authors you like but don't agree with

[Etoh*the*Greato]

No worries, Eric. Actually my commentary wasn't aimed at you. I totally got the same vibes myself. Towards the end of the series it felt like he was just... done. Tired of it.

[ich1990]

J.R.R. Tolkien

C.S. Lewis

I also don't see what's wrong with liking socialism but that would take this thread way off topic.

This thread isn't actually about authors who are wrong, but authors who you like yet don't agree with. Therefore, authors (and their beliefs) mentioned here are not implied to be universally wrong and evil, just counter to the mentioner's beliefs.

I am sure Rocklobster is aware of the fact that not everyone agrees with him.

I'll close by saying Oscar Wilde is yet another author I like but don't agree with.

Oscar Wilde is a really interesting case. While I certainly don't agree with his aesthetic lifestyle, his book "The Picture of Dorian Gray" basically argues that aestheticism and hedonism are not fulfilling even when one is separated from the consequences of those lifestyles; Something deeper is required for one to have true contentment.

[Nate]

C.S. Lewis

Yeah I don't agree with some of his stuff either. Especially his "trilemma" (also known as the "Lord Liar Looney" argument) which fails at a level of basic reasoning by leaving out other options regarding the character of Jesus. Which I won't delve into here. There's also another fair number of things I disagree with the man on too.

I just didn't bother mentioning C.S. Lewis 'cuz Wikiwalker already did. :p

Therefore, authors (and their beliefs) mentioned here are not implied to be universally wrong and evil, just counter to the mentioner's beliefs.

I'd agree with this if the description rocklobster had used didn't say,

believe it or not, he actually liked socialism

which carries a certain implication that "How could anybody like socialism?" same as if I said "Believe it or not, people actually liked James Cameron's Avatar." Which is why I said I don't see anything wrong with liking socialism.
[quote]Oscar Wilde is a really interesting case. While I certainly don't agree with his aesthetic lifestyle, his book "The Picture of Dorian Gray" basically argues that aestheticism and hedonism are not fulfilling even when one is separated from the consequences of those lifestyles]
Right, that's what I liked about Dorian Gray as well. Admittedly that's the only work of Oscar Wilde's that I've read. I really should read more of his stuff, since I think he is a good writer, and he has some very interesting themes in his works.

[rocklobster]

Yes, I'm aware of that fact. I'd hate for everyone to agree. Then we'd have a boring world.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

Yeah I don't agree with some of his stuff either. Especially his "trilemma" (also known as the "Lord Liar Looney" argument) which fails at a level of basic reasoning by leaving out other options regarding the character of Jesus. Which I won't delve into here. There's also another fair number of things I disagree with the man on too.

I just didn't bother mentioning C.S. Lewis 'cuz Wikiwalker already did. :p

I'd agree with this if the description rocklobster had used didn't say,

.

What I got out of Rock's statement was that contrary to popular opinion and despite what the common view of his books were, Orwell was actually a proponent of Socialism. It would be easy to construe his books as being blanket against the philosophy, but they were in fact railing communism instead - a thin line.

[ich1990]

Yeah I don't agree with some of his stuff either. Especially his "trilemma" (also known as the "Lord Liar Looney" argument) which fails at a level of basic reasoning by leaving out other options regarding the character of Jesus.

I prefer N.T. Wright's expanded quadrilemma argument. In addition to Lord, Liar, and Lunatic, he adds Legend, and throws historical criticism to the forefront of apologetics. While the quadrilemma is not as water-tight of an argument, it is much more credible.

Right, that's what I liked about Dorian Gray as well. Admittedly that's the only work of Oscar Wilde's that I've read. I really should read more of his stuff, since I think he is a good writer, and he has some very interesting themes in his works.

The only other work of his that I have read, is his play "The Importance of Being Earnest". It doesn't have near the moral weight that "Dorian Gray" does, but it is quite humorous. If you liked Lord Henry's character and remarks, you will like "The Importance of Being Earnest". There have been a few serviceable movies made of the play as well, but I can't help but like the paper form best.

[Nate]

What I got out of Rock's statement was that contrary to popular opinion and despite what the common view of his books were, Orwell was actually a proponent of Socialism. It would be easy to construe his books as being blanket against the philosophy, but they were in fact railing communism instead - a thin line.

Ah okay, so you're saying he meant it more in a sense of if someone was to say (hypothetically), "Believe it or not, J.K. Rowling thinks magic is evil" or something like that. Okay, that makes a bit more sense.

In addition to Lord, Liar, and Lunatic, he adds Legend, and throws historical criticism to the forefront of apologetics. While the quadrilemma is not as water-tight of an argument, it is much more credible.

That sounds a bit more acceptable in terms of arguments (because a big assumption which isn't necessarily proven in the trilemma is, what if the gospels were inaccurate or falsified, thus making all three options irrelevant). It does still leave out the option of Jesus being mistaken or mislead himself, which is why it's still not a perfect argument but it's a lot better than Lewis's.

If you liked Lord Henry's character and remarks, you will like "The Importance of Being Earnest".

I like Lord Henry only if I believe that everything he says he doesn't believe at all (and I think he actually states this later in the book that this is the case). I'll have to check that one out.

[ich1990]

That sounds a bit more acceptable in terms of arguments (because a big assumption which isn't necessarily proven in the trilemma is, what if the gospels were inaccurate or falsified, thus making all three options irrelevant). It does still leave out the option of Jesus being mistaken or mislead himself, which is why it's still not a perfect argument but it's a lot better than Lewis's.

Isn't that pretty much covered under "Lunatic"? Sane people don't often mistake themselves for being God.

I like Lord Henry only if I believe that everything he says he doesn't believe at all (and I think he actually states this later in the book that this is the case). I'll have to check that one out.

If Lord Henry really believed all of the things he argues for, I think he would rightly explode. Rather, I think he is just being witty and obnoxious for the sake of entertainment (I don't recall if he mentions this explicitly in the book). In any case, the Lord Henry character in "Importance..." is Algernon.

[Nate]

Isn't that pretty much covered under "Lunatic"? Sane people don't often mistake themselves for being God.

I wouldn't classify it as "Lunatic" (at any rate, it wouldn't be a level of insanity equal to the level of a man thinking he's a poached egg as Lewis put it).

If you assume, for the sake of argument (obviously this is untrue but I am thinking from an atheist or agnostic perspective) that Jesus was told he was special and everyone else started saying "Hey this dude is the Messiah" then I don't know if it would be fair to call someone crazy or a lunatic for thinking "Hey, y'know, maybe they're right...maybe I AM the Messiah." This wouldn't make him a liar if he believed it and especially if he didn't personally think it at first, and it wouldn't make him crazy, not really anyway (I mean Jesus was Jewish and really SOMEONE had to be the Messiah so why not him if everyone was already heralding him as such?). At that point the only thing that could classify him as a lunatic would be "Believing in a giant invisible man in the sky" which is all well and good if we're talking atheists but it wouldn't make him crazy in the eyes of agnostics.

And man this thread is getting way off topic. XD;;

[Fish and Chips]

Yes, I'm aware of that fact. I'd hate for everyone to agree. Then we'd have a boring world.

Rocklobster, opponent of world peace.

[Solid Ronin]

Rocklobster, opponent of world peace.

GOLGOM!

[Radical Dreamer]

Okay guys, try to get back on topic--there's nothing inherently wrong with the discussion at the moment, but it could likely lead to theological debate.

[TheSubtleDoctor]

A.J Ayer! I am reading "Language, Truth and Logic" for the second time, and, although I am BY NO MEANS a logical positivist, I can't help but enjoy this book. It's quite lucid, and Ayer is doggedly commited to his theories.

[rocklobster]

sorry this is getting out of hand.

[Yamamaya]

Yes, I'm aware of that fact. I'd hate for everyone to agree. Then we'd have a boring world.

I officially love you man.

Ben Carson. I love the guy's works. He's an amazing neurosurgeon(did the first sucessful separation of Simese twins with both of them surviving). However, sometimes he can come off as a bit condescending.

He acts like the solution to everything is just to "work harder." Yeah that definitely helps, but not everyone is as lucky as you are man.

[the_wolfs_howl]

Isaac Asimov (had the lamest reason for disbelieving Christianity ever)

Might I ask what that was?


For me, the only authors that come immediately to mind are Annie Dillard and Jorge Luis Borges. Both are sort of agnostic and weird in their beliefs, and it definitely comes through in their writing, but their skill is so amazing that I can't help but love them to death. Annie Dillard has this incredible way of talking about several seemingly unrelated things, and somehow drawing them all together in the end and making a striking point that I might not agree with, but appreciate nonetheless. Jorge Luis Borges just has this odd, barely-understandable (at least for me) manner of writing that intrigues me to no end.

I suppose Robert Jordan would also fall into this category. The views expressed in his Wheel of Time series seem really lame to me, namely the Eastern religion stuff, bashing of pseudo-Christianity, and a gratingly narrow and skewed view of women half-hidden under a veneer of feminism. I get so incensed about all these things in his books - more than they warrant, for sure - yet I can't deny that his writing is really good for the most part.

[ich1990]

I apologize for the tangents, interesting though they were.

I would also like to throw Evelyn Waugh out there. While I disagree with him on the grounds of him being Catholic (and he isn't even fully that, as far as I can tell), his writings are utterly acerbic and humorous, and his prose is of the first rate.

Might I ask what that was?

In his own words:

"I don't believe in an afterlife, so I don't have to spend my whole life fearing hell, or fearing heaven even more. For whatever the tortures of hell, I think the boredom of heaven would be even worse."

[Etoh*the*Greato]

Given Jordan's "Children of the Light" organization, it would be very easy to dismiss him as being, well, dismissive of Christianity on the whole but I always viewed it as one of those "there are good people in Religion and bad people in religion" instances. He does have focus on them being dangerous zealots, yes, but he also crafts a world-view that is unusually judeo-christian in a genre largely dominated by pantheons: Single creator makes everything, casts out the force of evil at the very beginning. Force of evil causes the downfall from a 'golden era' and only that one most powerful chosen one who has fought with the Evil since time immemorial can stop him.

yeah, a lot of elements have been altered and Names have been changed to protect the innocent, but the gist is still there.

[Lynna]

For Me , Probably Gail carson Levine. She's one of my favorite authors, and I love her writing so much, And I highly recommend her books. However in the latest one, Ever It can be seen that it is likely she has some negative views on God and is probably agnostic...
...and J.K. Rowling...her books were awsome (as long as you don't take them seriusly), but she obviusly has a posotive view of magic
I probably disagree with all my favorite authors at some point...

[Etoh*the*Greato]

Her view of magic is that it is positively fictitious. Unfortunately for my meager grasp of latin, chanting a few words in a dead world language and waving a stick doesn't conjure anything but weird looks from your house-mates. >.>

[Nate]

Maybe you just suck at Latin though.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

Maybe you just suck at Latin though.

I don't see how that should matter. So did the Harry Potter characters.

[airichan623]

Scott Westerfeld (author of the Uglies books)-- very pro-evolution. and also doesnt hold abstinence in a very high regard. but i love his picture of the future-- i mean yeah, its totally pro-"save the earth" but it all makes sense too.

Tamora Pierce- fabulous fantasy writer, but she taught witchcraft once, condones lesbianism (and introduced the concept to my at the time innocent mind- never read "Will of the Empress", one of my fav characters became a lesbian), and loves tales of pre-marital sex. however, her worlds are imaginitive, the characters colorful, and the women powerful.

Judy Blume- Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret. Need I say more?

[Atria35]

Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, people who's worldviews I just cannot agree with and raise my inner editor's ire. Would that I could get my hands on their "final drafts"!

[Nate]

You do read Slacktivist and their "Left Behind Mondays" don't you?

I love how Fred continuously shows how terrible L&J are as writers, to say nothing of their ludicrous theology.

[Shao Feng-Li]

I can't really think of anyone in particular. Orson Scott Card is all about that comes to mind. Mostly, I'd rather not know the author. Ignorance is bliss XD

[Atria35]

You do read Slacktivist and their "Left Behind Mondays" don't you?

I love how Fred continuously shows how terrible L&J are as writers, to say nothing of their ludicrous theology.

I have actually never heard of this, but now I absolutely must read it. I thought I was the only one, since a lot of my friends like the books

Ah, thought of another author: JRR Tolkien! I can't really agree with his worldviews, but he was loose enough to write about elves and wizards and dragons, so I think he's still a really cool guy.

[airichan623]

Also:

-Joel Osteen (sorry if someone here loves him but in my opinion he twists the Bible into a self-help book and salvation into "all about me) but he's a fantastic speaker
-Stephanie Meyer- creator of american bishies, but got gruesome in breaking dawn and is a mormon

[meeghan94]

I'd say Stephenie Meyer. Yes, the Twilight Saga. They were really good, until the movies came out. I just don't agree with some of her things.

Sarah Dessen, she is secular and has drinking and a fair amount of swearing in her books, but the messages are AMAZING. I love reading them.

The Georgia Nicolson books? So stinking funny, but a bit weird and gross sometimes. But SO FUNNY. I can relate with her thinking (sometimes).

[meeghan94]

Scott Westerfeld (author of the Uglies books)-- very pro-evolution. and also doesnt hold abstinence in a very high regard. but i love his picture of the future-- i mean yeah, its totally pro-"save the earth" but it all makes sense too.

Tamora Pierce- fabulous fantasy writer, but she taught witchcraft once, condones lesbianism (and introduced the concept to my at the time innocent mind- never read "Will of the Empress", one of my fav characters became a lesbian), and loves tales of pre-marital sex. however, her worlds are imaginitive, the characters colorful, and the women powerful.

Judy Blume- Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret. Need I say more?

I'm double posting, yes I know, but Judy Blumes book Are you there God? It's me Margaret was a good book. To me. A little weird. Not for little girls. But, eh. I thought it was good. I own it.