I agree on all but one bullet point. Are we gonna say the Turner Diaries doesn't reflect on the morality of its author? Supremacist rhetoric / ideals in fiction do produce issues squarely from the author.

I'd challenge most of them, to be honest, on the basis that regardless of intent, other peoples writing can cause you physical harm via the medium of other people, and it can be very deliberately designed to do so. At bare minimum - "kill this guy and I'll give you $100" is an exhortation to do harm

BUT, can you as a reader tell whether an author is good or evil based solely on their fiction? I’d say no. Mirrors reflect but they can also wildly distort. It’s the reader’s moral responsibility to do some actual research on the author before they start hucking stones.

but do you need to say that? afaik the author was an avowed white nationalist and its fans are various forms of racists and fascists. i just don't see where the specific logic of "this book is written as if it's white nationalist propaganda" -> "the author is a white nationalist" is really needed.

In a world where half the internet seems to think writing a story set in an oppressive society to talk about resistance means the author likes the patriarchy, not the resistance, immediately raising edge cases on the other extreme feels less like injecting nuance than missing the intent.

That's what brings me up short. Of course the morality expressed in a work of fiction reflects upon the author! I'm hoping what they meant to say is that not every worldview a given character is depicted as having is an endorsement.

More like “doesn’t necessarily reflect the morality of the author.” Plenty of authors depict racism and violence with endorsing them.

I do think the point being made here is that if an author writes about “the erotic appeal of cannibalism”, for instance, that doesn’t mean they want to eat people or even think that it’s a good idea. Biases and prejudices will still be revealed through fiction, but it isn’t cut and dry 1-1.

That point would be correct if it said "Fiction doesn't *necessarily* reflect author's morality".

YOU reading fiction like that doesn't physically hurt you. OTHER PEOPLE reading fiction like The Turner Diaries may be convinced that physically hurting you is a good idea.

He’d be a shitty person whether he wrote the Turner Diaries or not. What the OP is saying is that someone’s writing is not proof that they are an immoral person. Tools of analysis are not revealers of truth. Extreme examples shouldn’t make the rule.