Joss Whedon Allegations: The Undoing of the "Buffy" Creator

Sacrosanct

Legend
Publisher
Ugh. Is it bad enough to warrant the googling, or fairly minor but disappointing?

I mean the homophobia and other problematic elements of the Elenium already disappointed me when I went back and read it again a couple years ago…
The nature of how he wrote the relationship between Sparhawk and Ehlana takes on an extra creepy vibe when I learned Eddings' history. It was bad enough with a 40ish year old guy going back and forth with a teenager girl of "I raised this little girl" to "this little tart keeps seducing me and I can't help but have sex with her. And it was really good." back to "I raised this little girl", rinse and repeat.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Look forward to making positive changes in the community in the future rather than condemning ourselves for the past.

One major way to make positive changes going forward is to make perfectly clear in the present that some things are not acceptable, and to make it clear that there are consequences.

I daresay most authors want to have a legacy - for their works to outlive them. Therefore, that legacy is one place we can choose to enact consequences.
 

Bolares

Hero
I find by the time I find out anything, I've already bought and supported that individual already...so what do you do?

If you find their actions problematic and those that supported them as problematic, you have already supported the problem and the actions.

On the otherhand, many of those we talk about are already dead. Who are you supporting then...the dead use no money that I know of. I suppose their heirs might...but how do we judge whether heirs are good or bad?

Instead of view ourselves as villains for supporting those who took actions we find unlikeable now, and thus we were those who supported those actions...perhaps it is better to see us as supporting the creations that they made that perhaps speak in a different manner or created situations differently than those who created them?

Look forward to making positive changes in the community in the future rather than condemning ourselves for the past.
You seem to be choosing the exact circunstances where what I said wouldn't apply... Sure, I wouldn't burn already bought books, but I choose to not buy stuff from them from then on... Dead people don't make money, if I can see that whoever owns the rights right now isn't being bad, sure, I have no problem buying (if the work itself is not problematic and not contextualized).

I never said I view myself, or anyone else, as a villain for supporting anyone, I just said what I do to support my own convictions. It has nothing to do with guilt or villany.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I haven't heard about this. What about Marion Zimmer Bradley?
Her children have come out about Bradley and year stepfather did to them. Systematic abuse is the dry and clinical way I'll put it, but the details are out there.

In regards to complicity of supporting an author...a reader who would like a feminist take on Arthurian legend is engaged with remote material cooperation with an author's bad actions, which isn't morally problematic as it is neither proximate nor formal, particularly if they are secret as these were. Personally, I'd feel icky now, but that's more a gut feeling than a moral analysis.
 

Jer

Legend
Supporter
Okay...that sounds bad.

I think this is a prime example of separating the creator and the creation. I have many of her books already. I bought them already and have them in my library. I don't think it serves anyone to simply toss them out.
My problem is that with most of these creators I'm prevented from enjoying their works because I know the context of their lives now. Their works read a lot differently once you know about the baggage in their lives. For some authors it brings a new appreciation (finding out about Phil Dick's struggles with mental illness actually brought more to his work), for others it makes them impossible to read without noticing their baggage - sometimes to the point of not being able to enjoy their works at all (Whedon's Dollhouse and Firefly both come across very differently to me now, Bradley's books are in the same camp).

For dead authors like Bradley and Lovecraft I'm not worried about the ethics of monetarily supporting them because they're dead, but it sure does change the way I read their works knowing what they were like - often to the point of not being able to read some of their works at all.
 


CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
This sounds like a good time to remind people that Whedon has nothing to do with The Nevers (on HBO) anymore, and that it's a good show with a lot of people who are absolutely not Joss Whedon doing quality work,
That's mentioned in the article, too. Sounds like they went to great lengths to distance themselves from Joss.
 


Trolling/inflammatory example.
At what point do you admit that you honestly, don't care?

Lovecraft's writings may be in the public domain, but folks are still making money off of them despite his history. Then there's Henry Ford (who did have a change of heart), along with IBM.

What do you think of this painting?
 
Last edited:

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
At what point do you admit that you honestly, don't care?

Lovecraft's writings may be in the public domain, but folks are still making money off of them despite his history. Then there's Henry Ford (who did have a change of heart), along with IBM.

What do you think of this painting?

_105329504_hi051871586.jpg
The quality of a given work (better than I can do, but less good than many skilled amateurs I know, in this case) is irrelevant to the discussion.
 

MNblockhead

A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
On the creator's part, I find that you can enjoy a person's work without actually appreciating the person themselves. There are a LOT of entertainers and others that were absolutely horrendous people (Charlie Chaplin I hear about, for example), but you can still enjoy their contributions to the arts and otherwise.

Separating the person from their work and noting the contributions of that work is probably one of the better things to do once you start realizing how flawed many of the people that are significant (not just the arts, in science and other fields) in our culture really are.
For dead artists, yes. But I just don't like spending money on content knowing it will go to certain people. So your point works for me when it comes to Alfred Hitchcock, but not for some living artists.
 

TheSword

Legend
A book is one thing. But a TV show or a film is comprised of the efforts of a multitude of people. Of which the showrunner is only one.

This shouldn’t stop us appreciating what everyone else contributed and enjoying the shows. In fact, considering what an ass hat he seems to have been, it’s even more remarkable.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
The nature of how he wrote the relationship between Sparhawk and Ehlana takes on an extra creepy vibe when I learned Eddings' history. It was bad enough with a 40ish year old guy going back and forth with a teenager girl of "I raised this little girl" to "this little tart keeps seducing me and I can't help but have sex with her. And it was really good." back to "I raised this little girl", rinse and repeat.
Yeah, that was one of the things that stood out when I reread the trilogy. That, and the way Sparhawk speaks internally about the “fantasy Arabia” he had recently spent time in, and the homophobia, and probably other stuff. Ugh.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
A book is one thing. But a TV show or a film is comprised of the efforts of a multitude of people. Of which the showrunner is only one.

This shouldn’t stop us appreciating what everyone else contributed and enjoying the shows. In fact, considering what an ass hat he seems to have been, it’s even more remarkable.
You don't think there is any degree to which this outlook, in action, contributes to “open secrets” about creator’s behavior in order to protect one’s own carreer?

Also most books have several people involved in making them. It’s just that editors aren’t generally looking for game outside the professional circles that hire them.
 

The quality of a given work (better than I can do, but less good than many skilled amateurs I know, in this case) is irrelevant to the discussion.
You may have misunderstood my point (which may not have been communicated very well). You can say I'd totally buy the painting without caring that Hitler painted it.

EDIT: Then there are whole genres of music that would go along with Joss' treatment of women.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Publisher
Yeah, that was one of the things that stood out when I reread the trilogy. That, and the way Sparhawk speaks internally about the “fantasy Arabia” he had recently spent time in, and the homophobia, and probably other stuff. Ugh.
Some of that stuff I attribute to the times when it was written. But knowing his views and actions towards children, and then writing a teenage girl essentially seducing a middle aged man who essentially was her father (so not his fault!), seemed extra creepy. Someone once told me that since his crimes were in the 60s, he totally could been a reformed person in his later years. Looking at the writing of the elenium series (early 90s), and it doesn't seem so much had changed.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Some of that stuff I attribute to the times when it was written. But knowing his views and actions towards children, and then writing a teenage girl essentially seducing a middle aged man who essentially was her father (so not his fault!), seemed extra creepy. Someone once told me that since his crimes were in the 60s, he totally could been a reformed person in his later years. Looking at the writing of the elenium series (early 90s), and it doesn't seem so much had changed.
That's really not something that just "gets better."
 

TheSword

Legend
You don't think there is any degree to which this outlook, in action, contributes to “open secrets” about creator’s behavior in order to protect one’s own carreer?

Also most books have several people involved in making them. It’s just that editors aren’t generally looking for game outside the professional circles that hire them.
No. I don’t.

This isn’t about actors keeping things quiet. They have stepped forward. You also can’t blame someone for trying to protect their career when they’re not in a position of power.

It’s about acknowledging that Buffy et al, wasn’t just Whedon’s work. So we can enjoy it for everyone else’s benefit.

Unless co-wrote, a novel is predominantly created by the writer. The editor may assist and refine. But I trust you can see there is a whole order of magnitude between that and the legions involved in a TV show. Not to mention the fact that a lot of people would have no idea who or what a showrunner is. Everyone knows the name of the person who’s book they are reading.
 
Last edited:

I really enjoyed Cabin in the Woods when it came out in theaters, but that was the only time I saw it. (Can't decide if I liked the merman or the unicorn best....) I always have a craving to re-watch it every Halloween, but I've never been able to do it...partly because I don't want to spend more of my money on it, and partly because I don't want to ruin my good memories of the film.

In fairness to an excellent movie, Whedon didn't direct The Cabin in the Woods, and only co-wrote it.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top