(no subject)

[shadowkat]

1. Interesting Art vs. The Artist - and read the comments, they are more interesting than the post. I know, it's an odd thing to actually tell people to read the comments - usually you want to avoid them at all costs, but in this case - READ THEM. Scalzi does an excellent job of monitoring comments. The post is by his daughter.

And so comes the age-old question; how much can you separate an artist from their art? Are you a bad person if you enjoy the creations of a flawed creator? Can I still watch Baby Driver even though Kevin Spacey is in it? Can someone enjoy a Woody Allen movie or does that make them complicit in his awfulness? Can I still love a book series even if the author turns out to be really problematic?

If you consume the creation and enjoy it and don’t know about the bad deeds of the creator, does that make it okay because you simply didn’t know? And then if you find out and continue to enjoy that thing, does that make you a bad person? What if it’s been years and years since said celebrity got “cancelled”? After a certain time period, is it okay to enjoy your problematic faves again? If you acknowledge that the creator is flawed and keep that in mind while consuming their media, does that make it acceptable, or worse?

Sample comment:

I think most of the comments have hit it on the head with “it’s up to the person consuming the artist’s work”. My personnel opinion boils down to a saying I was recently given by a co-worker “There are people I can work with, but never drink beer with; and there are people I can drink beer with, but never work with”. I believe people and artists are multi-faceted and it is ok to only like or deal with certain parts of that person/artist and acknowledge that there are parts of that person that you don’t or won’t deal with.

I agree with that comment. I decided not to post one - since it had already been covered. My view has always been that people are not all one thing.

I knew a sociopath in a Federal Penitentiary who created beautiful art. His art was in no way diminished by his actions.

2. Quick Poll on What Meme To Do Next

Poll #24632 Meme

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 8

View Respondents

What 30 Day Meme Should Be Done Next?

View Answers

30 Day Television Challenge
3 (37.5%)

30 Day Halloween Themed Books/Film/Tv Challenge
3 (37.5%)

30 Day Book Challenge
1 (12.5%)

Another 30 Day Music Challenge
1 (12.5%)

Other
0 (0.0%)

Comments

[jesuswasbatman]

I think the key question is "will I be materially supporting evil". As in, to pick an extreme example, if I buy this book the author will donate some of the money he receives to neo-Nazis.

[shadowkat]

The comments address that question. Really read the comments - there's several that talk about that - and how you can get around it by either borrowing the book, downloading it (piracy), or getting it from a library.

As someone who has published a book independently - I can tell you that authors don't make much from books. Also, approximately 50-65% of the books are grabbed by readers for free. They either illegally download them (it's impossible to police it on your own), get them from libraries, borrowed, or grabbed on deals. 90% of the people who got my book via my DW flist and Buffy fandom - got it free or for no money.

So I seriously doubt the author will be able to send that much to the neo-Nazis, unless of course they are someone like Stephen King or JK Rowling - with books that sell like gangbusters.

[atpo_onm]

90% of the people who got my book via my DW flist and Buffy fandom - got it free or for no money.

That's rather sad. For what it's worth, I'll have you know I ordered your book through my local Barnes & Noble, and gladly paid for it!

One of the reasons I still buy Cds and DVDs (besides that I simply like physical media) is my hope that the artists involved will get at least a bit more income from them than they get from electronic royalties.

All may become moot since electronic distribution will likely become the overwhelming norm in another 5 to 10 years, but until then...

[shadowkat]

The way I look at the publication of my book is kind of the same way I look at posting in my journal - if it helps or makes one person happy or I connected with just one person, then I did what I set out to do.

That's really all we can hope for.

And as it turns out - my book made more than one person happy. My mother's choir director loved it. As did quite a few of my co-workers. And a few friends, relatives, and people on my flist. They wrote reviews.

So I got what I set out to do. Did everyone like it? No. There were at least two people who hated it. Such is life.

I never expected it to make much money, it would have been nice if it did. But I've read books that make a lot of money and promptly forgotten them, and books that haven't - and remember them well. I don't write novels for money, I've a day job for that - and I'm proud of my day job. It contributes to my city and state, it helps people, and I can analyze and solve problems and help others.

That's really all I want to do at the end of the day. Help people and the world in some small way. And hopefully not hurt anyone.

I think I've managed to do that.

[tellshannon815]

That particular issue actually came up on the Ask A Manager work blog I read - someone wrote in asking for advice because the library where they work was hosting a Harry Potter event but that person's feelings towards JK Rowling meant that they didn't want to participate, but weren't sure how to express that. Views were mixed - some were boycotting the whole Harry Potter franchise over it, others still enjoyed the franchise and chose to separate it from her (that's the route I'm taking). But after reading some of the comments from people who were boycotting I did start questioning myself.

[shadowkat]

I think you kind of need to compartmentalize it - a little. Harry Potter was written by a woman on welfare, who had no money, and was struggling. She wasn't highly educated, and she wrote basically about class issues in much the same way as Ronald Dahl.

Dahl is no saint, he was an ass at times and not at all nice to his wife. Kind of misogynistic. But he wrote brilliant class satire.

I can kind of see why she has issues with transgender - she's not educated. And she's from a background that sees things a specific way. Transgender is really hard for people to wrap their head around. She's also just a writer. And has a right to be an asshole.

I've had to explain transgender to co-workers who had a similar take to Rowling. One co-worker that I like a lot, said something highly derogatory about transgender. And I responded, "Can you imagine what it would be like to be in a body that does not fit what you feel inside? You think like a man, you feel like a man, but you are in a woman's body? I mean, I get how hard that is to understand, but you see yourself as male and yet your body is female..."

People are very judgemental and hypocritical - none of us are saints, and we all have our ingrained prejudices and we all like to demonize people who disagree or hurt us. I listened to this song today, entitled "Everybody Wants to Go to Heaven, But No One Wants To Die by Ellie McEwen." I found it HERE. It kind of says it all.

I read the Harry Potter books - are they feminist? No. They are a boy's coming of age story and what hit me about them at the time I read them is that Rowlings has problems with women. She has a kind of ingrained sexism true of people of her generation. Women fit in a specific role for her - and she has issues with them not being in that role.
Same-sex relationships - no issues. But she has a very binary view and somewhat sexist view of gender.

I think demonizing her the way so many people on twitter and DW have - have unfortunately give her more power than she deserves. She's just a novelist. That's it.
A novelist who wrote a lot of popular children's books. Kind of overrated children's books...but eh..mileage varies.