As a working historian in a public museum, I spend a great deal of time painting the picture of what the world was like rather than what we see through today's lens. Humanity has not really changed. Thank you for the rational, wise conversation.
The problem with problematic authors is that they are usually better than non problematic authors. Think I'll carry on reading these problematic authors.
For the authors who have passed, I keep the epilogue of the film *Barry Lyndon* in mind: _It was in the reign of King George III that the aforementioned personages lived and quarreled;_ _Good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now._
After all these years of reading Lovecraft, I never put two and two together: that he wrote so effectively about monsters because he saw them all around him in the real world. That’s really interesting.
Back in the 1980s, I was sitting in a cafe in reading "The Twelve-Year Reich: A Social History of National Socialist Germany". An elderly gentleman walked up to me and said he was concerned that I might be going down "the wrong path". I gather he meant that reading that book would turn me into a Nazi or that I was only reading such a book because I was already a Nazi. It doesn't surprise me that cancel culture has become the norm. We've been building up to it for a long time. A lot of it has to do with an idea - popular in left wing academic circles - that words are the same as physical acts and that certain words can be the equivalent of physical violence. Thus, in colleges today, we have a whole generation of "snowflakes" who need to have their protected "safe spaces" from certain ideas. Antifa members believe that they are completely justified in violently attacking people for wrongthink because ideas they don't like are "violence".
Is it really about left/right? (After all, anti-vaxxers and "pro-lifers" are happily attacking people, and they aren't left wing. Isn't it really about judgemental nosey-parkers who think they have the right to tell others what they should or shouldn't do?
That's a great discussion on your original point. Everyone's got a line somewhere, and if they don't want to read an author, fine. But this idea of "vetting" authors to see if I can read thier stuff....no. I'm not asking an author to marry into my family or be my BFF, I'm just reading the book. Probably better than half the (fiction) books I've read in my life, I know nothing about the author at all. I read those paperback sci-fi books with the great covers like Pez candy back when, and most were written by someone completely unknown to me. Your final point was very well taken. If an author upsets someone to the point that they cannot read thier work, then they shouldn't. But leave everyone else alone.
A friend of mine said adamantly that Book X by Author X should definitely be canceled. I countered with no book, no matter how awful should ever be canceled. Ever. Because by reading these books with whatever appalling content they may contain leads us to understand the perspectives that lead humanity down terrible paths. And by understanding and analyzing these ideas we can more effectively prevent us all winding up back in terrible places. The idea of canceling the Other, no matter who or what the Other represents, dooms us to repeat the same toxic cycles again and again.
Thank you for this insightful and well-thought out video. I agree with you completely. As a human being of the female persuasion, I am constantly confronted with excellent writers who blow off women as: hysterical, delicate, non-thinkers, lesser humans, irrational, inconsequential, sex objects. Does that mean I shouldn’t read Montaigne? Or Asimov? Or a hundred other classical writers? I don’t think so. I keep my ire in a box, and appreciate the ideas and craft being offered me.
Of course when a candidate for the GOP in Ohio in 2022 has publicly stated that the vote should be taken away from women for all your stated reason. Maybe we should wake up and take notice.
Anyone who sits in your comments and complains that you're reading an author who was racist 100 years ago is trying way too hard to be on the moral highground. No one's gonna stop me enjoying Lovecraft and other pulp fiction writers
All of these day's political correctness in all of its forms can be summed up in this sentence. People like to judge others and feel supperior to them. We have found a way as a sociery to judge others and think that a virtue.
Well, society has always been judgmental. A century ago, Clark Ashton Smith was regarded as a suspicious outsider to his little town of Auburn, and literary society shunned his poetry as childish, decadent, improper, etc. The difference, I think, is that social media allows everyone to voice their judgment and gather followers, which wasn't as easy to do in ye oldene daiyes.
Thank you Michael for not only being nuanced about your thoughts on problematic authors but your explanation of our ideas. More people not only need to hear this but really listen and contemplate it.
Excellent topic and excellent thoughts! I agree that we should be more tolerant of the past, knowing that we have grown and improved as a society. What I find frightening is the us vs. them attitudes in our current society, vilifying people who disagree with them. Our society is intended to be a place where we can have a variety of beliefs and its all okay! We can disagree and still live together. So long as you don't harm other people.
This was a great discussion Michael. Especially the part about the human experience of religion. People do get almost religious when approaching authors sometimes. Change is definitely constant, and it’s definitely a good thing.
Great video. I completely agree and you discussed it so well. It’s important to understand that these were products of the time. And you can not understand those times or current times without this context. And one cannot assume to know the artist by their art either and people do change. Love this video. Thank you for it.
Well said. I’ve said similar things elsewhere, if there are future generations of readers, they will judge us, possibly on meat eating or fossil fuel burning, or something else entirely.
No doubt they will judge us for being narcissists on social media. It's my opinion that in the future, our descendents will see all our selfies with both amusement and shame.
There are no unproblematic authors, and no unproblematic ideas. All thoughts, concepts, ideas and moral precepts carry the seed of their own corruption. One can adhere to these, but never feel safe with them.
I think it's useful to talk about the problems of old artists through today's lens. Get those problems out in the open so that we can further explore today's culture as well as yesterday's. Great video, thank you.
Some great points raised here Michael, and presented in an intelligent, rational, and balanced way. Very refreshing and, in my humble opinion, quite inarguable. Far too much hysteria and judgement surrounding artists and writers, especially those who died long ago, and aren't going to suffer or benefit from whether people buy the things they created 100 years ago. Also, it seems to be the most disturbed or conflicted people who have historically been the greatest creative minds, so to dismiss them because of their personalities, views and beliefs would eradicate some of the most beautiful paintings, architecture, music, and writing that the human race has ever produced. The other thing that springs to mind is that great art is celebrated for being an example of human excellence. To hold the humans who created it to an impossibly high standard would sort of negate that premise, because if it was created by a being we knew to be superior, then it wouldn't really be an achievement, we would just take for granted that they could create great things.
Fantastic video! I loved the depth of discussion. This comes up for me in all arts. For example with film. I’m a massive fan of Roman Polanski’s films and they rank amongst my favourites, but he’s done terrible things and is still alive and hasn’t faced proper punishment. There’s an added weirdness as Rosemary’s Baby for example has a lot of feminist undertones to it which just seem undermined by Polanski’s real life actions. But regardless I love those films very deeply regardless of the terrible acts of the creator. It does mean I don’t develop the same kind of relationship with the artist as I would with one whose work I love and who was a great person in real life. But I still love the work.
This was a wonderful video on such a thought provoking conversation. I really struggle with this concept of separating art from the artist, it's a very multi layered subject. Bottom line for me is though, that like you, I don't want my money going to certain people even though I might like their writing/stories. Thanks for making this in the way you did.
You're very well spoken. Thanks for the video! I try very hard to judge the art separately from the artist. Occasionally, though, I can't get past certain behaviors. For example, when I learned that author Anne Perry was convicted with her teenage friend of murder, and did prison time, that was depravity that I couldn't see beyond. In other words, there ARE instances, for me at least, where art is simply not the significant issue. That being said, I accept each person must make their own decision.
The Whisperer in Darkness is another excellent example where HP Lovecraft gives some more humanity to his monsters, where the creatures seem to have benevolent tendencies towards lesser races. I do wish that Lovecraft would have lived longer, if only to see how far his views might have changed and how that would have affected his writing. More generally on problematic authors, I do agree with the sentiment. Although, I also think it is useful to know about an author to get more out of a work. And of course, I think it is totally valid if someone can't mentally separate the art from the artist if it causes the individual to feel upset, i.e. I would never expect someone to watch the movies and tv shows of Kevin Spacy if they can't ignore the crimes he committed. Also, it's really cool to hear that you're a vegan. If I may ask, what do you eat day to day? I went vegan about two years ago for ethical reasons, and right now I'm trying to alter my diet a bit. Eat less processed vegan junk food and more whole food vegan meals.
Interesting, well spoken video 👍. I've been thinking that a lot about your work recently so I decided I should sub. I see something of my younger self in what you say about Lovecraft. It's easy when you're young to be influenced by your surroundings, if you're lucky you meet positive influences who encourage you to examine your views and modify where necessary. I was lucky. I also have this problem with music; Wagner's music can make my soul cry, but he was a bit of a character to say the least. PS I could drop eating meat tomorrow, but the concept of giving up cheese isn't something my brain can cope with.
Great discussion. I do think there’s a bit of difference between deceased authors from different eras who “didn’t know better because of the times” and modern authors who absolutely have no reason not to know better. I don’t think it means you shouldn’t read one of their books, but I do like your mention of not supporting them financially. I also think it’s okay/important to be critical of said behaviors/view points when discussing them and their art. Ultimately, I think it becomes a personal choice. Some people can overlook moral flaws for art and others can’t. I don’t think we should impose out personal rules on others though. If I don’t enjoy what a channel reads/discusses, I simply just don’t watch it or interact with it.
As a life long martial artist and philosopher I live in a world of applying ideas. It is normal in my view to keep morphing. So just read your books that you enjoy. Who knows tomorrow your ideas may change drastically. Try to go with the ebb and flow.
Very well stated Michael. Change is easiest (though not easy) when we are in control of it. But change is necessary, otherwise stagnation sets in. As for myself, I read a work and judge it on its own merits from a literary perspective (or see a film from a cinematographic perspective); the work once created gains its own life.
Very well said. Bill Maher did a segment in his last episode on the unfortunate rise of presentism. While the definition seems to be limited to judging "events," I'd say it's equally applicable to judging "people." Separating authors from their works is a corollary to all that...else everyone and everything prior to 2022 would be cancelled.
I separate the art from the artist. But for those who can’t, a secondhand/used bookstore allows you to read all the work you want from Orson Scott Card (or [fill in problematic living author]) without concerns of profiting the author since the author receives no royalties from a secondary sale.
The Muse speaks through an artist, and even if the artist has serious moral failings (a great many people do), the Muse speaks some truth, some beauty, that enriches the communal thought-life of humanity. If we rejected everything that came through a flawed instrument, there would be very little art left. But we need art; it's the communal property of humanity and without it we would be deeply impoverished.
This has always been my ideal. Beauty and clarity do not inherently belong to "good" people. In fact, many "good" people can be really clumsy with words, ideas, art skills, etc. I give no support for the traditional moral failings of older generations, but I don't see what makes the average person today any better than people back then, except maybe that they are less racist.
@@justjoe4390 And even that being "less racist" is highly questionable, given that it is accompanied in many cases by expressions of hatred of white people.
Totally agree 👍 Every year, bit by bit, humans and their ideas evolve. Some beliefs that we have now will seem bad in 50/75/100 years time. Sure, some beliefs are bad now with authors that are still alive, but to say for example you don't like the works of some one long dead for their opinions, which were relevant back years ago, is a bit much, especially if their work is not promoting their opinions.
Thank you. Ive had a hard struggle with pushing past a bad person to reach the art that comes from them. Books, movies, music, anything. But it has been difficult for me solely because i worry of how some of my more politically active friends might think. I dont have a great way of speaking my own beliefs about important topics. Typically, i try to avoid them at all costs because of this. But listening to you talk about it, i think in some cases, specifically reading from creators with "old fashioned" beliefs, 1) it doesnt necessarily mean that their beliefs are in their work. Some authors dont put their politics and such into their works. 2) just reading the books doesnt mean you are bad like them. I was taught to think for myself and to learn from what i read and see around me. I think that thr key to this issue is, yes you can read these books. Maybe you dont have to buy them new so you aren't supporting them. But the point of reading had always always always been to learn and decipher what is good and what is wrong. Make your own decisons. Its exactly the same reason i can say that watching horror movies or playing video games doesnt make people violent or dangerous. Same logic. P.S. A book about lizard kids sounds awesome
Great video. I read a lot of Asimov as a teen, I only learnt of his problematic behaviour when I came onto booktube. Ender's Game is a great story, but I haven't been impressed with other books I've read by him. It is not just in literature that there are problematic creators. Michelangelo and Leonardo DaVinci both great artists but problematic people. If we can't separate the artist from the book, we would have much less to read and the art galleries would be full of gaps...
Your commentary is correct to 10 decimal places. If we start cancelling authors for their bad beliefs or character flaws we will soon have nothing to read. My only addition to your argument would be to recommend buying used copies of the books of those authors you don't want to contribute money too. Don't restrict your reading over something as trivial as politics or dislike of the author's behavior.
"... probably too frequently, and yet here I am talking about it." That's funny. I love that you share this message. As I listened, I kept thinking "Oh, I'll say in the comments," and then you covered it. You pretty much said it as I would have. No human is perfect, including us in the modern day, but our imperfections do not stop us from approximating the truth and sharing with other imperfect humans. That's how we all slowly become more perfect, not by ignoring the past. I think the only thing I could add which you didn't say is that, since we aren't born knowing the truth from the get go, even when we give considerable thought to our ideas we may still be wrong in the end. If we persist in a wrong idea after giving it serious though, even this does not make us bad. I think most people deserve more understanding than what most other people are willing to give them. Here's an example of how people who disagree can still get along and learn from each other. As you spoke, could tell that we would likely disagree on the specifics of many of the examples you gave. But still, with some I agree wholeheartedly, and I can recognize that the fundamental idea at the root of your message is true even if I personally think it is at times misapplied. And in the end, I went away edified by listening to your thoughts, and glad to have you make me question my own. I love your videos. Keep up the great work.
I read a lot of historical books, biographies, etc. It is a huge mistake to apply today's morality to yesteryear's practices. There is a context to history and it is not ours. The whole point is to understand the people, the mindsets, the era. I do not have to agree with what they did or believed to learn something. Furthermore, applying modern morals to history makes it so that we cannot understand and learning is stunted.
Michael, good video, and bravely and logically presented with understanding. I fo not agree with all your thoughts but that is the good thing about living in a free country where people are free to be different and have different ideas. Good job.
Late in life HP Lovecraft read THE SCIENCE OF LIFE by HG Wells, Frank Wells and Julian Huxley. We know from his letters he was fascinated by this book, and re-borrowed it many times from a friend. He had a lot of respect for HG Wells of course. Apparently this book caused him to moderate his views and set him straight on matters of race. I think Wells wrote a book ANTICIPATIONS in about 1900 where he suggested the non-white population of the world might eventually have to be euthanized. George Orwell was a colonial policeman in Burma who beat his houseboy, etc, etc, etc.
Well said! Seems like you're speaking from prior experience. People are too quick to judge these days. I read REH and he's been labeled a racist by some, but it's all relative and I'd hate people to think I'm racist because of who I enjoy reading.
It is so strange to think that we live in one of those rare times in history when we have freedom of thought and to chose our own moral values, and what do we do? We try to restrict that and attack people because of what they think and read. We don’t need the government to do that, we do this ourselves. It is so scary to see this… in the words of Kierkegaard, people are so obsessed with freedom of speech, but they don’t use their freedom to think! Anyway, the only writer I cannot separate from the work is Marion Zimmer Bradley. Mists of Avalon was so important to me when I was a teenager, she inspired my imagination. Las year I decided to re-read the book for the first time in 20 years and I found out she was involved in pedophilia. Her own daughter was a victim. I was so heart broken I couldn’t read the book. I will try again in a couple of years.
The guilt-by-association ideology held by many today is really untenable. If we thought one was bad because of the books he reads, the films he reads, or even the people with whom he associates, then everyone is bad, because everyone has something or someone in their life who has a less-than-stellar character. It’s also not clear that what one writes reflects his own attitude. It seems that one should have to appeal to a writer’s personal life and opinions and not use their fiction as the basis of forming an opinion about their character.
I’m super late to the party! I was talking with a friend about this very topic recently-can we separate the art from the odious, vile person who created it? It can be difficult, but ultimately, I just can’t help loving the characters they created or the stories they told. Those fictional people and worlds stand independently from their creators. Also, I just discovered your channel and subscribed immediately. You remind me of a friend from my old job that I miss so much-we used to spend our lunch hour talking about books and music and movies. Thanks for sharing these conversations with us! I’m really loving your content. 📚
The RU-vid Algorithm suggested a video on this same topic by another creator that I do not follow. In fact, two of the three author's I believe are discussed by you both. The discussion was very interesting and frankly well presented. It was almost as if you had collaborated with one another on this subject. The channel is the Council of Geeks and the video is named Enjoying the Works of Problematic Creators. I found this interesting. Thanks for the videos we all enjoy Michael.
I am a firm believer in never judging the past with the standards and morals of the present. Does it bother me that a lot of old authors held views that are in diametric opposition with the current day? Absolutely not. It doesn't bother me that Lovecraft would never mix in a social setting with me, I can still enjoy his stories.
JK Rowling is extremely problematic to many, but to me and to many others she is heroic (and I'm not a fan of her fiction). What about the most problematic living author from a muslim perspective, Salman Rushdie?! He's another heroic writer, who's symbolic for those of us who value freedom of expression; I hope he's doing well following that horrid attack.
That's exactly why I find "problematic" to be such a meaningless term. It usually just means "I don't agree / It makes me uncomfortable", which does not express anything of substance unless one has an actual argument.
An excellent, rational discussion on a very emotive subject. 👍 Old books, movies, art are snapshots of history. They show us how people in the past viewed themselves and the societies they lived in. How can one be offended by history? You can learn from it or use it to compare against our current views but being offended by or denying history is like shouting at the wind. Lovecraft, for example, was born in a country that had only decided that slavery was bad a mere 25 years previously. Can we really blame him for his views when that was the environment in which he was raised? Or do we seek to understand and educate ourselves as to why those views were formed in the first place? Asimov is more troubling in many regards as his behaviour was a clear abuse of power & status, rather than a product of the more general society in which he lived (though of course, the pervading views on sexual equality were a factor). I think this says more about Asimov as a person than the time in which he lived. These types of predators are still around today and are often lauded for their views by certain sections of society allowing them to propagate their views further and influence new generations.
Very well said. It's a complicated issue and I have far too much to say about it than what can be accommodated in a youtube comment. I had no idea you were getting condemnatory comments on your videos -- that's pretty awful. I can honestly say I've never been yelled at or condemned for my reading choices -- maybe talked down to condescendingly, but I can take that. Sometimes it makes me wonder if people are really doing this condemnation of others or if people are just bothered that the artists they like are being "dissected". But your video reminded me that this stuff really does happen in the world. I've never been wholly comfortable with the phrase "separate the art from the artist", because even though in principle I agree with you 100%, I don't actually think you *can* -- I mean, *you* try separating an artist from his art and see what happens! haha...seriously though, like you said in this video when talking about Lovecraft, his ideas *did* influence his fiction, and so if you're going to examine and talk about the fiction on anything beyond a surface level, you're going to have to talk about his racism. Speaking of which, we talked about this a bit on the last episode of the Chrononauts podcast. i'm one of those people who do think lovecraft was capable of change, and, like a friend put it recently, he died "at the beginning of his redemption arc". So we'll never really know for sure. But I have read some of his letters, and a few from the later 30s at least speak of a surprisingly open-minded person, who readily speaks of how awful he was in his younger days, and who admired people who could do away with bigotry and intolerancea ltogether, and who even seems to be espousing some left wing principles that even today might be considered "a bit too risky". I think he never repudiated the racism outright, and nobody said, "hey Mr. Lovecraft, are you still a racist ****?" -- but I think he would have come out and said it eventually.
Will introduce my ten year old son to Harry Potter this year. Agree with you, it's hardly fair for him to have to miss out on that entire experience. The books themselves don't give the same message that the tweets do.
Stephen King is one of the biggest assholes you can find on Twitter, like, literally. Unbelievable guy. I think bacon is going to be the least of his worries.
Belief is an idea reinforced by emotion. When we want something to be true we believe it to be true. Admire the art not the artist. I'm full of cliches today.
But don't fall into the trap of thinking you're above them when you haven't lived in their shoes. You say it's for the better, but you couldn't know that. Your views are based on an idealized world that exists in your own surroundings or in your personal life story. Much of which has likely not even been constructed by you, yourself. I think you would find much more humanity in individuals you call bad than you might in your own self if you looked deeply enough.
If you are a terrible person then so am I because I love listening to you. Seriously though these people who like to sit behind computers and sling mud need to realise that if they were born one hundred years prior they would think totally differently.
Thanks for your rational view! In general, I'd rather not know too much about an author's biography and let the texts stand on their own. Having said that, I hugely enjoy biographical surveys of an author's work. Two favorite examples: The Dawn Watch: Joseph Conrad in a Global World, by Maya Jasanoff; and The Ministry of Truth: a Biography of George Orwell's 1984, by Dorian Lynskey. I also enjoy reading the biographical intros in anthologies. I'm at an age where it's clear I'll never read everything that I want to read (unless some tech company invents direct downloads to brains). So I sometimes use biographical information as a sorting mechanism. We all have a selection process when choosing what we read. If the person of the author makes my skin crawl for some reason, easy pass for me. If the author is alive and says obnoxious and moronic things in public (like Larry Niven saying odious things about immigrants and people of color; even Pournelle thought he went too far), easily sorted out. Add the corollary that a living author never gets any further income from me.
I was thinking of Niven & Pournelle myself, specifically A Mote in God's Eye. Wonderful, incredible depictions of an alien society, but the portrayals of Earth women were practically pre-Seventeenth Century. Given the opportunity, I think Sally Ride probably would have kicked Niven's butt.
“Not a week goes by that I don’t receive at least one pissed-off letter (most weeks there are more) accusing me of being foulmouthed, bigoted, homophobic, murderous, frivolous, or downright psychopathic.” - Stephen King. Just because you write something doesn't mean you have those believes. I think Lovecraft suffers from this; the only difference is that, unlike Stephen, he isn't around to defend himself. 2:26 you are experiencing this very thing too. My two cents (even though we don't use cents here): Books are the best way to go into things that can't be done in any other way. You can write a story about a psychopathic dog and killings it - and people will have a reaction to that. And that's a pretty tame example.
At this point I just kinda roll with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Like you, a lot of the authors I read lived in (thankfully) bygone times, so a lot of them probably held views I disagree with, but I try not to hold that against them, and that doesn't impair my enjoyment of their work, unless said work is intrinsically wrapped up in their views. Tolstoy is pretty problematic to me, although I dislike his work for other, more legitimate reasons as well. But yeah. Nice vid; well said. :)
Your take on wanting to read OSC but not wanting to give him any money is spot-on. I'm always arguing within my own community: why do you want to give money to businesses that you know hate us? I want to know exactly which local businesses are homophobic (or sexist, racist, etc.) so that I can specifically direct my funds AWAY from them. Many of my people do not agree with this approach.
Great video. I strongly believe in separating the author from the work. Whole video was great, though… sometimes the social ramifications of honestly reevaluating the ideas you grew up with can be difficult.
Lovecraft walked back his racism, and he barely went to school he was so reclusive. But more broadly while in one sense an author puts themself into their work, in another sense they don't, it's like a painting. An author can imagine themself a brave man but be a coward in real life for example.
How much influence to authors and celebrities really have over their readers/fans? Sure they can give us a thought or point of view, but it is up the the reader to decide what to believe. They're not sheep. They may make the wrong choice, but it is still their choice and cannot be blamed on anyone but themselves. Orson Scott Card has ideas on same sex marriage and homosexuality that I do not agree with, but it is a belief that many people have as it is common amongst most major religions. To my knowledge, Card is not funding chemical castration or asylum commitment of homosexuals. If he was funding projects to physically harm members of the LGBTQ community, I could see refusing to support him financially by not buying his books. However, he is just saying his common religious belief. If we are to punish people financially for having that religious belief, shouldn't we also punish all those who give money in the offering plates at churches, synagogues, and mosques? Whether you agree with Card's view or not, you should be alarmed by people wanting to take away his livelihood because of his public beliefs. It reminds me how Dashiell Hammett was blackballed from work (and even went to jail) because of his public socialist/communist beliefs during the McCarthy era.
In the case of authors that are still alive there seems to be more difficultly separating art from artist, and it all boils down to finance. Buying from a living problematic author is funding a problematic author, so I get why there's more trepidation. I still don't know how I feel about it in that instance. When it's older art from dead writers I don't buy the arguments for boycotting it, when they're living it gets awkward.
