Can you separate an author from his or her work?

1) Polanski's plea includes testimony that he was fully aware she was 13.

2) individual boycotts may have negligible impacts upon the person/institution boycotted, true, but things CAN snowball. To me, this means that the less certain I am of the veracity of allegations of wrongdoing, the less likely I am to discuss those supposed wrongdoings with others. So, if I am unsure of allegations about X, but still feel strongly enough to boycott X, I don't even let people know about my boycott just in case I am wrong. But as my level of certainty rises, the more willing I am to puclicize my boycott, in order to get others to do likewise.

What about companies? Do you separate the head of the company and whatever their views maybe from the rest of the company?

billd91 said:

It can be tough, but we're ultimately also talking about small-potatoes individual actions and not incarceration.

Click to expand...

Yeah. That's why I noted the reason for my comment - Allen isn't likely to notice, but I've seen fans go at each other pretty harshly over small-potatoes (like, say, how to pretend to be an elf). When you're instead talking about not believing in the pain done unto a child... well, stuff can get heated.

Dannyalcatraz said:

2) individual boycotts may have negligible impacts upon the person/institution boycotted, true, but things CAN snowball.

Click to expand...

Not about reprehensible behavior, or art, but things can snowball. Look at Market Basket - the supermarket chain is losing an estimated $10 million a day due to boycott reaction to executive business decisions (a favorite exec got fired). When faced with likely changes in employee policy, and prices, customers and employees have banded together, and they are not doing badly at putting the screws to the chain.

Dannyalcatraz said:

1) Polanski's plea includes testimony that he was fully aware she was 13.

2) individual boycotts may have negligible impacts upon the person/institution boycotted, true, but things CAN snowball. To me, this means that the less certain I am of the veracity of allegations of wrongdoing, the less likely I am to discuss those supposed wrongdoings with others. So, if I am unsure of allegations about X, but still feel strongly enough to boycott X, I don't even let people know about my boycott just in case I am wrong. But as my level of certainty rises, the more willing I am to puclicize my boycott, in order to get others to do likewise.

Click to expand...

for an informed individual, that seems like a decent plan.

For people who are misinformed, they seem to dial their activism up to 11 over something that may not have actually happened or happened the way they think it did.

It seems like doing nothing, is safer than doing something in these cases.

trappedslider said:

What about companies? Do you separate the head of the company and whatever their views maybe from the rest of the company?

Click to expand...

For me, it depends on what the head of the company is doing with my money. Ten years ago I became aware of where Cathey was spending his profits, so I haven't gone back there since then (even though I love their chicken). Even though most of the stores are franchises, some amount of money still trickles up, and I don't want any of my money going to Cathey's bigoted causes.

Dannyalcatraz said:

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.

Click to expand...

We will have to agree to disagree about that. Deliberate cruelty to any living thing is, to me, a sign of a cruel person. Though culture plays a strong role, in the end it gets down to what choices an individual makes.

In Vick's case, he knew it was considered horrific by the vast majority of people in the U.S. He was a member of a subculture that condoned it, but he got into that by choice.

To be honest, I think we are a vicious little species. I don't start out presuming that everyone is a good person. I think that is defined by their actions. Deliberate, unnecessary cruelty to other living things is pretty much my definition of "evil."

Umbran said:

Not about reprehensible behavior, or art, but things can snowball. Look at Market Basket - the supermarket chain is losing an estimated $10 million a day due to boycott reaction to executive business decisions (a favorite exec got fired). When faced with likely changes in employee policy, and prices, customers and employees have banded together, and they are not doing badly at putting the screws to the chain.

Click to expand...

I hadn't heard about that one, but I'm glad to see it. The usual reactions to executive business decisions like a firing are only seen in the way the stock market behaves. Its good to see the consumers letting their position be known as well as the shareholders. If that happens with a bit more regularity, perhaps we'll see more...considered...actions from management.

Umbran said:

Okay, so how about stuff she edited?

Click to expand...

I have no problem with those. There is a strong degree of separation between her and the eventual story, unless she was completely rewriting them (as opposed to editing).

I'm not saying that people in general should shun her books. I'm just saying that if I were reading something by her I would have a hard time enjoying it, because (in that particular case) I would have a hard time separating the author from the content.

The man was also born in 1890 - he was born, lived his life, and died before what we now think of as the civil rights movement started. You have to work a bit to find authors (or even just people) from that time who *weren't* racist (or sexist) by today's standards. I think we should give thanks to those who are ahead of the curve, but it is hard to fault someone for failing to be ahead of his or her time.

Click to expand...

At various points in his life he sounded more racist than was the norm at that time. As I said, though, a more accurate word for him would be "xenophobe." He was often terrified of people who weren't of Western European descent and things that didn't fit into his ideal 18th century New England existence. A lot of that is reflected in his personal letters, many of which can be read in collections for sale today. One complicating factor, though, is that his actions didn't always match his words. Though he ranted a lot in his letters, I have never seen any evidence that he was cruel to people he encountered. As I said, he was a complicated man.

There is a point where we are no longer avoiding support of a repugnant person's ideals, and stepping into whitewashing history - in the "those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it" sense. What's better - to avoid the work and forget, or read it and remember?

Click to expand...

I'm a librarian. I don't support whitewashing history, banning books, or anything like that. To me, though, child abuse is the most loathsome thing in the world. I have no desire to read fiction written by a child abuser. I wasn't making a general statement about what people should do in general. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter now, anyway, since she and her husband are dead and can't profit from the sales.

We can then also apply that thought to Card. What's better - to not support his work, or to read it and use it as a teaching/learning opportunity?

Click to expand...

My point is that you can read it without financially supporting him. That's the beauty of used bookstores and libraries. Given the things I have read, there really isn't much in his books that would make good teaching/learning opportunities. "Mein Kampf" gives valuable insight into the mind of a true monster, and helps to point out lines of thought and belief that might eventually lead to someone becoming something like him. There is nothing in Card's books (that I have read, anyway) to give insight into anything. Card is a bigoted j@ck@ss, but he's not a monster like Hitler.

pickin_grinnin said:

We will have to agree to disagree about that. Deliberate cruelty to any living thing is, to me, a sign of a cruel person. Though culture plays a strong role, in the end it gets down to what choices an individual makes.

In Vick's case, he knew it was considered horrific by the vast majority of people in the U.S. He was a member of a subculture that condoned it, but he got into that by choice.

Click to expand...

Actually, where he was from, that subculture is probably not as small as we would like to believe. I can't say what age he got into it, but dogfights are not exactly rare, just in the shadows. In the data at the Animal Legal Defense Fund regarding the case, there was this exchange:

May 22, 2007 Defenders of Dogfighting
In a news interview reported by the Associated Press, two other football players defended Vick and ridiculed the idea that dogfighting is a crime:

…In an interview with WAVY-TV, (Clinton) Portis said that if the Atlanta Falcons quarterback is charged and convicted of being involved in a dog fighting operation, then authorities would be “putting him behind bars for no reason.”

“I don’t know if he was fighting dogs or not,” Portis said. “But it’s his property; it’s his dogs. If that’s what he wants to do, do it.”

Portis said dog fighting is a “prevalent” part of life.

Portis, a native of Laurel, Mississippi, added: “I know a lot of back roads that got a dog fight if you want to go see it. But they’re not bothering those people because those people are not big names. I’m sure there’s some police got some dogs that are fighting them, some judges got dogs and everything else.”

“Politicians,” added (Chris) Samuels, who found it hard to keep from giggling while Portis was talking.

“Presidents,” added Portis with a laugh.

Click to expand...

And from the wiki on the investigation:

Numerous athletes generated additional controversy by making public comments supporting and defending Vick. Stephon Marbury, a point guard for the Boston Celtics, called dogfighting a sport and compared it to hunting and said that we don't react the same when other animals die. Roy Jones Jr., a prominent boxer, stated, "really two dogs fighting can happen in anyone's backyard or on the street. It happened in my backyard, two of my dogs fought and one died." Clinton Portis, a star running back on the Washington Redskins, stated, "I don't know if he was fighting dogs or not, but it's his property, it's his dog. If that's what he wants to do, do it. I think people should mind their own business." Deion Sanders, a former star football and baseball player and current commentator for CBS Sports, stated, "Why are we indicting him? Was he the ringleader? Is he the big fish? Or is there someone else? The fights allegedly occurred at a property that he purchased for a family member. They apparently found carcasses on the property, but I must ask you again, is he the ringleader? This situation reminds me of a scene in the movie New Jack City when drug dealer Nino Brown is on the witness stand and eloquently says, 'This thing is bigger than me.' Are we using Vick to get to the ringleader? Are we using him to bring an end to dogfighting in the United States? The only thing I can gather from this situation is that we're using Vick."

Click to expand...