|
|
Post by Garak Nephew on Aug 23, 2024 13:31:35 GMT
I don't know if you have heard the news that Neil Gaiman have being accused by three women of sexual misconduct and I don't know if this writer mean anything to any of you. But it is a good example for thoughts experiments about the intensification of the cultural wars we are currently enduring as a society.
These Neil Gaiman allegations are hitting home. I have been reading him since the early days of Sandman. I still have my trades from the 90's, the pages turning yellow now. I followed him when he ventured into "mature" fiction, and have read almost all of his novels; "The ocean at the End of the Lane" is such a beautiful book! From his books I get that myths are not old notions from dusty shelves of cultures, but forces that infused our spirits with vitality and relevance; that we are constantly making and remaking them, and that without them we are probably empty shelves on the shores of Time... This whole affairs have switch on my philosophical self. I wonder if you guys have a take about the ethics of cancellation. If this allegations turned out to be true, or if Gaiman turned out to be a cannibal who prefers his girls livers raw, should we toss away to the pyre all of his books? Or is there some intrinsic, artistic, cultural value that survives the human shortcomings that produce it?... A similar issue came out about Borges when it was found out that he had fascist sympathies for douchebag Videla. Should all Borges books be discarded (or deem "less great" ) because he had inadequate political views? I think the life (and the choices) of a creative person should be evaluated independently from said person contributions to cultural productions. Imagine that some day in the future they found letters between Patrick Stewart and William Shatner that reveal that they used their fame and network as Trek actors to shield a network of human and sexual trafficking, should Star Trek be immediately cast away and forget?
I guess that what I am aiming is this, is there a middle ground between praising the work and condemning the person who created it?
|
|
|
|
Post by scenario on Aug 23, 2024 16:37:41 GMT
I think artists and the things that they produce should be kept seperate. There are many writers who have been terrible people. That doesn't mean their books are now terrible.
If someone's four year old daughter needs surgury to save her life and the best surgeon available is a horrible person, are you obligated to let your daughter die? If the person who designed an important bridge turns out to be an awful person, should that bridge be torn down? Some of the people who discovered DNA were terrible people, should we stop using DNA.
Between actors and people who work on it directly or indirectly, thousand and thousands of people work on a big movie. Should people stop watching a Godzilla movie because one of the people in a crowd scene turns out to be a horrible person? How important does the person need to be to ban the product?
Plus different groups have different views of what's moral and what's immoral. Sexual harrassment is perfectly okay with the far right but being gay or trans must be canceled at all costs. I'm sure that some things that today are considered moral and admirable will be looked at differently in the future.
The art is seperate from the artist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Garak Nephew on Aug 24, 2024 13:01:11 GMT
The art is seperate from the artist. This is a exactly my position! And yet I would have a hard time arguing against a mother that refuses to gift "Coraline" (Gaiman YA novel) to her young daughter in fear that the girl curious mind would dig around on the internet and find that Gaiman was a sexual predator. Is the mother right in wanting to shield the girl from the normalization of a behavior that see women's bodies as prey? If it were myself, no book would be prohibited in my home, but I would understand that mother fears. It is a complex issue. |
|
|
|
Post by scenario on Aug 24, 2024 14:58:14 GMT
The art is seperate from the artist. This is a exactly my position! And yet I would have a hard time arguing against a mother that refuses to gift "Coraline" (Gaiman YA novel) to her young daughter in fear that the girl curious mind would dig around on the internet and find that Gaiman was a sexual predator. Is the mother right in wanting to shield the girl from the normalization of a behavior that see women's bodies as prey? If it were myself, no book would be prohibited in my home, but I would understand that mother fears. It is a complex issue. There's a differnce between new fans and existing fans. J.K. Rawlings has said some awful things. I'll still reread the Potter books some day or maybe watch the movies but new fans may be turned off from them. It also depends on time. Isaac Asimov was also problematic but he died in the 90s before his bad behavior was recorded for history. Now that every thought and every action can be recorded, obnoxious behavior is more public. |
|
|
|
Post by Garak Nephew on Aug 27, 2024 1:59:58 GMT
My recent topics remained active on my search engines because reading suggestions keep popping out. Someone on a forum on Patreon unearthed this old post by none other than John Scalzi!! On it he tackle the issue of art/artist problematic.
I must admit that I have not read anything by Scalzi, and these articles by him make me curious. Maybe is a sign that I should something.  I heard "Red Shirts" is very funny y well written. |
|
|
|
Post by SherlockHolmes on Oct 17, 2024 20:59:42 GMT
I think artists and the things that they produce should be kept seperate. There are many writers who have been terrible people. That doesn't mean their books are now terrible. If someone's four year old daughter needs surgury to save her life and the best surgeon available is a horrible person, are you obligated to let your daughter die? If the person who designed an important bridge turns out to be an awful person, should that bridge be torn down? Some of the people who discovered DNA were terrible people, should we stop using DNA. Between actors and people who work on it directly or indirectly, thousand and thousands of people work on a big movie. Should people stop watching a Godzilla movie because one of the people in a crowd scene turns out to be a horrible person? How important does the person need to be to ban the product? Plus different groups have different views of what's moral and what's immoral. Sexual harrassment is perfectly okay with the far right but being gay or trans must be canceled at all costs. I'm sure that some things that today are considered moral and admirable will be looked at differently in the future. The art is seperate from the artist. I keep trying to tell myself that when it comes to Rurouni Kenshin |
|
I heard "Red Shirts" is very funny y well written. 
I am so sorry...