[ZpJuUuNaQ5]

>never read anything from ever again

I think it's a poisonous and reductive mindset to have. You can separate art from the character of the artist. If you cared about everything everyone has ever said or done in various stages of their lives, you wouldn't have much left to enjoy or appreciate.

[ses1984]

On the other hand, there is so so much art out there, I could never hope to consume it all. It’s simple for me to use the character of the artist as a filter. I can break that rule whenever I want, but by default, other things being equal, I would prefer to consume art for pleasure from artists I respect as people.

I do consume art from outside this bubble but more to satisfy academic curiosity than pleasure.

[isr]

He's referring ... to his "art". Thats what the piece he linked to was a part of.

Its not poisonous nor reductive to decide not to follow an "artist" because his "art" is repulsive.

[ZpJuUuNaQ5]

"I will never read anything by [AUTHOR] because some things [AUTHOR] wrote are now in my no no list."

Sorry, that just doesn't make sense to me.

[weavejester]

With the amount of fiction available to read, why give your money to authors who are bad people?

[BigTTYGothGF]

Did you read the thing I linked? It's on the same level as the Turner Diaries or Fu Manchu or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

I'm only on this earth for so many years, and the number of words I can shove in my eye holes is finite. Dan Simmons thought it was a good idea to write that, and publish it on his own blog. SF is the kind of genre where you run the risk of getting hit with a big bolus of the author's politics at any time, and why would I drink from a well somebody's already pooped in?

[lxgr]

Sure, but at the same time it's debatable whether even an artist themselves gets to retroactively reinterpret their own art that way.