A Collection of Wonderful Books by Morally Questionable People

We like to think of our favorite writers as people we would get along with. So much of what attracts us to literature and philosophy is its author’s stated or implied worldview that it’s disturbing to find out that the writers we love have lived morally questionable — or even reprehensible — lives. Laura Miller examined this disappointment in a piece for Salon earlier this week, ultimately concluding that, “needing to believe that your favorite author lived in an exemplary way, embodying all the virtues of his best work, is an adolescent desire, passionate but ultimately unfair. Learning the truth is disillusioning at first, but enlightening in the end.”

In the spirit of hating the author but loving the work, we’ve rounded up a collection of great books by poets, novelist, and philosophers with unsettling biographies, featuring both writers Miller mentions and some of our own favorite scoundrels. Spoiler alert: the modernists were a pretty colorful bunch.

Matilda by Roald Dahl

If you weren’t aware that Roald Dahl was a terrible person, educate yourself with Alex Carnevale’s essay on the beloved children’s author’s “macabre unpleasantness.” It starts with the revelation that Matilda as we know it has basically nothing to do with the character as Dahl conceived her: ”the original draft of the book painted the protagonist as a devilish little hussy who only later becomes ‘clever’, perhaps because she found herself without very much to do after torturing her parents. Dahl’s editor Stephen Roxburgh completely revised Dahl’s last novel and, in doing so, turned it into his most popular book.” And Dahl’s misogyny is just beginning — he was also an anti-Semite and fascist sympathizer.

Filed Under:

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest

[...] wonderful books by morally questionable people? YES PLEASE. [...]

[...] Flavorwire A Collection of Wonderful Books by Morally .Jun 9, 2011 Flavorwire: Cultural news and critique from Flavorpill. [...]

[...] might find morally questionable. Roald Dahl and Ezra Pound were anti-Semites and Nazi sympathizers, Charles Dickens was reportedly a verbally abusive husband who ignored his children, and African-American author Zora Neale Hurston [...]

[...] do we throw the book against the wall in exasperation? We wrote about morally questionable authors last week, but think it’s time to examine the voice and actions of main characters this time around, [...]

I had to stop reading that article about Dahl, the author obviously hates his guts and says a lot of ridiculous things. He calls the BFG a pedophiliac monster!

J.D. Salinger developed a fixation with Catherine Oxenburg from Dynasty and used to send her "mash" notes - I hope she kept them - or sold them.....

What about Henrik Ibsen? Great writer, crap human.

This list was really fun, thanks. I think though that a case of this sort could be made for just about any of us. Many excellent comments, too, especially Deven's.

I'm not sure that Zora Neale Hurston is morally questionable because of her opposition to those things you mentioned. I know a lot of blacks of her day opposed them on various grounds that seemed to them reasonable, seeking another way to the desired ends. Unless there's more you left out.

This list became kind of tedious fairly quickly. It is dominated by racism, sexism, and Nazi sympathies, all awful in their own right, but each diminishes in impact when presented for virtually every author on the list. Where are the real monsters? I can't believe there were no pedophiles or cannibals or genuine psychopaths to choose from in all of literary history. I'm sure at least one violent alcoholic could be dredged up from the list of contemporary literary greats, maybe a handful of drug-addled parents, and maybe, if we do our homework and are really luck, a baby-eater.

I agree that this list is missing context. While not an excuse, antisemitism was a societal norm and a historical fact right up through the 1940s, especially in England, Spain and the US. To say someone was an antisemite in the first half of the 20th century is like saying that they wore glasses: not everyone did, but it was common enough to be considered acceptable. Also, in terms of the extent of the Holocaust and the Nazi party's policies: it was not until welllll into the war that it became more apparent what was going on, that the prison camps were death camps, and it wasn't until after the war that the full extent of the cruelty and inhumane treatment became known to the greater world. It doesn't excuse the ridiculous hatred, but it does put it all into context. After all, it's easy to say "they were wrong," or whathaveyou, but it negates the lessons of history to cast judgment without understanding what you judge. After all, it could easily be argued that Muslims are the new Jews and, in 40 years time, there will be a new list, populated by new authors, all with the same credentials and the the same morally questionable beliefs. Just change the names and change the hated group, and it all sounds eerily familiar...

Misogynist Hamster Pan: STFU, you big-mouth moron!!

No Pierre Drieu La Rochelle or LF Céline?

Maybe having strong opinions--whether we agree with them or not--makes for interesting writing. Funny, to me at least, that these opinions were generally hidden from view in the works that we know.

What's with all this rubbish about many on the list being anti-Semitic and/or racist? That's utter bollocks. A chip on your shoulder? A poor list whem this seems to be your main criteria for inclusion. What about Charles Dodgson (aka Lewis Carroll) the well known teacher and kiddie fiddler who just loved to photograph 6-11 year old children in the nude? He even tried to marry an 11 year old girl. There are many other authors far more deserving of vilification.

Needs Orson Scott Card, a truly vile member of modern society who unfortunately has penned some of the more popular sci-fi books of the generation (Ender's Game and it's sequels, notably).

I think this paints an unfair portrait of Zora Neale Hurston. She grew up in an all-Black community that had its own doctors, teachers and lawyers. Because it was segregated, Blacks filled all roles in the community. Also, she grew up without feeling inferior or strange, because everyone around her was African American. That informed her views on segregation and Brown vs Board of Education. It's not like she was against Brown v Board because she thought blacks were inferior to whites or something... she was against it because she thought the quality of the black kids' education would suffer if they were thrown into a white school where people were prejudiced against them. I'm not saying she's right, necessarily... obviously segregation had to end for the good of society... but I do think that at that time, black kids who grew up in a segregated community probably had a healthier sense of self than kids who grew up around a bunch of racists who hated them. Hurston is not a bad person for recognizing that.

@Tess: i've been a fan of Death In June for almost 20 years. that article you linked to is full of half-truths, misquotes and speculation. while DIJ certainly use symbology co-opted by the Nazi's (yes, most of those symbols exists long before Hitler got his hands on them), they're hardly Nazi's. both Douglas P. and Tony Wakeford (who hasn't been a member of DIJ since around 1985, BTW), have both spoken out against their "misguided youth" and very fleeting associations with certain fascists groups in late 70's England. Patrick Leagas (aka Patrick O'Kill) has also not been a part of DIJ since the early-mid 80's as well. Doulgas P. is the only constant in the band, and has repeatedly stated that he is not a Nazi or fascist, and he no longer bothers even answering the question because people are going to believe whatever they want to believe. oh, and DIJ has played in Israel several times in the past. however, i think you may be referring to Boyd Rice, who has been a prolific writer/interviewer (which Douglas P. is not). while Boyd has worked with DIJ, he's not really a member of the band. having met Boyd on more than one occasion (since i live in Denver and used to frequent some of the same bars), i can tell you that he's harmless. he's a jerk, don't get me wrong, but he's much more a dork than anything else. is he a misogynist/fascist/whatever? i'm not entirely sure how much of that he actually believes: Boyd is only interested in Boyd, and one of the things that makes him happiest is shocking other people. he's definitely a misanthrope, and not someone i could ever stand to be around for more than a few minutes. but he tries so hard to shock people that it quits being offensive and just becomes pathetically hilarious to watch him try so hard. i personally never cared for the guy that much because he's so self-centered and goes out of his way to annoy people. and yes, i've seen him perform live, and it was one of the worst things i've ever heard. however, i wonder how much he's really a "favorite" of yours, considering all of this stuff about Boyd is common knowledge, and has been for years (decades, in fact). even among his fans, there are few people that take everything he has to say seriously.

DFLamont, you've got it backwards. The Republicans in Spain were the left, not the right. The Republicans wanted to continue with their progressive Republic, whereas Franco wanted a return to "tradition." That's what the civil war was all about, pro-republic left versus militaristic right.

I would like to "drop out of collage" too. Wonder what that would feel like. There's a certain naivete in this whole post -- like wow, brilliant people can also be complete assholes and dipshits. Ugh.

Fuck it, I got as far as A house for Mr. Biswas I'm so sick of women bitching about misogyny, especially in the 21st century. Haven't you gotten sick of playing the victim after what, a tens of thousands of years of existence on this planet. jesus christ, what would you do with yourselves if you ladies didn't feel oppressed all the time. Here's a nugget to ponder on: if women haven't achieved equality after tens of thousands of years, it might be becuase you dumb bitches are fucking retarded. now shut. up. Flavorwire, I like some of your features. But please stop populating your writing pool with dumbshit sophomore writing majors out to change the world through poorly researched (and written) lists.

I'm not speaking up for ANY of this, but much of this is taken out of the context of WHEN it happened. For instance, many people spoke pro-Hitler before the war, before things actually happened. And artists tend to speak ideally, not practically. I think if you look a little harder, you can find others who are more morally reprehensible...in their OWN time, not by our standards.

I'm exceptionally grateful for this article, because this morning I was crestfallen to learn that one of my favorite writers/interviewers of alternative/underground art and culture is the leader of a new wave band, whose members are all avowed misogynists and fascists. He would "fit right in" with some of the others mentioned in this article, sick! See link below. http://libcom.org/library/death-in-june-a-nazi-band

For some context for commenter, when the author is referring to Pound writing for "right-wing" publications, this refers to European fascism in the lead up to, and during World War II. Pound regularly broadcast anti-semitic screeds on the radio in Italy and had to be put in a cage when he was captured by U.S. troops. When the author refers to Gertrude Stein being a "Republican" I believe she is referring to Stein supporting the pro-fascist Spanish Republican government, which was supported by the Nazis.

Without some historical context both "right wing publications" and "Republican" statements could mean a number of different things.

"Not only was she a Republican..." gasp. How vile. Being a conservative is certainly reason enough to find these authors morally questionable.

Hugh Selwyn Mauberley by Ezra Pound "wrote for right-wing publications" <this part counts as morally questionable? The rest of it, sure...but I don't understand the clearly conservative bias applies to this article.

I know this sounds naive but: Roald Dahl fought in WWll. The entire time he was rooting for the other side?

Trackbacks

  1. [...] might find morally questionable. Roald Dahl and Ezra Pound were anti-Semites and Nazi sympathizers, Charles Dickens was reportedly a verbally abusive husband who ignored his children, and African-American author Zora Neale Hurston [...]

  2. [...] do we throw the book against the wall in exasperation? We wrote about morally questionable authors last week, but think it’s time to examine the voice and actions of main characters this time around, [...]

  3. [...] Flavorwire A Collection of Wonderful Books by Morally .Jun 9, 2011 Flavorwire: Cultural news and critique from Flavorpill. [...]

  4. [...] wonderful books by morally questionable people? YES PLEASE. [...]