Does anyone from the Gill estate financially benefit? . . . He was a particularly monstrous person though.
Wouldn't the relevant question be whether the beneficiaries of the Gill estate are particularly monstrous people?
I suppose, and as people have said his estate includes his victims. So a complex situation…I'm not sure what my stance is, but also the edifices on buildings are not like eg a book that earns money for an author anyway.
I think the argument against eschewing someone like Gill is pretty vulnerable to an
ad absurdum counterpoint...
If it was discovered by historians that Shakespeare had engaged in the same kind of sex crimes that Gill did, should we stop reading and watching his plays?
Just personally, I feel like I would have a stronger emotional reaction to a play or to a poem than to a building or public sculpture.
I suppose, and as people have said his estate includes his victims. So a complex situation…I'm not sure what my stance is, but also the edifices on buildings are not like eg a book that earns money for an author anyway.
The point is, if you know someone is a viscious bastard - having previously not known that - you may not wish to continue to give them money. Living creators will probably still receive money if you buy or use their stuff, dead ones won’t but you may or may not be concerned about who continues to benefit.
I wouldn’t want to give money to Gary Glitter, after his death I might not be bothered where royalties from his music go - but if I knew they went to someone who had tried to prevent him being held to account for his crimes I might still want to withhold my money.
Gill is dead and his victims inherit, so I don’t mind his estate getting royalties. I am however, not buying books by living authors who promote transphobia if I know they are doing that.
I suppose, and as people have said his estate includes his victims. So a complex situation…I'm not sure what my stance is, but also the edifices on buildings are not like eg a book that earns money for an author anyway.
So sculptors should not be paid?
?? How on Earth did you get *that* from my comment? The fact that sculptors don't get annual royalty payments doesn't say anything about their initial payment.
I think the argument against eschewing someone like Gill is pretty vulnerable to an
ad absurdum counterpoint...
If it was discovered by historians that Shakespeare had engaged in the same kind of sex crimes that Gill did, should we stop reading and watching his plays?
Just personally, I feel like I would have a stronger emotional reaction to a play or to a poem than to a building or public sculpture.
Just to clarify, you mean you would be more repulsed by reading a poem by a sex-criminal than you would by seeing a building designed by a sex criminal?
I guess that sorta makes sense, since literature usually conveys intellectual content more directly than does architecture. Though from what I've seen of Gill's work, it's pretty heavy on the theology, visually presented.
I will say that, in the event of Shakespeare being revealed as a Gill-like sexual abuser, you'd probably see eg. films of A Midsummer Night's Dream being dropped from the canon of popular date-movies pretty quickly. Can't imagine he'd be banished from academic study, and alot of people would continue reading him for enjoyment.
(Shakespeare In Love would become a standing dark-joke, however.)
There is a particular song that I quite enjoy, which is complementary about a WWII Russian military unit. I find that, despite the fact that I respect the actions of the military unit in question, and despite the fact that I very much enjoy the tune and recognize its technical merits, I can't enjoy a song about the Russian military at the moment.
There is a particular song that I quite enjoy, which is complementary about a WWII Russian military unit. I find that, despite the fact that I respect the actions of the military unit in question, and despite the fact that I very much enjoy the tune and recognize its technical merits, I can't enjoy a song about the Russian military at the moment.
I've always loved The Battle Hymn Of The Republic, and that affection did not abate during the Iraq War.
?? How on Earth did you get *that* from my comment? The fact that sculptors don't get annual royalty payments doesn't say anything about their initial payment.
You very clearly did not say anything like that in the post on which I commented.
There is a particular song that I quite enjoy, which is complementary about a WWII Russian military unit. I find that, despite the fact that I respect the actions of the military unit in question, and despite the fact that I very much enjoy the tune and recognize its technical merits, I can't enjoy a song about the Russian military at the moment.
I find that a bit odd, personally. I suppose I don't really see much continuity between the WWII Red Army and Putin's forces. I'd also be very aware that the WWII forces were commanded ultimately by Stalin.
Notwithstanding all that, I'm still covering and listening to Al Stewart's Roads to Moscow. As I say, there just seems no continuity.
No idea of course if this is the song you're referring to but I'd be intrigued just how many songs about the Red Army there are - possibly Sabaton have done one or two.
The one that gets me is Michael Jackson. I wish I could enjoy his music as much as once I did but...
For my money, Smooth Criminal is probably the best pop music video ever made, but that bit with the little kids aping Michael's suggestive moves is definitely uncomfortable now. And I wish I still could enjoy it, because IMO he was a truly unique artist, and no one else has ever done what he did quite so well as he did it.
?? How on Earth did you get *that* from my comment? The fact that sculptors don't get annual royalty payments doesn't say anything about their initial payment.
You very clearly did not say anything like that in the post on which I commented.
This is not true. I commented on the fact that buildings do not earn their designers regular payments (ie royalties) in the same way a novel does for an author. I didn't say the exact word 'royalties' but I can't see how I could have made it clearer. Nowhere did I say that architects shouldn't be paid for their work. Given that the entire conversation was about estates benefiting etc it was pretty obviously not about initial payments made upon creation.
Where did I suggest that architects shouldn't be paid for their designs?
I think the argument against eschewing someone like Gill is pretty vulnerable to an
ad absurdum counterpoint...
If it was discovered by historians that Shakespeare had engaged in the same kind of sex crimes that Gill did, should we stop reading and watching his plays?
Just personally, I feel like I would have a stronger emotional reaction to a play or to a poem than to a building or public sculpture.
Just to clarify, you mean you would be more repulsed by reading a poem by a sex-criminal than you would by seeing a building designed by a sex criminal?
Yes basically, but it's more that poetry or plays are much more about the author than eg the edifice of a church (statues and other sculpture that isn't for a specific use is different esp memorials). Like for example, Gill's Stations of the Cross in Westminster Cathedral are first and foremost about Jesus and the Via Crucis. You can also be in and be part of the congregation without ever engaging with Gill's work, because the cathedral has a use and purpose to which Gill is not relevant - the building is used for something fundamentally separate to Gill as a person and also Gill's work. If they took away all his work tomorrow, it wouldn't affect the mission or use of the cathedral.
On the other hand, you can't have Shakespeare's writing without the person that wrote them - they fundamentally are about the author (even if the person isn't the historical guy from Stratford) and not able to be untangled from who the author is. If tomorrow someone completely different was made the author, it would change everything about the poems and plays.
On the other hand, you can't have Shakespeare's writing without the person that wrote them - they fundamentally are about the author (even if the person isn't the historical guy from Stratford) and not able to be untangled from who the author is. If tomorrow someone completely different was made the author, it would change everything about the poems and plays.
I think this is untrue. For the most part I think literature as self-expression of the author is the least interesting way to read it. Even in the case of Romantic writers such as Keats or Shelley we are interested in them as people because of what their poems say about the world or human emotion rather than being primarily interested in them as people. I don't think Lines Written Above the Euganaean Hills would be any less affecting if it turned out Shelley was perfectly happy and just imagining a dramatic monologue by a self-pitying young man.
There are exceptions. Kipling's Epitaph of the Great War; the Young
If any ask us why we died,
Tell them because our fathers lied.
is more interesting written by Kipling whose son was killed, than if written by a lifelong pacifist who had no children. But Kipling is a bit of an outlier. He has been called the least poetic major verse writer in English.
On the other hand, you can't have Shakespeare's writing without the person that wrote them - they fundamentally are about the author (even if the person isn't the historical guy from Stratford) and not able to be untangled from who the author is. If tomorrow someone completely different was made the author, it would change everything about the poems and plays.
I'm not sure I agree with this. I enjoyed Shakespeare's plays without knowing anything at all about Shakespeare. He could have been a saint, or a sinner, or the Earl of Oxford, and it wouldn't matter. I have a series of books on my bookshelf that are by an author with an androgynous name, and I think I'd owned the books for about three years before I came across an interview with the author and discovered what gender they were. The way I understand the books has not changed because I now know one thing about the author.
There are exceptions. Kipling's Epitaph of the Great War; the Young
If any ask us why we died,
Tell them because our fathers lied.
is more interesting written by Kipling whose son was killed, than if written by a lifelong pacifist who had no children. But Kipling is a bit of an outlier. He has been called the least poetic major verse writer in English.
I think Brave New World is more interesting when I think about Aldous Huxley being the scion of a family of somewhat idealistic scientists.
And my appreciation of 1984 is enhanced by knowing that Orwell once had stalinists trying to kill him, AND that he worked as a war propagandist during World War II.
And I tend to regard the FILM of A Clockwork Orange as reflecting the viewpoint of a right-wing(by his own description) American filmmaker casting a jaundiced eye on the socialist politics of his adopted country.
Granted, those are all dystopias, which, as a genre, operates by presenting a reversal of the creator's own political opinions, and constructing a whole society around it.
//Tangent // I have just received an e-mail from E-bay with the heading "These finds are oh-so-you!"
I thought it might be entertaining to see what sort of a person E-bay thought I was, so I clicked.
There are four books which are apparently "oh-so-me" - The Dambusters, Andrew Lang's Brown Fairy Book, a Victorian book on the language of flowers and...the Folio Society's edition of the Four Gospels illustrated by Eric Gill.
I assume there's some link between me reading this thread and E-bay concluding I am an admirer of Eric Gill, but if they think anything by Gill is "oh-so-me" they are very, very wrong.
//Tangent // I have just received an e-mail from E-bay with the heading "These finds are oh-so-you!"
I thought it might be entertaining to see what sort of a person E-bay thought I was, so I clicked.
There are four books which are apparently "oh-so-me" - The Dambusters, Andrew Lang's Brown Fairy Book, a Victorian book on the language of flowers and...the Folio Society's edition of the Four Gospels illustrated by Eric Gill.
I assume there's some link between me reading this thread and E-bay concluding I am an admirer of Eric Gill, but if they think anything by Gill is "oh-so-me" they are very, very wrong.
//End tangent//
This email was obviously not meant for you not you,but me. These books are indeed 'oh so me' (he confessed, blushing)!
Not read any of the crime novels, but is it rather ironic that the female author is writing under a male name?
Not at all, she obviously wanted to use a different brand. To maintain the original and for the [redacted crime] novels to stand alone. Did Christie, Sayers, Allingham, Highsmith, James, Rendell, Cornwell, McDiarmid fear being female?
(ETA redaction because naming the series identifies the author, Doublethink, Admin)
I think another part of how to decide whether to still read/watch/listen to an artist who did horrible things is whether their work is tainted. I still own a few books by an author (Zimmer-Bradley) who did horrific things. She is dead, so I can't benefit her by enjoying them. Ethically in my mind I could read and enjoy her work. But I see bits of her criminal interests in her books, so they are ruined for me. In this case I think it's really there and not my imagination, but even if it were my imagination, it would still be spoiled for me.
So it helps if the author's horrible acts don't relate to what they did. For instance, if a dead domestic abuser writes a war song, there is probably not going to be hints of abuse in the song.
yeah, it's really there in at least one place I can think of. Plus long before I knew about her ... issues, I noticed that reading one of her books (very well written!) produced the most horrible spiritual/emotional depression in me--couldn't figure out why. I don't know if that's related or not.
Not read any of the crime novels, but is it rather ironic that the female author is writing under a male name?
Not at all, she obviously wanted to use a different brand. To maintain the original and for the [redacted crime] novels to stand alone. Did Christie, Sayers, Allingham, Highsmith, James, Rendell, Cornwell, McDiarmid fear being female?
Using the name of the man who invented conversion therapy certainly is a different brand.
(ETA redaction because naming the series identifies the author, Doublethink, Admin)
Although there are plenty of fairly well-known Scottish people of that name, and the American deviser of conversion therapy had the nom de plume surname as his middle name - his surname was quite different.
I generally have no problem separating the art from the artist (though if people have strong feelings about who gets the money I respect that). Cosby is the one I can’t quite do that with, since he made his life the matter of his art (his standup, not the TV shows, which I was never into that much). I still have his comedy records, and can’t bring myself to listen to them. OTOH, I have no problem enjoying Picasso.
I generally have no problem separating the art from the artist (though if people have strong feelings about who gets the money I respect that). Cosby is the one I can’t quite do that with, since he made his life the matter of his art (his standup, not the TV shows, which I was never into that much). I still have his comedy records, and can’t bring myself to listen to them. OTOH, I have no problem enjoying Picasso.
Wow, I've said the exact same thing about Cosby, and yes, he's about the only artist whose evil nullifies my enjoyment of their work.
Or, MOST of it anyway. I can't really enjoy old Fat Albert episodes on YouTube, because while he only narrates, the stories are obviously influenced by his life and personality. But on the rare times when he totally disappears into a character, I can still enjoy it, eg. check out, if you're interested, "The Electric Company: The Director And The Musketeer", for an example that's total farce. (Also featuring a gender-bending Rita Moreno).
Not read any of the crime novels, but is it rather ironic that the female author is writing under a male name?
Not at all, she obviously wanted to use a different brand. To maintain the original and for the Cormoran Strike novels to stand alone. Did Christie, Sayers, Allingham, Highsmith, James, Rendell, Cornwell, McDiarmid fear being female?
Ethically in my mind I could read and enjoy her work. But I see bits of her criminal interests in her books, so they are ruined for me. In this case I think it's really there and not my imagination, but even if it were my imagination, it would still be spoiled for me.
I was always a bit surprised at how a few people celebrated the books an emancipatory, because it seemed that they had entirely the opposite effect, and finding out about the abuse years later tended to make sense of my own response at the time.
I appreciate that @Pomona will disagree with me, but it strikes me that there's huge and fundamental difference between [redacted] and most of the other people who have been cited on this thread. All [redacted] has done is voice various opinions which @Pomona disagrees with and thinks shouldn't be allowed a public voice, but which, much though @Pomona might object to this, lots of other people also think. The various others have perpetrated various actual outrages. That is something of a quite different order.
I appreciate that @Pomona will disagree with me, but it strikes me that there's huge and fundamental difference between [redacted] and most of the other people who have been cited on this thread. All [redacted] has done is voice various opinions which @Pomona disagrees with and thinks shouldn't be allowed a public voice, but which, much though @Pomona might object to this, lots of other people also think. The various others have perpetrated various actual outrages. That is something of a quite different order.
With [redacted] I don't think it's that she "shouldn't be allowed a public voice" but about whether, given the things she says, whether I/you/we feel comfortable putting money in her pocket. To choose a related example, I'm a lot less likely to patronise a Wetherspoons since their owner revealed himself to be an enormous tosser wrt Brexit. It's not that I dispute his right to hold those views, but I will do what little is in my power to ensure they're not rewarded.
The thing about anti-trans voices, naming no names, is that some of them want to deny trans people health services, use of toilets and other facilities. In the US, this has gone further, and parents of trans children may be investigated for child abuse. So it is not an academic discussion, there is an attempt to drive trans people out of public life.
I appreciate that @Pomona will disagree with me, but it strikes me that there's huge and fundamental difference between [redacted] and most of the other people who have been cited on this thread. All [redacted] has done is voice various opinions which @Pomona disagrees with and thinks shouldn't be allowed a public voice, but which, much though @Pomona might object to this, lots of other people also think. The various others have perpetrated various actual outrages. That is something of a quite different order.
With [redacted] I don't think it's that [they] "shouldn't be allowed a public voice" but about whether, given the things [they say], whether I/you/we feel comfortable putting money in [their] pocket.
That, plus whether knowing what the person in question has said interferes with one’s ability to enjoy that person’s works. I may have already spent the money years and years ago, before knowing what I know now, but my continued enjoyment of what I bought years ago might be affected.
@Enoch why tag me half a dozen times rather than just using pronouns? I'm confused.
People are allowed to not want to put money into the pocket of someone who has views they find distasteful. I'm not somehow obliged to buy books, or watch TV shows, or listen to music etc by people who 'only' have objectionable views rather than committing particular acts or crimes for example.
Also, people tend to support their own personal stances financially in various ways through charities or funding legal action - eg, someone who supports the NHS might boycott Virgin products due to Richard Branson suing the NHS. It's rarely 'just opinions' especially when they are publicly-shared opinions rather than just quietly held ones. For example, if a popstar revealed a particular political leaning on social media it's understandable if that would turn people off them - but they also didn't have to say anything at all in the first place.
I am with Pomona on this. I might have bought creative products in the past, but if I know the producers are expressing views I cannot accept, then I will no longer listen to them. No longer pay them my money. Because I don't want to support them or hear their views. That is my choice.
Especially if these views are re-iterated. I have a choice what I read, where I drink, and I make the choice to support people whose views can expand mine in positive ways.
Creatives do tend to express their views within their work - not always explicitly, but often there if you embrace their views. Business owners cannot express views without expecting people to listen and act accordingly.
People are allowed to not want to put money into the pocket of someone who has views they find distasteful. I'm not somehow obliged to buy books, or watch TV shows, or listen to music etc by people who 'only' have objectionable views rather than committing particular acts or crimes for example.
Sure, you're under no obligation to buy anything. But even if you boycott, say, Eric Clapton, so as to avoid that enochite covidiot getting your money, there's no way of guaranteeing that the money you spend on other music isn't ending up in the pockets of other right-wing assholes.
Okay, so I decide to buy Sarah Maclachlan instead of Eric Clapton. But all the money doesn't go straight to Sarah. No, the shopowner takes a cut, for example, and if he's like most petit bourgeois businessmen, he's probably voting for some variation of conservative assholery. To take just one example of the hundreds of people along the supply chain from Sarah to me.
I know. But at least you get to feel smug if you boycott.
It's not about feeling smug - it's about doing what you can. None of us can achieve perfection, but just because perfection is out of reach doesn't mean you should just give up and go home.
And sure - there are some people who like to use their carefully-curated purchasing choices as an opportunity for virtue signalling, but in most cases, "you are a hateful person who uses your platform to express hateful views" is a pretty good reason for choosing not to purchase that person's stuff.
Similarly, there are any number of people who choose to shop to the greatest extent they can only at shops that have a unionized workforce. The choices of one individual don't make much difference, but if lots of people make the same choice, then they can have an effect.
I had no idea about the grim accusations against Marion Zimmer-Bradley and they certainly disincline me to read her books (I've never read them) whereas I would otherwise have been interested to pick one up if I had the chance.
On the other hand I'm a bit wary of deliberately refusing to engage with authors and artists because I don't like their personal morals or public opinions. That seems like a recipe for preserving one's own narrow outlook.
I don't think that refusing to purchase, eg, the music of very racist people means having a 'narrow outlook'. It's surely condemning the very idea, given that racism is basically the definition of a narrow outlook. Not all issues have a 'both sides' and people are allowed to spend their leisure time listening to music that they actually like. Also, these days social media etc basically forces us to see all kinds of opinions whether we want to or not - there's nothing wrong with choosing media, or music, or books etc that align with our own views as a respite from that.
I know. But at least you get to feel smug if you boycott.
It's not about feeling smug - it's about doing what you can. None of us can achieve perfection, but just because perfection is out of reach doesn't mean you should just give up and go home.
And sure - there are some people who like to use their carefully-curated purchasing choices as an opportunity for virtue signalling, but in most cases, "you are a hateful person who uses your platform to express hateful views" is a pretty good reason for choosing not to purchase that person's stuff.
Similarly, there are any number of people who choose to shop to the greatest extent they can only at shops that have a unionized workforce. The choices of one individual don't make much difference, but if lots of people make the same choice, then they can have an effect.
Well I must be the only one who gets a lovely smug feeling when I boycott something I disagree with.
I've never agreed with the idea that unless you own a personal copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion you have a "narrow outlook".
Way to straw-man. Everyone can, of course, read and watch and look at what they like and avoid that which they do not like. But it would seem a shame to ditch an artist, say, whose work you would otherwise greatly appreciate, because you discover that they were on the other side of a political fence. I'm happy to continue watching Python sketches despite John Cleese's increasingly irritating views, for example.
In fact the whole thrust of the OP was to investigate at what point this occurs. There would seem to be a fair bit of space between John Cleese and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I think.
What about P.G. Wodehouse, for example? OK or not OK to like?
I've never agreed with the idea that unless you own a personal copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion you have a "narrow outlook".
Way to straw-man. Everyone can, of course, read and watch and look at what they like and avoid that which they do not like.
Not sure what you mean by that. How is it a straw man to reject Protocols based on the (anonymous) author's public opinions? You claimed that would be objectionable.
On the other hand I'm a bit wary of deliberately refusing to engage with authors and artists because I don't like their personal morals or public opinions.
Given the anonymity of the author of Protocols (and the likelihood it was a collective work) our knowledge of their public opinions (e.g. the world is secretly controlled by a sinister cabal of manipulative Jews) is limited to what's contained in the work itself. If publicly stated opinions are not a valid reason for rejecting a composition, what other grounds does one have for rejecting Protocols?
But it would seem a shame to ditch an artist, say, whose work you would otherwise greatly appreciate, because you discover that they were on the other side of a political fence.
Is it a shame to ditch any other works (if identifiable) by the authors of Protocols just because they're on the opposite side of the "Jewish question" from most modern readers?
Comments
I suppose, and as people have said his estate includes his victims. So a complex situation…I'm not sure what my stance is, but also the edifices on buildings are not like eg a book that earns money for an author anyway.
Just personally, I feel like I would have a stronger emotional reaction to a play or to a poem than to a building or public sculpture.
So sculptors should not be paid?
I wouldn’t want to give money to Gary Glitter, after his death I might not be bothered where royalties from his music go - but if I knew they went to someone who had tried to prevent him being held to account for his crimes I might still want to withhold my money.
Gill is dead and his victims inherit, so I don’t mind his estate getting royalties. I am however, not buying books by living authors who promote transphobia if I know they are doing that.
?? How on Earth did you get *that* from my comment? The fact that sculptors don't get annual royalty payments doesn't say anything about their initial payment.
Just to clarify, you mean you would be more repulsed by reading a poem by a sex-criminal than you would by seeing a building designed by a sex criminal?
I guess that sorta makes sense, since literature usually conveys intellectual content more directly than does architecture. Though from what I've seen of Gill's work, it's pretty heavy on the theology, visually presented.
I will say that, in the event of Shakespeare being revealed as a Gill-like sexual abuser, you'd probably see eg. films of A Midsummer Night's Dream being dropped from the canon of popular date-movies pretty quickly. Can't imagine he'd be banished from academic study, and alot of people would continue reading him for enjoyment.
(Shakespeare In Love would become a standing dark-joke, however.)
I've always loved The Battle Hymn Of The Republic, and that affection did not abate during the Iraq War.
(But I recognize mileages vary.)
You very clearly did not say anything like that in the post on which I commented.
I find that a bit odd, personally. I suppose I don't really see much continuity between the WWII Red Army and Putin's forces. I'd also be very aware that the WWII forces were commanded ultimately by Stalin.
Notwithstanding all that, I'm still covering and listening to Al Stewart's Roads to Moscow. As I say, there just seems no continuity.
No idea of course if this is the song you're referring to but I'd be intrigued just how many songs about the Red Army there are - possibly Sabaton have done one or two.
For my money, Smooth Criminal is probably the best pop music video ever made, but that bit with the little kids aping Michael's suggestive moves is definitely uncomfortable now. And I wish I still could enjoy it, because IMO he was a truly unique artist, and no one else has ever done what he did quite so well as he did it.
This is not true. I commented on the fact that buildings do not earn their designers regular payments (ie royalties) in the same way a novel does for an author. I didn't say the exact word 'royalties' but I can't see how I could have made it clearer. Nowhere did I say that architects shouldn't be paid for their work. Given that the entire conversation was about estates benefiting etc it was pretty obviously not about initial payments made upon creation.
Where did I suggest that architects shouldn't be paid for their designs?
Yes basically, but it's more that poetry or plays are much more about the author than eg the edifice of a church (statues and other sculpture that isn't for a specific use is different esp memorials). Like for example, Gill's Stations of the Cross in Westminster Cathedral are first and foremost about Jesus and the Via Crucis. You can also be in and be part of the congregation without ever engaging with Gill's work, because the cathedral has a use and purpose to which Gill is not relevant - the building is used for something fundamentally separate to Gill as a person and also Gill's work. If they took away all his work tomorrow, it wouldn't affect the mission or use of the cathedral.
On the other hand, you can't have Shakespeare's writing without the person that wrote them - they fundamentally are about the author (even if the person isn't the historical guy from Stratford) and not able to be untangled from who the author is. If tomorrow someone completely different was made the author, it would change everything about the poems and plays.
There are exceptions. Kipling's Epitaph of the Great War; the Young
If any ask us why we died,
Tell them because our fathers lied.
is more interesting written by Kipling whose son was killed, than if written by a lifelong pacifist who had no children. But Kipling is a bit of an outlier. He has been called the least poetic major verse writer in English.
I'm not sure I agree with this. I enjoyed Shakespeare's plays without knowing anything at all about Shakespeare. He could have been a saint, or a sinner, or the Earl of Oxford, and it wouldn't matter. I have a series of books on my bookshelf that are by an author with an androgynous name, and I think I'd owned the books for about three years before I came across an interview with the author and discovered what gender they were. The way I understand the books has not changed because I now know one thing about the author.
I think Brave New World is more interesting when I think about Aldous Huxley being the scion of a family of somewhat idealistic scientists.
And my appreciation of 1984 is enhanced by knowing that Orwell once had stalinists trying to kill him, AND that he worked as a war propagandist during World War II.
And I tend to regard the FILM of A Clockwork Orange as reflecting the viewpoint of a right-wing(by his own description) American filmmaker casting a jaundiced eye on the socialist politics of his adopted country.
Granted, those are all dystopias, which, as a genre, operates by presenting a reversal of the creator's own political opinions, and constructing a whole society around it.
I thought it might be entertaining to see what sort of a person E-bay thought I was, so I clicked.
There are four books which are apparently "oh-so-me" - The Dambusters, Andrew Lang's Brown Fairy Book, a Victorian book on the language of flowers and...the Folio Society's edition of the Four Gospels illustrated by Eric Gill.
I assume there's some link between me reading this thread and E-bay concluding I am an admirer of Eric Gill, but if they think anything by Gill is "oh-so-me" they are very, very wrong.
//End tangent//
This email was obviously not meant for you not you,but me. These books are indeed 'oh so me' (he confessed, blushing)!
Not at all, she obviously wanted to use a different brand. To maintain the original and for the [redacted crime] novels to stand alone. Did Christie, Sayers, Allingham, Highsmith, James, Rendell, Cornwell, McDiarmid fear being female?
(ETA redaction because naming the series identifies the author, Doublethink, Admin)
So it helps if the author's horrible acts don't relate to what they did. For instance, if a dead domestic abuser writes a war song, there is probably not going to be hints of abuse in the song.
Using the name of the man who invented conversion therapy certainly is a different brand.
(ETA redaction because naming the series identifies the author, Doublethink, Admin)
Wow, I've said the exact same thing about Cosby, and yes, he's about the only artist whose evil nullifies my enjoyment of their work.
Or, MOST of it anyway. I can't really enjoy old Fat Albert episodes on YouTube, because while he only narrates, the stories are obviously influenced by his life and personality. But on the rare times when he totally disappears into a character, I can still enjoy it, eg. check out, if you're interested, "The Electric Company: The Director And The Musketeer", for an example that's total farce. (Also featuring a gender-bending Rita Moreno).
PD James?
I was always a bit surprised at how a few people celebrated the books an emancipatory, because it seemed that they had entirely the opposite effect, and finding out about the abuse years later tended to make sense of my own response at the time.
(ETA removed name, Doublethink, Admin)
With [redacted] I don't think it's that she "shouldn't be allowed a public voice" but about whether, given the things she says, whether I/you/we feel comfortable putting money in her pocket. To choose a related example, I'm a lot less likely to patronise a Wetherspoons since their owner revealed himself to be an enormous tosser wrt Brexit. It's not that I dispute his right to hold those views, but I will do what little is in my power to ensure they're not rewarded.
(ETA removed name, Doublethink, Admin)
Doublethink, Admin
People are allowed to not want to put money into the pocket of someone who has views they find distasteful. I'm not somehow obliged to buy books, or watch TV shows, or listen to music etc by people who 'only' have objectionable views rather than committing particular acts or crimes for example.
Also, people tend to support their own personal stances financially in various ways through charities or funding legal action - eg, someone who supports the NHS might boycott Virgin products due to Richard Branson suing the NHS. It's rarely 'just opinions' especially when they are publicly-shared opinions rather than just quietly held ones. For example, if a popstar revealed a particular political leaning on social media it's understandable if that would turn people off them - but they also didn't have to say anything at all in the first place.
Especially if these views are re-iterated. I have a choice what I read, where I drink, and I make the choice to support people whose views can expand mine in positive ways.
Creatives do tend to express their views within their work - not always explicitly, but often there if you embrace their views. Business owners cannot express views without expecting people to listen and act accordingly.
Sure, you're under no obligation to buy anything. But even if you boycott, say, Eric Clapton, so as to avoid that enochite covidiot getting your money, there's no way of guaranteeing that the money you spend on other music isn't ending up in the pockets of other right-wing assholes.
Okay, so I decide to buy Sarah Maclachlan instead of Eric Clapton. But all the money doesn't go straight to Sarah. No, the shopowner takes a cut, for example, and if he's like most petit bourgeois businessmen, he's probably voting for some variation of conservative assholery. To take just one example of the hundreds of people along the supply chain from Sarah to me.
It's not about feeling smug - it's about doing what you can. None of us can achieve perfection, but just because perfection is out of reach doesn't mean you should just give up and go home.
And sure - there are some people who like to use their carefully-curated purchasing choices as an opportunity for virtue signalling, but in most cases, "you are a hateful person who uses your platform to express hateful views" is a pretty good reason for choosing not to purchase that person's stuff.
Similarly, there are any number of people who choose to shop to the greatest extent they can only at shops that have a unionized workforce. The choices of one individual don't make much difference, but if lots of people make the same choice, then they can have an effect.
On the other hand I'm a bit wary of deliberately refusing to engage with authors and artists because I don't like their personal morals or public opinions. That seems like a recipe for preserving one's own narrow outlook.
Well I must be the only one who gets a lovely smug feeling when I boycott something I disagree with.
Way to straw-man. Everyone can, of course, read and watch and look at what they like and avoid that which they do not like. But it would seem a shame to ditch an artist, say, whose work you would otherwise greatly appreciate, because you discover that they were on the other side of a political fence. I'm happy to continue watching Python sketches despite John Cleese's increasingly irritating views, for example.
In fact the whole thrust of the OP was to investigate at what point this occurs. There would seem to be a fair bit of space between John Cleese and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I think.
What about P.G. Wodehouse, for example? OK or not OK to like?
Not sure what you mean by that. How is it a straw man to reject Protocols based on the (anonymous) author's public opinions? You claimed that would be objectionable.
Given the anonymity of the author of Protocols (and the likelihood it was a collective work) our knowledge of their public opinions (e.g. the world is secretly controlled by a sinister cabal of manipulative Jews) is limited to what's contained in the work itself. If publicly stated opinions are not a valid reason for rejecting a composition, what other grounds does one have for rejecting Protocols?
Is it a shame to ditch any other works (if identifiable) by the authors of Protocols just because they're on the opposite side of the "Jewish question" from most modern readers?