Can you separate an author from his or her work?

Mallus said:

Serious question: do you subscribe to any media streaming/rental services, ie Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Instant, Spotify, etc.?

Ender's Game is on Netflix. So are a lot of Roman Polanski films. I don't even want to countenance the sins of musicians. So in some small diffuse way, everyone who subscribes to these services provides financial support to artists who have espoused terrible views and/or committed and been convicted of heinous crimes.

Are you willing to carry your position that far? If not, why?

Click to expand...

Since I agree with the Squirrel on this, I wanted to offer my perspective (not trying to answer for him, though).

Services like those are just that, services. In that regard, it would be like associating the movie theater showing Ender's Game alongside The Avengers, some indie flick, and a romcom. Money has changed hands numerous times before the product ever gets to the consumer. The message, for me, is sent by not consuming that particular product. I don't buy a OSC book when I'm at the bookstore. I don't go to see Ender's Game at the movie theater and I don't watch Ender's Game on Amazon Prime. The way in which subscription services measure their audience, so to speak, is by how many views a movie or show gets, so the message still gets sent.

Elf Witch said:

I was wondering how other people feel about things like this? Not just about authors but anyone who creates art, music, literature, film?

Click to expand...

I believe a lot of artists have dark secrets that I rather wouldn't know about.

In the few cases in which I either knew about from the beginning or learned about it later it just becomes another facet of their work that I subconsciously look out for. If anything, it makes me more curious about their works.

A good example is H.P. Lovecraft and the accusation of him having been a racist. (Re)Reading his stories I definitely stumbled upon several instances of rather blatant racism. I'm still not sure how much of it is simply a reflection of his time, though. And all in all it didn't keep me from enjoying his stories.

Orson Scott Card is another favorite author of mine who some people dislike because he's a member of the Mormon Church. I cannot imagine not reading his books because I don't agree with his chosen faith.

There's also several actors that come to my mind who've been accused of racism, but that didn't affect my enjoyment of the movies they participated in. 20 years after his death, Klaus Kinski has been accused by his daughter of sexually abusing her. But what does this say about the movies he was starring in? We have several actors belonging to scientology (Tom Cruise, John Travolta) - does that mean we should avoid every movie they're in?

Or what about Roman Polanski? I consider him one of my favorite directors. I don't know if he's rightfully been accused of sexual assault or not. Frankly, I don't care when watching one of his excellent movies.

I try not to buy works by bag people. If I do, I try to buy used, so they get no money. That said, it is hard to avoid. Sometimes it comes out after, but I feel no need to destroy the works I have. It also depends on the label of the wrong.

Jhaelen said:

Or what about Roman Polanski? I consider him one of my favorite directors. I don't know if he's rightfully been accused of sexual assault or not. Frankly, I don't care when watching one of his excellent movies.

Click to expand...

Sometimes bad people make great art. This has been true since forever.

Viewing art does not make you complicit in the crimes or sins of the artist. Ever.

That said, if any particular work of art makes you feel complicit and you don't like it, then it makes sense for you to avoid it. Just be clear that you're "avoiding feeling complicit" and not "striking a blow for justice and goodness".

edit: I like Polanski's films, but Altman's The Long Goodbye is a better neo-noir than Chinatown.

Jhaelen said:

I believe a lot of artists have dark secrets that I rather wouldn't know about.

Click to expand...

I believe that's probably true about people in general. We all do things or have done things we don't want people to know about. I do think that people in certain segments of society may experience these sorts of things more than others, though, and artists are probably right in that segment. Great art can come from pretty dark places.

Jhaelen said:

Or what about Roman Polanski? I consider him one of my favorite directors. I don't know if he's rightfully been accused of sexual assault or not.

Click to expand...

I think it has been pretty well established, by his own statements, that he did have sex with the teen.

In general, I hold myself to particular standards of behavior. I don't look down on anyone who doesn't join me in avoiding certain people's works. Go ahead and see or read Ender's Game or movies by Roman Polanski if you want. I'll make my own decision on going to see or read the work and my decision may differ.

MasqueradingVampire said:

If an author/artist/creator/whatever is still alive makes all the difference it seems. Regardless, I will generally do a little research on a person before consuming their work, a background check, so to speak.

Click to expand...

I agree. I have relatively little problem reading older works by dead people we would rightly call racists today. That applies to a whole lot of people simply because of the times they lived in. My purchase of access to their art, be it a movie ticket, a book, or a work of art itself, can't contribute to their enrichment either direct monetarily or by enhancing their reputation and enabling their enrichment.

Now, if a dead artist's legacy (descendants, foundations, etc) were openly contributing to odious causes, then I probably would continue to avoid buying their works.

MasqueradingVampire said:

Since I agree with the Squirrel on this, I wanted to offer my perspective (not trying to answer for him, though).

Click to expand...

More perspectives are good!

Services like those are just that, services. In that regard, it would be like associating the movie theater showing Ender's Game alongside The Avengers, some indie flick, and a romcom. Money has changed hands numerous times before the product ever gets to the consumer.

Click to expand...

So if enough intermediary agents exist between the consumer and the artist, then it's okay? The consumer is no longer complicit?

The message, for me, is sent by not consuming that particular product. I don't buy a OSC book when I'm at the bookstore. I don't go to see Ender's Game at the movie theater and I don't watch Ender's Game on Amazon Prime. The way in which subscription services measure their audience, so to speak, is by how many views a movie or show gets, so the message still gets sent.

Click to expand...

So your position is more about "consumption as protest" than "financially supporting certain artists"?

Who is the protest aimed at? The individual artist(s)? Their publishers/adapters?

Mallus said:

More perspectives are good!


So if enough intermediary agents exist between the consumer and the artist, then it's okay? The consumer is no longer complicit?


So your position is more about "consumption as protest" than "financially supporting certain artists"?

Who is the protest aimed at? The individual artist(s)? Their publishers/adapters?

Click to expand...

I feel like your questions are a little leading. Admiral Ackbar's voice is sounding an alarm. If I'm wrong, please let me know.

The consumer has no control over what publishing companies choose to publish, movie studios choose to produce, game companies choose to put out, etc. The only control consumers have is what they choose to spend their money on. Not buying anything affiliated with OSC sends a message to the publishers and movie studios and such that I don't want what OSC makes. They can draw their own conclusions as to the why or pay attention to the criticisms published online and make decisions about whether to continue publishing OSC's material based on that information.

OSC himself also gets the message and may choose to act or not act accordingly.

FYI Regarding Ender's Game the movie..OSC made all of the money he will ever make from the film when he sold the film rights, he doesn't make any off of it..the book on the other hand....

Jhaelen said:

Orson Scott Card is another favorite author of mine who some people dislike because he's a member of the Mormon Church. I cannot imagine not reading his books because I don't agree with his chosen faith.

Click to expand...

Before his other views became more known, this was honestly the only reason i had ever heard of some one not wanting to read the book or they just didn't like Sci-fi.

trappedslider said:

FYI Regarding Ender's Game the movie..OSC made all of the money he will ever make from the film when he sold the film rights, he doesn't make any off of it..

Click to expand...

I would amend that by adding a term "directly" to the end of it. There are other indirect effects of a successful movie, including adding to OSC's reputation which can then be used to negotiate better returns on his other works or strengthen his appearance in the causes he favors that I abhor. I'd like to withhold my support from those indirect effects as well as direct.