Can you separate an author from his or her work?

goldomark said:

Exactly, why is he dragged into this? Anyone can make allegations.

HS touched me when I was a kid.

Click to expand...

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...

Mallus said:

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.

Click to expand...

Janx said:

I think it's a complicated problem. For instance, I have no clue what OSC's deeply held beliefs are that are so bad (not because I agree with him, I am simply unaware of the conflict).

How am I supposed to know who is good and who is bad?

What about companies that directly espouse bad views?

What about evil companies that own everything else? RJ Reynolds the cigarette company owns Kraft and a bunch of other companies that we all eat with out realizing we are benefiting an evil overlord?

How far should I make effort to impact these people and companies should I go? is just not buying product enough? Should I lobby to convince others to join me? Should I picket? Should I write my congressman?

Does Activism even work? Does all this effort to bring down WalMart actually have an impact on WalMart?

Or should I just mind my own business and buy what I want/need and accept that as a matter of society, I will inevitably be doing business with people who do not hold the same values as me?

Click to expand...

It is not just anyone it his daughter and these allegations have been around since she was a child she is now an adult. You realize often in cases of sexual child abuse there is limited proof. But one thing I do know young child don't make it up on their own. In Dylan case she was either sexually abused by her father or she was emotionally abused by her mother. She is the victim here she was a child and her parents failed her. As I said my issue with Woody Allen is he is either a sexual abuser or he is a father who knew he his child was being abused and did nothing to help her.

I can't watch his or Mia Farrow movies because when I sit there I think about their children suffering and that hits to close to home for me and I am not going to put myself through it.

It burns me how people bend over backwards to defend him even to the point of throwing mud at Dylan who was seven years old at the time.

I don't judge anyone who wants to see his movies but don't try and wash away the fact that his child was abused.

I was not going to get into the allegations of MZB children but I will say this there is a legal deposition where Elisbeth Waters MZB secretary and maybe partner admitted under oath that Moira as a child told her that both her parents were sexually abusing her.

As for the streaming thing I will say no I am not going to carry it that far. I just won't watch it. The reason for this is while I choose not to view or purchase things I don't have the right to force my feelings on the matter on other people.

And I agree with Mallus the fact that I read, bought and enjoyed MZB work has nothing to do with what happened to her children I did not participate in the crime. Right now some are starting to sling mud at the writers who worked with MZB who got their careers started because of her. Diana Paxson is one who was close with her has had some nastiness thrown at her. Right now MZB son lives in her home Moira has spoken out that Diana knew nothing of what was going on and if she had she would have gone to the police like she did when she found out that Walter Breen was sexually abusing boys.

Those writers are not guilty by association they should not be treated like they did anything wrong and if they don't feel the need they are under no obligation to not take the royalties they make off the sales of the books that MZB co authored or edited with them. That fact some of the writers are turning the money over to charity is admirable but not necessary.

I think we can know good from bad but we have to decide what we consider bad. For me child abuse, giving money to groups that actively support the oppression of anyone is bad. Having an opinion I don't agree with like homosexuality is a sin or believing in a religion like Scientology may make think you are wrong and maybe brainwashed but it is not going be label you as bad.

I try and avoid companies that I think go beyond what I am willing to tolerate but I am logical enough to know that they way corporations work today it can be hard to know everything under there umbrella and I will admit that I am not going to research every company. And sometimes there are practical matters. I am on a fixed income my food budget is tight I go where the sales are and the prices are low and often that is Walmart.

I think activism can work but even if I think in some cases it might not make a difference except to me then sometimes that has to be enough.

I can't claim to have followed the discussion through all seven pages, but the original question interested me and I wanted to chime in on it.

My initial reaction was that I'm quite good at separating a creator from their works. As I thought about it though I realized that I'm actually terrible at it. What I am in fact quite good at is actively distancing myself from any knowledge about the people who create the works I enjoy. I honestly couldn't tell you the names of the authors for a majority of the books I've read. The few I do know I only know because I enjoyed their books enough to do searches on their works to find more by them.

I don't know where this started, perhaps it was all the ridicules drama in my school days between some friends over the antics of various members of bands they liked. Whatever the cause I've made a point of avoiding any unnecessary knowledge about the people that produce the media I consume. Thus far, beyond a few vaguely annoying conversations along the lines of "Is that right? No really, I had no idea, he said all that did he? That is unfortunate." it has served me well. Because in the rare cases I have found out something unpleasant it does risk poisoning my enjoyment of their works.

Sero said:

I can't claim to have followed the discussion through all seven pages, but the original question interested me and I wanted to chime in on it.

My initial reaction was that I'm quite good at separating a creator from their works. As I thought about it though I realized that I'm actually terrible at it. What I am in fact quite good at is actively distancing myself from any knowledge about the people who create the works I enjoy. I honestly couldn't tell you the names of the authors for a majority of the books I've read. The few I do know I only know because I enjoyed their books enough to do searches on their works to find more by them.

I don't know where this started, perhaps it was all the ridicules drama in my school days between some friends over the antics of various members of bands they liked. Whatever the cause I've made a point of avoiding any unnecessary knowledge about the people that produce the media I consume. Thus far, beyond a few vaguely annoying conversations along the lines of "Is that right? No really, I had no idea, he said all that did he? That is unfortunate." it has served me well. Because in the rare cases I have found out something unpleasant it does risk poisoning my enjoyment of their works.

Click to expand...

Sometimes I think life was better before the internet. Back when I was a young adult it was hard to find information on a favorite author other than what you could find written up on a bio in the library.

I started attending cons and then working cons and I started meeting and hanging out with a lot of writers and actors. On one hand I have a lot of great memories and had some fantastic conversations. But the down side was sometimes finding out that they were not nice people or had things about them you didn't like. I made a decision back then not to let the bad experience distract from their work and for the most part it doesn't.

But even back then there were things that someone could do that could make it impossible for me to separate them from their work it was rare but it did happen.

Dannyalcatraz said:

Michael Vick's involvement in dogfighting was deplorable. However, he did his time and seems to have turned over a new leaf. But, despite his apparent reformation, some people continue to vilify him.

Click to expand...

A person who would EVER take part in that voluntarily is inherently a very bad person. I would never knowingly give money to someone who was that deeply evil inside. He may have "turned over a new leaf" publicly, but whatever lack of humanity he had that led him to think that dogfighting was okay is still there. Sociopaths don't get better.

I can generally separate the author from the work. When making purchases, though, I refuse to give money to anyone who I think is actively harming others.

I have never read Marion Zimmer Bradley's work. Knowing what I know about her now, though, I have no interest in ever picking up anything she or her husband wrote. Child abuse is one of the most horrific crimes there is, and I wouldn't be able to forget or overlook what I know about them while reading their books.

I have always enjoyed Frank Miller's comics. I dislike him and his views, but I can read his work and forget who wrote them. He's a blowhard, but that's about it - he doesn't actively work to hurt other people in substantial ways (other than simply being offensive), as far as I know.

I will read some things by Orson Scott Card, but only if purchased used. I won't give him any money because he's a homophobic bigot (among other things) who actively works against gay rights. I won't help to fund that.

I won't do anything to put a single cent of money into Scientology's hands, because they do a lot of things that hurt a lot of people. I would never buy an L. Ron Hubbard book that was being sold "new" because they would get the money. I don't read copies from used bookstores because he's just a terrible writer.

Lovecraft is a very interesting case. He was racist, but it's really more accurate to say that he was broadly xenophobic, even when it came to things beyond race. He had some very odd psychological and emotional issues, and desperately wanted to be an 18th century New England wealthy "gentleman." He was very naive in some ways, and lived his life in books and letters, trying to construct an odd little personal reality for himself. He freaked out while living (briefly) among the immigrant populations in the Red Hook district of New York, has several nervous breakdowns (starting in his teens), and was extremely eccentric overall. He tended to be extremely fearful of things that were outside of his idealized existence in New England. He ranted a lot about "mongrel races" and such in his letters and writings, but doesn't seem to have been mean to people in real life. He even married a Jewish woman, despite his anti-Semitic rants. He was just a fascinating, strange person overall.

billd91 said:

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

Click to expand...

Well, IANAL, and I don't know how accurate wikipedia is on the issue, but this is what it says:

In March 1977, film director Roman Polanski was arrested and charged in Los Angeles with five offenses against Samantha Gailey, a 13-year-old girl[1] – rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor.[2] At his arraignment Polanski pleaded not guilty to all charges,[3] but later accepted a plea bargain whose terms included dismissal of the five initial charges[4] in exchange for a guilty plea to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse.[4][5]

Click to expand...

(quoted from here.)
So, originally, he pleaded non-guilty on all charges. What made him change his mind? I like to think it was his lawyer arguing he would stand a better chance at court if he admitted to a lesser charge. Maybe I watched too many (bad) movies, but it seems it isn't that uncommon that a laywer recommends his client to admit something he didn't actually do because he believed his client couldn't win the case if he pleaded non-guilty. What happened after that, imho, fits that scenario:

Polanski underwent a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation,[6] and a report was submitted to the court recommending probation.[7] However, upon learning that he was likely to face imprisonment and deportation,[5][8] Polanski fled to France in February 1978, hours before he was to be formally sentenced.[

Click to expand...

I.e. Polanski followed his laywer's recommendations without being entirely aware of the potential degree of penalty. When he became aware of it he panicked, even though it was likely he would have been on probation.

So what did really happen? We cannot know.

A person who would EVER take part in that voluntarily is inherently a very bad person.

Click to expand...

Even though I find the practice despicable, I can't agree. Dogfighting, chicken fights, bear baiting, bullfighting and other animal-related blood sports have been around for most of human history, worldwide.

Even in less obvious arenas, cruelty to animals has been part of society. It's well documented that some meat producers are quite cruel to their livestock. But did you know that the old magician's trick of making a bird disappear from a crushed cage originally killed or injured the bird? (Modern performers use fake birds to avoid that.)

IOW, unless you're a nascent serial killer, animal cruelty is not about the person's inherent moral state, and more about culture, it's a learned behavior. And while greatly reduced in acceptibility, pockets of popularity still exist and are quite insular. Vick's own testimony falls squarely within that narrative.

Jhaelen said:

So what did really happen? We cannot know.

Click to expand...

Polanski's victim has been pretty consistent in her testimony, even into adulthood, but has said she feels he has paid his debt.

Polanski's testimony in his plea deal before the judge is available to read in transcript- all 19 pages of it- on the Internet. Given the array of penalties he faced, including "indeterminate" involuntary institutionalization in a mental health care facility, pleading guilty when I had the resources to fight the charges would NOT be an option I would choose for myself or a client if I felt they were unjust.

And make no mistake: the list of punishments were explicitly enumerated by the clerk of court during the plea. IOW, he was told he could face up to 20 years in prison and/or an open ended institutionalization in court, and had he said he didn't understand, the proceedings would have ceased until he either DID understand or rejected the plea. So his claim that he didn't figure it out until later (right before he fled) rings kind of false to me.

Interviews while in Europe where he jokingly and guiltlessly comments about how he likes very young women are also telling, IMHO.

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've been an avid reader of the Flashman Papers by George MacDonald Fraser since I was a teenager. I owe most of my understanding of the latter half of the 19th century to the detailed and accurate historical background information that they contain. And Mr American by Fraser is one of my favourite novels ever.

But when I read The Light's On At Signpost, GMF's collection of essays recounting his experiences in the movie world and, more importantly for these purposes, his views on politics and society, it left something of a bad taste in my mouth. I don't enjoy reading his novels any less, but there's always this niggling thought in the back of my mind reminding me that the author held some very intolerent views (no matter how justified they might be by his own experiences).

Elf Witch said:

It is not just anyone it his daughter and these allegations have been around since she was a child she is now an adult. You realize often in cases of sexual child abuse there is limited proof. But one thing I do know young child don't make it up on their own. In Dylan case she was either sexually abused by her father or she was emotionally abused by her mother. She is the victim here she was a child and her parents failed her. As I said my issue with Woody Allen is he is either a sexual abuser or he is a father who knew he his child was being abused and did nothing to help her.

I can't watch his or Mia Farrow movies because when I sit there I think about their children suffering and that hits to close to home for me and I am not going to put myself through it.

It burns me how people bend over backwards to defend him even to the point of throwing mud at Dylan who was seven years old at the time.

I don't judge anyone who wants to see his movies but don't try and wash away the fact that his child was abused.

Click to expand...

Kids are sponges and can pick up stuff in unexpected places. People can also convince themselves of false memories. Farrow can just be a supporting mother to a child who was lying or deluded itself.

The truth is we have no clue what happened and are in no position to take a side.