Separate the Art From the Artist

[Winter_Fare]

I don't often start threads but today a question springs to mind and I feel the urge to ask: feel free to ignore this topic if you feel it's not lighthearted enough.

I don't feel that writing fiction of any stripe, distasteful or not, makes you a bad person. I try to take what is written as an entity, if not self contained (because obviously culture and context cannot be ignored), then certainly possessed of an intrinsic value of its own.

Equally, it doesn't feel right to condemn the works of a bad person out of hand, simply because the bad person wrote them, any more than it would be right to condemn their offspring. Work once released into the wild is what it is. A spade that can dig foundations is also a potential weapon in another person's hands.

This excerpt from "The Thought Fox" by Ted Hughes is beautiful, even cut adrift from the body:

Across clearings, an eye,
A widening deepening greenness,
Brilliantly, concentratedly,
Coming about its own business

Till, with a sudden sharp hot stink of fox
It enters the dark hole of the head.
The window is starless still; the clock ticks,
The page is printed.

Yet Hughes was deeply flawed. He hurt the people he loved.

Are there any works of fiction you value, even though the author falls short in some way?

 

[Altissimus]

Jeffrey Archer isn't a very nice chap, but he wrote a short story called Old Love that I'll always remember fondly. I don't even like much of his other stuff

 

[SimonDoom]

I agree strongly with both things.

People write stories about rape and murder. It doesn't mean that they like these things or that they are bad people. In fact, it doesn't mean you can tell anything about them. I find it tedious when people at this site, or anywhere, pass judgment on authors who write erotica they don't happen to like.

Conversely, bad people make great art. Harvey Weinstein is a monster, but he produced some great movies. I'm not going to stop watching them. Marlon Brando always struck me as a self-absorbed jerk and bore but he was a great actor (when he was trying) and I hugely enjoy some of his movies. I don't agree with Dalton Trumbo's communist politics, but he was an excellent writer. Roald Dahl was an anti-semite, but I loved his children's books, and still cherish the influence they had on me.

 

[PeytonMirabelle]

In fantasy book discussions, this topic comes up routinely for several authors, J.K. Rowling most notably.

I have to say I enjoyed a lot of H. P. Lovecraft's original works, and the Cthulu mythos has had a deep and abiding influence on fantasy and horror fiction for almost a century ... even though the man himself was a racist of the worst stripe.

(I find these discussions much more palatable when the person in question is long-deceased.)

 

[alohadave]

Equally, it doesn't feel right to condemn the works of a bad person out of hand, simply because the bad person wrote them

It's a good thought, but doesn't really work for me.

Orson Scott Card has written some great books, but his personal politics mean that I won't read or support him.

Just like how I don't eat Chik-fil-a because of how they support anti-LGBT and gay conversion groups.

 

[Winter_Fare]

In fantasy book discussions, this topic comes up routinely for several authors, J.K. Rowling most notably.
....

(I find these discussions much more palatable when the person in question is long-deceased.)

I'm hoping to dig up some forgotten gems because "controversial" art sometimes gets buried by search algorithms. You get the same stuff churning over, only the popular stuff gets a hearing.

 

[Winter_Fare]

It's a good thought, but doesn't really work for me.

Orson Scott Card has written some great books, but his personal politics mean that I won't read or support him.

Just like how I don't eat Chik-fil-a because of how they support anti-LGBT and gay conversion groups.

Ah but chicken is chicken, it's all the damn same. Every work of art is unique.

 

[alohadave]

Ah but chicken is chicken, it's all the damn same. Every work of art is unique.

That doesn't invalidate my position.

 

[Winter_Fare]

That doesn't invalidate my position.

Of course not, that's not what I'm getting at, I made a mess of explaining. You can go somewhere else for the chicken, and put your money where your mouth is, and not miss out. If you cut out all good literature written by bad people, especially bad people who are already pushing up daisies, you miss out, not the author, because there's no truly equivalent alternative.

 

[Altissimus]

Ah but chicken is chicken, it's all the damn same. Every work of art is unique.

There's a very tangible difference between free range and battery, as evidenced on Lit on a daily basis.

 

[Winter_Fare]

There's a very tangible difference between free range and battery, as evidenced on Lit on a daily basis.

I cannot.

 

[SimonDoom]

That doesn't invalidate my position.

It's perfectly valid to "vote with your dollars" to express your values. The case for doing so is stronger, though, with a fungible product like fast food than with art, which is unique and can't be obtained from anyone else.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I agree with what you said to a large degree. I also think that people should make an effort and try to be aware of the consequences of their actions (writing) and weigh them against the benefits and their own desire to express themselves. If you decide to create some potentially harmful content then at least own it; don't stick your head into the sand and pretend ignorance.

 

[alohadave]

If you cut out all good literature written by bad people, especially bad people who are already pushing up daisies, you miss out, not the author, because there's no truly equivalent alternative.

That's my loss then. But everyone has their ethical line, that that is one of mine.

 

[Winter_Fare]

If you decide to create some potentially harmful content then at least own it; don't stick your head into the sand and pretend ignorance.

That should apply to peddlers of fact imo. Not fairy tales. You don't see the makers of the saw film series wallowing in grief beating their chests just in case they upset someone.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

That should apply to everyone, universally, no matter if they are writers, composers, movie makers, public speakers, politicians, and so on. Smut is just one tiny subset of all that, but we end up talking about it the most as it is what we do here.

 

[MediocreAuthor]

I love to prank people with this particular problem.

"Do you like this painting?"


"Why, sure." They will generally say, "It's alright."

"Well it was painted by Hitler, you monster!!!"

Obviously, that's just a prank I pull, but the logic behind it stands. You can find art or literature objectively enjoyable and of high quality, without supporting the artist/author.
I enjoy some of HP Lovecraft's work, even though he was a racist xenophobe. I love Buffy the Vampire Slayer even though Joss Whedon was such a sleaze.

Also, on the flip side, I write rape stories. If any of you actually think I'm a rapist, or support rape in any way outside of fiction, please PM me. I'd love to straighten that misunderstanding out.

 

[Winter_Fare]

That should apply to everyone, universally, no matter if they are writers, composers, movie makers, public speakers, politicians, and so on. Smut is just one tiny subset of all that, but we end up talking about it the most as it is what we do here.

So you say.

Consider Edgar Schein. He bore witness to the awful brainwashing of prisoners of war. He saw with his own eyes that people's beliefs were fluid, malleable. He then contributed his life's work to the science of communication. To building up individuals and businesses, helping people feel fulfilled in their work.

People who worked with him found him likable, approachable. He believed that the foundation of influencing a person was to admit your own ignorance. Ask a humble question, put the person you're influencing in a position of comfort. How can you do that if you never find common ground?

If you throw up over the contents of someone else's imagination? Intolerance is poison. Challenge lies by all means, but not stories.

 

[Winter_Fare]

I love to prank people with this particular problem.

"Do you like this painting?"
View attachment 2257965

"Why, sure." They will generally say, "It's alright."

"Well it was painted by Hitler, you monster!!!"

Obviously, that's just a prank I pull, but the logic behind it stands. You can find art or literature objectively enjoyable and of high quality, without supporting the artist/author.

It's a pretty painting isn't it? "Tada! A castle!" At the time he was in art school, photorealism was passé, wasn't it? There simply wasn't any place in his head for ugly art, he couldn't get his head around 'ugly' abstract thought. His literalism regarding beauty for beauty's sake is heavily tied up with aryanism.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Of course not, that's not what I'm getting at, I made a mess of explaining. You can go somewhere else for the chicken, and put your money where your mouth is, and not miss out. If you cut out all good literature written by bad people, especially bad people who are already pushing up daisies, you miss out, not the author, because there's no truly equivalent alternative.

A living author misses out on the money, which is a consideration when they're using that money to do harm.

Whatever choices we make as readers, we're missing out on something. Life is too short to read all the good books out there. So by and large, I think I can afford to focus on the good books written by good people, and if I ever run out of those, then I'll wrestle with the question of whether to prioritise bad books by good people or good books by bad. But I think that day is quite a long way off.

 

[MediocreAuthor]

It's a pretty painting isn't it? "Tada! A castle!" At the time he was in art school, photorealism was passé, wasn't it? There simply wasn't any place in his head for ugly art, he couldn't get his head around 'ugly' abstract thought. His literalism regarding beauty for beauty's sake is heavily tied up with aryanism.

Okay... So I'm going to be very dangerous when I say this, especially since I'm blonde haired and blue eyed

I have a lot of respect for photorealistic paintings, more than I do for a lot of "ugly art." (Abstract paintings have their place, but I hate something like 99% of Picasso's work.)

So in that respect, unfortunately, I agree... (With Hitler)

But I also like anime, so I think we can all rest assured in the notion:

I'm Not Hitler.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

The world is filled with examples. In the musical vein, consider Wagner. The man was as nasty an anti-Semite as one could imagine, yet I am unwilling to discard some of the most magnificent music in history because of a deep flaw in the composer.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'm Not Hitler.

"Hi, I'm MediocreAuthor. Read my stories. I'm not Hitler."

I like it.

 

[SeraphNocturne]

I think it's a bit of a Catch 22, isn't it?

The content of one's character does influence how I personally view art, and the more deplorable the individual the less inclined I am to want anything to do with them. I handle that on a case-to-case basis. I'm less likely to be bothered by an author who's been long gone. If their material is engaging, I'll take it for what it is, though I'm probably not going to add it to my bookshelves.

 

[MediocreAuthor]

"Hi, I'm MediocreAuthor. Read my stories. I'm not Hitler."

I like it.

Me, the 134 year old German man, somehow kept alive by secret Nazi sci-fi tech, typing in the forums from my clandestine, Argentinian hideout.

"PERFECT! I HAVE ZEM ALL FOOLED! MIEN GOT! TELLING ZEM THAT I LIKED ANIME THREW ZEM OFF MY TRAIL!"