refuse to buy your books.


THIS.

Everyone's got opinions; that's okay by me. But when those opinions turn into _actions_ that impact other people in a horribly negative way, then I'm not contributing my money to that cause.

And then, I think a person's actions after issues come to light are extremely telling, too. If they dig in and double down, I'm even more inclined to turn my back on their work. And I'll be sure to inform others exactly _why_ I'm doing that.

On the other hand, if they own up, apologize (a true apology, not a not-apology), and try to make amends, I'll be inclined to give them and their work another chance. (I'll still be watching them carefully, though. I've had too much experience with charming abusers to just take people at their word...)


----------



## GP Hudson (Sep 16, 2013)

I don't really want to know anything about an author. Or an artist. Or a musician. Or an actor. Etc. I want to enjoy their art. If I like a book, I like a book. 

For example, one of my favorite books is The Road, by Cormac McCarthy. If something came out about McCarthy that was really creepy, would it change the fact that The Road is a great book?


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

I was recently doing some Civil War research for a novel and came across a reference to some southern writer who a number of famous 19th century people called the best American writer. I don't remember what his name is, and don't care to dig it up, but he was supposedly hot stuff. Then along came the Civil War and he wrote something that was supposedly an answer to  Uncle Tom's cabin, which purported to show how slaves were content with their lot, better off, etc. He was a fire eater secessionist and supported the South to the end.

When the war ended, with him on the losing side, he was pretty much scrubbed from the canon, even his earlier, non-controversial works. So it's clear that there are some things you can do that will effectively destroy your life's work.

As for MZB, I've read the allegations and they sound pretty convincing to me. I won't have anything to do with abuser of children. As for Anne Perry, that's a bit of a different story. She was very young, and she and her friend were caught up in something very strange. She has also owned up to her crime, and lived an exemplary life since then. I do find it strange that she would write murder mysteries after all of that, but oh, well.

Card, well . . . there's a guy I sort of understand, even if it troubles me. His early stuff is good and honest. Then he took a turn down a wrong path, in my opinion. I won't get too much into my opinions on that. I'm not actively boycotting his work, per se, but I haven't felt any interest in picking up his books lately, either.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

There are over 27,000 pages of US Federal laws. That doesn't count the 10,000 regulations those laws reference. That doesn't include the tax code, state, county and city laws.

I've read where the Congressional Research Service recently admitted they can no longer count the number of laws.

There's even a book out: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1382543575&sr=8-1&keywords=three felonies a day&tag=viglink20513-20

It claims the average American commits three felonies every day.

So if this is all true, any of us, at any time, could be accused of felony crime and convicted. I've even experienced this personally:

About 10 years ago, I was doing a lot of overseas contracting. The tax laws were complex, I was out of the country, and even the employers didn't know how to handle our pay.

The IRS decided to audit me. They initially found that I hadn't made quarterly payments in the proper amounts during the previous year, and ASSUMED I was making the same error during the current year. I protested. They issued a lien against my home. Fortunately, my employer had an internal lawyer who represented me, and the whole mess was cleared (in my favor)... but it took almost 12 months to get the tax lien removed. It was a bullying, completely bogus overreach, IMHO.

But what if I'd been a writer at that time? What if the internet had gotten ahold of this little bit of news? I can just see them shouting from the highest mountain: This guy's a tax cheat! This guy's one of those 1%'ers who rip off the rest of us! Don't buy his books!

So I look at these things with a tainted eye. I look at news reports as sensationalized, over-stated sources of revenue for the broadcasters/publisher. And even if the accused is 100% guilty, I go with what Twain said:

"Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it."


----------



## Natasha Holme (May 26, 2012)

The Mists of Avalon by Marion Zimmer Bradley is the only book that I have disliked so much that I stopped reading it.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

Reading an allegation is NOT "finding out" anything about someone. There are a lot of things that don't gel with such decades later allegations against dead people. The daughter had already made allegations against her father - why not include her mother at that time - if any of it was true? Her claim could be true, could also be total BS. As for Hugh Howey, I had no problem with his "bitch" post - I saw no reason for him to apologise, the woman was being a bitch.

Currently - earlier today - there was an article detailing a claim from a proved liar regarding being raped by Michael Jackson. The claimant is demanding more than one billion dollars from the Jackson estate. The guy is a liar as he previously swore under oath that Jackson had never molested him and both his claims can't be true. I regard with suspicion all claims made decades after the supposed events that involve large monetary law suits or provide the claimant with high levels of publicity.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

I admit that there are some . . . . 'celebrities' (I use the term in a broad sense) . . . . that I have a negative opinion of. Might be they've been convicted of some major crime. Might be they've come out on the opposite side to me on some issue. Might be I just think they're foolish and just don't like their public persona. I choose not to support those people, in general. This could include actors, writers, pro 'sporters'. . . whatever.

Does their behavior mean their work isn't any good? No. But I also have the choice not to support them by paying to see/read it.

Because I know I am this way, I don't go seeking out information about writers and actors whose work I like. I _want_ to be able to judge them on the work and not have unrelated facts niggling in the background.

BUT, once I do find out something, especially something negative, it's definitely going to color my opinion. How much it colors it is going to depend on how certain the information is as well as how 'big' a thing it is. The gossip rags all the time have 'bad' stuff about people. Most of it's pure bunk. So I always consider the source.

Also, how does the celebrity respond to the revelation? Do they keep denying it when it seems pretty certain they really are in the wrong? That's a huge respect killer for me. When these sort apologize in the media, they never seem sorry they did the thing, only sorry they got caught! OTOH if they own up and then publicly try to improve themselves, I can be forgiving.

As to the specific authors mentioned here: I don't read a lot of SciFi and Fantasy so am unlikely to read either MZ Bradley or OS Card. Just not my thing. (I think I might have read some Bradley a loooong time ago when I did read more fantasy. But I don't actually remember if I liked it or not.) I have read Anne Perry and enjoyed her work. I think I found out about the murder conviction after having decided I liked her William Pitt series. It hasn't stopped me from reading more by her, actually. It seems like she did her time and has rehabilitated herself.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

On a somewhat broader front, this reflects my tendency to not really want to know too much about authors on a personal basis: I prefer to let their work stand on its own.


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

Joe_Nobody said:


> I read Mein Kampf, so I guess that answers that question.


And Chairman Mao's little red book...


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Of the authors being discussed, Orson Scott Card is the only one who has had a significant impact on me personally and caused me to reflect on where I stand.    I've been a fan of his since his earliest works and I have pretty much everything he wrote through the mid-naughts.  I've also known he was  LDS through that time and politically on the opposite end of the spectrum from me (to say the least).  I'm also gay.

Over the past decade, I stopped reading much of his new stuff because the tone of them has changed, he's become focused on the Ender series to the expense of everything else and then there's the homophobic comment thing.  I can't financially support someone who is actively working to harm me and mine; at the same time, I love much of what he wrote in the late 70's through the early 00's - and I own copies of it all.  So, I won't buy his new works, I won't new ebook copies of his earlier works but I also won't dispose of the books I already own nor will I stop reading them.


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

DarkScribe said:


> Reading an allegation is NOT "finding out" anything about someone. There are a lot of things that don't gel with such decades later allegations against dead people. The daughter had already made allegations against her father - why not include her mother at that time - if any of it was true? Her claim could be true, could also be total BS. As for Hugh Howey, I had no problem with his "b*tch" post - I saw no reason for him to apologise, the woman was being a b*tch.
> 
> Currently - earlier today - there was an article detailing a claim from a proved liar regarding being raped by Michael Jackson. The claimant is demanding more than one billion dollars from the Jackson estate. The guy is a liar as he previously swore under oath that Jackson had never molested him and both his claims can't be true. I regard with suspicion all claims made decades after the supposed events that involve large monetary law suits or provide the claimant with high levels of publicity.


I agree. I'm not saying I believe MZB never did this, nor MJ. I am saying there is no way to prove any of this and it could easily be a mistake (or lie).


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

My personal best example is Micheal Crichton.

Back in high school, I could not get enough of his whizz-bang techno-thrillers because science is awesome.

... Then I realized that all of his books are actually about how he hated science SO HARD. Then I learned about some of his positions that amount to conspiracy theory tinfoil hattery that actively hurts tons of people. And THEN I learned about _Travels_, specifically the part where some dude invites him to a place with child prostitutes and the best he can manage is a half-hearted excuse of being tired to not go rather than CALLING ALL THE POLICE.

The whole thing was way more of an awfulness onion than Card or Gibson being made of mental poison simply because it just kept getting worse the more you dug. Those guys were bad up front and loud, but this... this just eased you in like a hottub filled from a cesspool.


----------



## Seleya (Feb 25, 2011)

Anne Perry I read , like and will keep reading. She killed somebody, true, but her psychological state at the time is very debatable, she has served her sentence and has kept the terms of her release . She writes crime novels but, those novels do not glorify or justify crime, quite the opposite, in my view she is a different person now that she was then.

MZB: I used to love Darkover, at some point I realized I loved the world and the stories other people wrote in it more that MZB's own books, some of which left a strange taste in my mouth, I stopped reading MZB althogether after "The Heritage of Hastur" in wich the Cadet Master Dyan Ardais tries to rape a cadet and then the issue is solved with the same would be rapist adopting his intended victim, it was really more than I could stomach.

At the time, I wondered what could have possessed MZB to write something like that, reading the documents related to her daughter's allegations answered that question for me (and no, I do not find overly strange that the daugter speaks only now, it may take a long, long time to come to terms with abuse).

All my MZB books are bagged and waiting to be recycled, I can't bear to have them in the house anymore.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

Seleya said:


> (and no, I do not find overly strange that the daugter speaks only now, it may take a long, long time to come to terms with abuse).


Totally agree. And given that MZB married and continued to defend a convicted pedophile, I think you have your answer. Does one really need a video tape of the crime to connect those dots?


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> So, if someone has paid their debt to society, that means nothing? I'm thinking specifically of Anne Perry. Not only did she pay her debt to society, but she made something of herself. In the last 30-40 years, she's led a decent life.
> 
> That is certainly true.
> 
> As for Marian Zimmer Bradley, would you have refused to read her books if you'd known she was a Pagan? I forget who her writing partner was, but I remember reading a forward in one of the books by the partner condemning Bradley for turning Christian. I know that's quite a bit different from allegations of child abuse, but it's still one of those personal things that might make someone not read her books.


I'm a firm believer in allow persons to pay their debt to society and move on (assuming they've learned a lesson and won't be entering the justice system again). I'm not too lenient on rapists and pedophiles, but for everything else... there's a lot of gray area, and it's a classic case of life never being black nor white. I got in a lot of trouble when I was younger, though never murder or being a cocaine kingpin. I know what it's like being judged by everyone because of some [crap] that happened when I was younger. People make mistakes.

That being said, some people continue to 'make the same mistake' over and over. MZB sounds like one of these cases where it just went on and on and on. I don't have any forgiveness within me for that.

As for being Pagan... that's not harming anyone other than Christians and their beliefs. I can't hate anyone for being a Muslim, Christian, Scientologist, or Rastafarian.

Keeping the abuse hidden and deep inside: as a child growing up in an extremely abusive home, I can tell you from experience that this kind of [crap] doesn't just go away. It doesn't disappear with a few counseling sessions, nor even seeing a psychiatrist. It's something that stays with you forever, and the best I've been able to do is to learn how to deal with it (without allowing my temper to put me back in the justice system's spotlight).

I'll always be damaged because of what my parents did to me. I'm doing my best to get on with life instead of letting it own me.

_Edited to conform with forum decorum. --Betsy_


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

I don't believe in the jury system. It has been wrong too often and innocent people have suffered. Let alone that I believe in a mob jury. Innocence or guilt are not a matter to be put to the vote. Innocence is the default position. Guilt has to be proven. Hearsay is no proof. Better ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man is condemned for something he didn't do.

On the other hand, I can't begin to comprehend the desperation of someone who has been a victim of such crimes, without witnesses present, and hence without any chance to prove unequivocally that they really happened. If they happened.

I also read about a case of a so-called rape victim who later admitted she had made it all up. There had been no forensic evidence. The man had been convicted, by a jury, on her say-so. He had served four years in the meantime and it wasn't as if he was released the next day either. He had also been condemned to pay his "victim" two million dollars in compensation. Those millions were gone.

All this makes me very wary to take sides, but if ever I decide to read MZB's books again, I'll certainly read them with other eyes.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

AngryGames said:


> As for being Pagan... that's not harming anyone other than Christians and their beliefs.


Just wanted to note that from my point of view as a Christian, someone being pagan doesn't harm me or my beliefs.


----------



## Seleya (Feb 25, 2011)

A point of note to the people who wonder about the time after the fact and the possibility of lies / false memories. MZB's daughter said that, at the time, she spoke to one of her mother's collaborators about twhat was going on, the woman in question confirmed the episode.

So it's not quite 'she didn't tell anyone up to now'.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

Seleya said:


> A point of note to the people who wonder about the time after the fact and the possibility of lies / false memories. MZB's daughter said that, at the time, she spoke to one of her mother's collaborators about twhat was going on, the woman in question confirmed the episode.
> 
> So it's not quite 'she didn't tell anyone up to now'.


I note your point and I still wonder.

Perhaps I am old fashioned, as I still respect Westminster Law and its various international derivatives. You know, the statute about the presumption of innocence? The one demanding that all must be considered innocent until PROVED guilty? Even the ancient Greeks and Romans held to that basic right. I have seen and heard of too many false claims by angry or avaricious people to ever accept such a long delayed claim to be true without solid supporting evidence.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

DarkScribe said:


> I note your point and I still wonder.
> 
> Perhaps I am old fashioned, as I still respect Westminster Law and its various international derivatives. You know, the statute about the presumption of innocence? The one demanding that all must be considered innocent until PROVED guilty? Even the ancient Greeks and Romans held to that basic right. I have seen and heard of too many false claims by angry or avaricious people to ever accept such a long delayed claim to be true without solid supporting evidence.


As my previous post clearly indicates, I completely agree with the presumption of innocence being the default position until proven otherwise.

I also want to remind people of the Satanic sexual abuse scandal in the early nineties in the UK.
(If memory serves something similar happened in the US.)
A government report later blamed Evangelical Christians and self-appointed specialists for the sexual abuse hysteria.
Nevertheless, children _were_ abused, namely by the social workers and psychologists who asked them leading intimate questions. In some cases the interrogation techniques were so heavy-handed and intimidating, children actually started to believe these things really took place. It was later proven nothing even remotely similar ever happened.

*The government report* stated among a lot of other things:

_'Rites that allegedly include the torture and sexual abuse of children and adults, forced abortion, human sacrifice, cannibalism and bestiality may be labeled satanic or satanist. Their defining characteristic is that the sexual and physical abuse of children is part of rites directed to a magical or religious objective.
'There is no evidence that these have taken place in any of the 84 cases studied'._

I'm not suggesting we should dismiss the MZB case as bogus too.
I just think we should be careful before we judge, condemn and hang.


----------



## Seleya (Feb 25, 2011)

@DarkScribe

I note your opinion, of course, I also note that neither of the children of MZB earns anything from her estate and both have changed their names.
It all started from an email the daughter sent in answer to this post: http://deirdre.net/marion-zimmer-bradley-gave-us-new-perspectives-all-right/ (the post quotes a _sworn testimony_ by MZB about her husband, Walter Breen, a convicted paedophile and the full document is available on-line).

Here's the email:

http://deirdre.net/marion-zimmer-bradley-its-worse-than-i-knew/

here's what her brother has to say

http://starfire-studio.com/markgreyland.html

Jim Hines linking to relevant documents: http://www.jimchines.com/2014/06/rape-abuse-and-mzb/

For the record: I read most of them, they turned my stomach.

I'm familiar with presumption of innocence, so it happens that is in our codes as well, but MZB will not be facing a judge on this world anymore and will not be spending time in prison depending on my opinion of her.

What came out 'clicks' with elements that I found problematic in her writing and that ultimately caused me to stop reading her novels years ago (as I said, the would-be rapist in 'The Heritage of Hastur' 'making amends' by adopting his intended victim was way too much for me).

Everyone should decide for themselves, some won't care either way, some are able to separate the work from the author, for me, in this case, the two are too close for confort and I simply stated the reason why.


----------



## desamo (Feb 15, 2014)

DarkScribe said:


> Reading an allegation is NOT "finding out" anything about someone. There are a lot of things that don't gel with such decades later allegations against dead people. The daughter had already made allegations against her father - why not include her mother at that time - if any of it was true? Her claim could be true, could also be total BS.


I know I broke this on my own blog, and you're not asking any questions I didn't ask (at least myself).

However, I consider this case different on a number of levels that make Moira's claims against her mother (Marion Zimmer Bradley) so credible to me.

Specifically:

1. Marion was already convicted of sending obscene material through the mail before she met Walter Breen.
2. The Breendoggle, about Breen's pedophilic activities, was posted before they got married.
3. After they got married, Marion copyedited Breen's book about pederasty.
4. Moira told her mother about Breen raping children about three distinct cases: the first was about him raping her at age five, the second was about him raping a boy when Moira was 13 (this led to Marion throwing Breen out of the house), and again when Moira was 23 (which led to his second conviction of three). Because _no one listened_ except the police, I find it perfectly credible that she didn't speak out then. Marion told Moira that Marion would be believed over Moira time and time again. Moira believed it, unfortunately.
5. Breen had been convicted of child molesting in 1954, before he met Marion.

These were two child rapists who married each other for cover.

I have heard way more than has been made public, and it is just so much more deeply creepy and horrible.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

Seleya said:


> @DarkScribe
> 
> I note your opinion, of course, I also note that neither of the children of MZB earns anything from her estate and both have changed their names.
> It all started from an email the daughter sent in answer to this post: http://deirdre.net/marion-zimmer-bradley-gave-us-new-perspectives-all-right/ (the post quotes a _sworn testimony_ by MZB about her husband, Walter Breen, a convicted paedophile and the full document is available on-line).
> ...


I've not seen any of this before, and yes, it does change my attitude. Regardless of what she did or did not do - in a sexual sense - to have knowledge of child rape and not act to prevent it, to punish the perpetrator makes her as guilty as her husband. That deposition is a damning indictment of herself as well as her husband. It is sickening. I was once arrested by Police then cautioned by a magistrate after beating a guy unconscious for making a crude sexual comment to one of my daughters when she aged six and waiting for a school bus. (I was released without charge once the guy I thrashed was arrested.) I am not tolerant of child abuse - when I am sure that it has taken place.

I'll now join those who blacklist her work.


----------



## JeanetteRaleigh (Jan 1, 2013)

Reading is a bit like entering into an author's world and their psyche.  I wouldn't want to share a world with someone who would hurt someone else.  Regardless of whether it's music, a movie, or a book, I would boycott someone who commits a heinous act against another.


----------



## vlmain (Aug 10, 2011)

This is a very interesting topic. Thanks for starting it.

I have a harder time separating the personal lives of actors from their roles. I guess it is because I can see their faces and hear their voices, where a writer is invisible, unless they're writing nonfiction--autobiography, religious topics, etc.

I used to really enjoy Alec Baldwin's movies, but ever since hearing his disgusting verbal attack on his own daughter, and some of the atrocious things he has said about others because he disagreed with their politics, I can't watch him. Every time I see him, that's all I can hear.

Tom Cruise, I never liked him, anyway. Not just because he's an idiot, but because I always thought he was overrated as an actor. I don't care about his religious beliefs, he is free to worships however he chooses, but I would argue that he *has* hurt people. I worked in the mental health field for many years, and watching the suffering so many people go through, not only because of their illness, but because of the stigma, it is truly heartbreaking. Trying to help them accept that they aren't weak, that they really do have an illness, and need treatment just like anyone else with an illness is no easy task (for them or the people trying to help them). Then along comes someone like Cruise who basically says they *are* weak and need to just get over it--that is devastating to someone who is already struggling.

I do believe that people can make mistakes, and that it is not up to me to judge, but I also believe people need to understand there are consequences for their actions. Sometimes I feel society has become too forgiving, especially when it benefits us. By that, I mean, if the person in question has a talent we enjoy, we are more likely to forgive and forget.

While it is not up to me to judge a person for the choices they have made, I also don't have to support them, and I won't. I don't care if they're the Shakespeare of the new millennium, I won't be reading their books.


----------



## anguabell (Jan 9, 2011)

Joe_Nobody said:


> But what if I'd been a writer at that time? What if the internet had gotten ahold of this little bit of news? I can just see them shouting from the highest mountain: This guy's a tax cheat! This guy's one of those 1%'ers who rip off the rest of us! Don't buy his books!
> 
> So I look at these things with a tainted eye. I look at news reports as sensationalized, over-stated sources of revenue for the broadcasters/publisher. And even if the accused is 100% guilty, I go with what Twain said:
> 
> "Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it."


At the risk of being accused of moral relativism, I'd say there is a difference between not paying taxes and raping a child. An argument about everyone breaking the law does not apply here. This is not about the law. Our opinion of what is right and what is wrong is "subjective" only to a certain degree. Some things are evil. Unforgivable, Period. We always know it deep inside. No words, no matter how sophisticated and seemingly rational, can change it, sorry.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Ugh.  Reading this thread only reminds me that, like the hot dog factory, what goes on behind the scenes doesn't always match the enjoyable  product we see before us.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Quiss said:


> I've lost all interest in watching anything having to do with Mel Gibson. Of others I'm more 'forgiving'. I don't really know why I'd draw the line for some and not others.


I'm like that with Sean Penn. I could "forgive" Gibson, but not Penn. Whenever I see him, all I can think of is what he did to Madonna and I get ragey.


----------

