I've tried 3x to write a coherent comment here and the best I can come up with (and this is the short version) is: Once I see/hear it, I can't unsee/unhear it. I recognize that people can be brilliant, creative geniuses and still be bigots and misogynists and homophobes. Being of a certain time and place may be a reason for their beliefs, but it's not an excuse. There were always people in the very same time and place who did not embrace bigotry. They just weren't necessarily famous authors who had a podium from which to broadcast their beliefs.
Given the nature of my trauma, I tend to over-empathize as part of my trauma response. With my existing challenges in regulating my nervous system, the effort required to read such works just isn't worth it. I can't enjoy a great work of literature that espouses those principles, anymore than I can stand to read the hatred spewed by the average MAGA follower. But that's me. In this particular time and place, trying to recover from a lifetime of trauma. Call me a snowflake. My nervous system sees an attack on anyone as an attack on all of us.
I try to consider the work of art separate from the artist, and might or might not avoid something that is likely to have objectionable content depending on my mood at the time. It's trickier when the artist is still alive and I have to consider if I want to support them. As an example, I try to avoid doing anything that might in any way benefit JK Rowling.
I was heartbroken when I heard the allegations about Neil Gaiman since I've loved so many of his books, followed his blog for years, and met him in person a couple times (he seemed very nice). To my knowledge, he hasn't been convicted of any crimes, and in fact, I've read that no criminal charges have been filed (which doesn't mean he hasn't engaged in terrible behavior). I don't want to disbelieve his accusers, but I also believe people should be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It would be different if I had any personal experience of him being inappropriate, but I don't, so I don't know what to believe. It's an incredibly frustrating situation, because I'm really not sure of the right thing to do.
I don't think we can hold writers from another century to the same standards that we hold writers to today. Dickens had antisemitic stuff in his writing. PG Wodehouse did a major scene with Bertie in blackface. Colonialism? Don't get me started. I read a lot of classics. They all have it. That was socially appropriate then.
And if we're going to name contemporary writers who definitely should know better, please include Rowling, whose TERF stance is repulsive. And that brings me to what what bothers me way more than ignorant people from the past. These current writers, just like most of the guys revealed in the #MeToo movement, are protested for a while, and then most people moved on and started buying their books again like it never happened. THAT'S what I get worked up about.
Just today I ran across Garrison Keillor in the context of a word he once used that sent me to the OED.
Minnesota Public Radio cut all business ties with Keillor after an allegation of inappropriate behavior in November 2017. I had felt a certain loyalty to the humorist since I discovered him on the radio when I lived in West Virginia more than 35 years ago. Back then, Prairie Home Companion was more folk music oriented, and he was folksier. Nobody else I knew had yet heard of him, so it made it feel more like something special. But I had rather tired of him long before the time he got “fired,” so I felt more sad than betrayed.
Still, I continued to read the daily feed from the Writers Almanac that showed up on my Facebook page before it went into reruns.
I haven’t bought any Neil Gaiman books, but since news of his disgraceful conduct came out, I have read Fortunately, the Milk to my granddaughter and re-watched and re-listened to the tv series and audiobook versions of Good Omens.
I completely get you, Gordon. I like to recommend my favourite shorts, but on second reading... yikes!
"It was a product of its time" is a feeble excuse, but it's the only explanation.
I skip over the parts I don't like, but sometimes there's a lot to skip. The worst part, if you take it as 'a product of its time' is how awful the time actually was. The notions afloat in the intellectual community directly led to some horrific behaviours that got people killed.
So... should we read them at all? While I'm famously anti-woke, there's a lot to be said for warning stickers advising "This work contains material that readers may find offensive." People ought to be warned so they can give it a miss if they don't want to see that kind of thing.
As with everything, each to their own, but such attitudes are not okay. If the material you generally read promotes measurably harmful attitudes, it's better, on balance, to give it a miss in case such attitudes creep into your thinking. That's just my opinion and is therefore arguable.
I've tried 3x to write a coherent comment here and the best I can come up with (and this is the short version) is: Once I see/hear it, I can't unsee/unhear it. I recognize that people can be brilliant, creative geniuses and still be bigots and misogynists and homophobes. Being of a certain time and place may be a reason for their beliefs, but it's not an excuse. There were always people in the very same time and place who did not embrace bigotry. They just weren't necessarily famous authors who had a podium from which to broadcast their beliefs.
Given the nature of my trauma, I tend to over-empathize as part of my trauma response. With my existing challenges in regulating my nervous system, the effort required to read such works just isn't worth it. I can't enjoy a great work of literature that espouses those principles, anymore than I can stand to read the hatred spewed by the average MAGA follower. But that's me. In this particular time and place, trying to recover from a lifetime of trauma. Call me a snowflake. My nervous system sees an attack on anyone as an attack on all of us.
I try to consider the work of art separate from the artist, and might or might not avoid something that is likely to have objectionable content depending on my mood at the time. It's trickier when the artist is still alive and I have to consider if I want to support them. As an example, I try to avoid doing anything that might in any way benefit JK Rowling.
I was heartbroken when I heard the allegations about Neil Gaiman since I've loved so many of his books, followed his blog for years, and met him in person a couple times (he seemed very nice). To my knowledge, he hasn't been convicted of any crimes, and in fact, I've read that no criminal charges have been filed (which doesn't mean he hasn't engaged in terrible behavior). I don't want to disbelieve his accusers, but I also believe people should be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It would be different if I had any personal experience of him being inappropriate, but I don't, so I don't know what to believe. It's an incredibly frustrating situation, because I'm really not sure of the right thing to do.
I don't think we can hold writers from another century to the same standards that we hold writers to today. Dickens had antisemitic stuff in his writing. PG Wodehouse did a major scene with Bertie in blackface. Colonialism? Don't get me started. I read a lot of classics. They all have it. That was socially appropriate then.
And if we're going to name contemporary writers who definitely should know better, please include Rowling, whose TERF stance is repulsive. And that brings me to what what bothers me way more than ignorant people from the past. These current writers, just like most of the guys revealed in the #MeToo movement, are protested for a while, and then most people moved on and started buying their books again like it never happened. THAT'S what I get worked up about.
Rowling is another great example, and one I should have included. I won’t touch anything of hers, including the movies and spinoffs and whatnot.
Just today I ran across Garrison Keillor in the context of a word he once used that sent me to the OED.
Minnesota Public Radio cut all business ties with Keillor after an allegation of inappropriate behavior in November 2017. I had felt a certain loyalty to the humorist since I discovered him on the radio when I lived in West Virginia more than 35 years ago. Back then, Prairie Home Companion was more folk music oriented, and he was folksier. Nobody else I knew had yet heard of him, so it made it feel more like something special. But I had rather tired of him long before the time he got “fired,” so I felt more sad than betrayed.
Still, I continued to read the daily feed from the Writers Almanac that showed up on my Facebook page before it went into reruns.
I haven’t bought any Neil Gaiman books, but since news of his disgraceful conduct came out, I have read Fortunately, the Milk to my granddaughter and re-watched and re-listened to the tv series and audiobook versions of Good Omens.
I completely get you, Gordon. I like to recommend my favourite shorts, but on second reading... yikes!
"It was a product of its time" is a feeble excuse, but it's the only explanation.
I skip over the parts I don't like, but sometimes there's a lot to skip. The worst part, if you take it as 'a product of its time' is how awful the time actually was. The notions afloat in the intellectual community directly led to some horrific behaviours that got people killed.
So... should we read them at all? While I'm famously anti-woke, there's a lot to be said for warning stickers advising "This work contains material that readers may find offensive." People ought to be warned so they can give it a miss if they don't want to see that kind of thing.
As with everything, each to their own, but such attitudes are not okay. If the material you generally read promotes measurably harmful attitudes, it's better, on balance, to give it a miss in case such attitudes creep into your thinking. That's just my opinion and is therefore arguable.
Christie didn’t change it. It was sold under its original title in the UK until 1985. Christie died in 1976.
Although that makes the whole thing even sketchier.
I didn't know that -- thanks for the correction.