![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Don't Look at the Person Behind the Curtain...
[On the COVID front? I think I'm getting better? Last night ran a slight fever - at 100.11 or thereabouts. But headache meds (acetametphine/Asprin (NASAI)/Caffeine) and water reduced it quickly enough. I also think the fact that I had the latest COVID Booster in January, along with the Flu Shot is why it's milder than some folks cases have been.
I'll probably call in sick Monday, take another test, and if it is negative, see how I'm feeling on Tuesday and/or Wed - to determine whether I go in to work.]
So, I've become a little fascinated with the topic of worshipping writers and the negative impact that has on well everyone concerned. Former Minister had a sermon on the topic once - in which she stated "you are going to worship something, just be careful what it is." (She was talking about money, politics, etc. But it applies to humans as well.)
Although I do think there is a difference between being obsessed/fannish about something, and worshiping someone. Picking apart a writer's work, being fannish about their work - isn't quite the same thing as idolizing. Or defending a writer - who may or may not have done something terrible isn't idolizing, depending on why? I question allegations, because I have a criminal defense background and was taught to question everything. And let's face it? The internet isn't reliable.
There's an excellent thread on Reddit about it.
Someone states that's why they only idolize fictional characters because they will never let them down. To which someone responds: "Didn't read Go
Set the Watchman, I take it?" (OR the Watchmen, I thought.)
And then in regards to Gaiman** - there's a thread that compares him to another famous and beloved British writer, Charles Dickens, who was also a bit of a mess. (I'm hesitant to call either terrible people, because I know people are more than one thing, and our actions don't necessarily define who we are. And never have. Our actions vary from day to day, one situation to the next, and we have different choices to make each time. That said, I admittedly am uncomfortable watching a couple of actors, and it may be a while before I read a few writers works.)
"This bit "I don’t think anyone should idolize anyone, ever. It’s not great for them, and it’s not great for you, they probably didn’t ask to be idolized (and if they did, holy shit, fucking run)". I've read a lot of Neil Gaiman and I particularly loved American Gods and the graveyard book. So when Neil Gaiman did an event at the Barbican with the BBC symphony orchestra in 2019, I got tickets. I came away disturbed. I didn't see any predatory behaviour or anything like that, but there was such an unhealthy atmosphere of basking in adoration."
" Playing in the Dark? I saw it on TV, and it put me uncomfortably in mind of descriptions of Charles Dickens' 1858 reading tour. (Dickens was an early literary hero of mine, so I had every modern fan's inevitable 😒 experience when I learned how he bullied and dumped his loyal wife, blocked her from seeing her children, and pursued an 18-year-old actress who was in the traditional, unenviable position of being desired by a man with vast power in her professional sphere.)
The atmosphere at such readings was febrile worship for one man's brilliant writing and acting skills, and they were extremely lucrative (in justice to Dickens, he did them for charity first). it's my opinion that he became psychologically dependent on them, and they did him no good at all; he was still doing the readings when he died at the age of 58.
The Barbican event made me think I was looking at something similar. I'm certain that idolization is one of the most reliable ways to bring out the absolute worst in somebody."
[I've not seen Playing in the Dark.]
Two statements to highlight:
* I don’t think anyone should idolize anyone, ever. It’s not great for them, and it’s not great for you, they probably didn’t ask to be idolized (and if they did, holy shit, fucking run)
*I'm certain that idolization is one of the most reliable ways to bring out the absolute worst in somebody
I agree with both. From everything I've read about famous folks - who do horrible things - it's usually the result of "idolization". They all fall into that trap. And idolization or adoration can be mistaken for love, it's not love. It's a false or empty kind of love that often destroys the object of it. There's parables, fables, fairy tells, and Greek Myths/stories that describe why this is a bad thing.
I've been watching "The Magicians" adapted from Lev Grossman's books. It's a story about a bunch of magic users who find a gateway into a world that was fictionalized in a bunch of beloved children's books. Halfway through the first season - it's revealed that the writer of the books is in reality a pedophile, with his sister's help, drugged, and molested the children in his charge. When he discovers that they can escape him into a fictional world, a world where he can do whatever he wants - he practices black magic to change himself in order to enter that world. The Writer is portrayed as a charming British writer, with graying hair, and tweed. Looks a bit like Neil Gaiman by way of CS Lewis.
The lead character, Quentin, who has steadfastly devoted himself to the study of these books, and adored the writer. To the extent that he believes the books and that writer saved his life. (He had a mental breakdown and the books pulled him out of it - and he's been utilizing them to keep him sane ever since.)
The series - up to this point - appears to be a commentary on how we use external things to escape internal pain, and instead of dealing with it - people find various ways to escape, if only for short periods of times. (Sex, magic, fictional worlds, drugs, alcohol.) Alice escapes into magic. Perry into alcohol and drugs. Margo - sex. Quentin - the fictional world of Fillory.)
But there's another broader theme - as long as the fictional world of Fillory is fictional - it is this wonderous place, and the writer has control over it. Once he discovers it is an actual place, that each child who visits it changes to meet that child's wants/desires - the writer feels a need to assert control over it, and shut off all gateways to it. He also kills anyone who can question his views of the world, or his carefully marketed persona. Quentin - his greatest fan - becomes his main target. The writer intends to kill Quentin - because by killing his greatest fan, he regains control of the world he created. And in turn, the work and writer who saved Quentin's life, also kills and destroys Quentin.
Coincidentally this morning, the lay-worship sermon at my church, via FB, was on how humans, writers or AI creators, create things and then wish to assert control over them. And at what point does the creation become its own entity, with it's own free will, and desires? No longer an extension of the creator? And how do we interact with these creations? As separate from the creator of part of them.
The sermon argues that while all things are ecologically connected and we are indefinably a part of each other, at the same time we are separate entities and once the creation is released into the world - it becomes its own entity.
This furthers the view that yes, you can love Harry Potter and it's world, without supporting JK Rowling's views, or you can love A Tale of Two Cities or a Christmas Carol without supporting or loving Dickens (he's long dead anyhow and I think he's works are in the public domain), or you can adore the works of folks like Gaiman or Whedon without condoning their actions or worshiping them. The creation can survive outside of the creator, and in some cases expand and become more - based on every interaction others have with it.
In short? It is safer (well for the most part - not to the extent you get lost inside of it) to love the fictional work than the creator of the work. Or? Ignore the person behind the curtain, they are but a shyster and a conman, hardly a wizard worth worshiping. But their creation can be loved and adores separately.
** A side note about Gaiman? Unlike Whedon and Munroe, the allegations aren't being reported by any reliable news sources. Doesn't mean they are false, but doesn't mean they are true either. The more reliable news sources are silent. Rolling Stone was the only one that mentioned it. I'm not sure the others care or see the story as reliable? The news sources reporting it via a google search appear to be only underground, social media outlets - such as an Australian podcast which claims exclusive rights to the story, and substack. I don't trust either. I don't trust people randomly telling me about it on Reddit, Bluesky or DW either. And I was taught that we don't convict people of a crime until they've been "proven" guilty of it, which requires more than someone accusing them of doing it. If all it required was an accusation - then we could accuse anyone who pissed us off of doing something horrible. Your next door neighbor who you babysat for, could. There's most likely more to the story. The tendency to side with the accuser because we find them relatable etc - is a problem I've noticed on social media. Yes, people lie, often without realizing it. And embellish. So at this point, I really don't know if Gaiman did anything.
What unnerves me about social media is how many people assume that if XYZ publication reports it is true. Or if someone says it in a publication - than it is true without any fact checking whatsoever. A reputable source fact checks. [I had a massage therapist who fully believed that vaccines were tainted and caused autism because...wait for it...she read it on an internet discussion board???] This is why people died of COVID. How do you know if something is true? There has to be reliable and primary sources, preponderance of the evidence, and a level of accountability. And even then, we don't necessarily know for certain. My father was on the jury of a child molestation case, he and the jury found the defendant guilty, only for the judge to throw out the case because it was determined that the therapists had manipulated the child's testimony to support the ends of whomever wanted custody. And this is easy to do.
That Reddit thread is weirdly disturbing - in how many people misread Scalzi's piece, and how many are quick to judgement based solely on something they read on the internet. And are insanely self-righteous about it.
I'll probably call in sick Monday, take another test, and if it is negative, see how I'm feeling on Tuesday and/or Wed - to determine whether I go in to work.]
So, I've become a little fascinated with the topic of worshipping writers and the negative impact that has on well everyone concerned. Former Minister had a sermon on the topic once - in which she stated "you are going to worship something, just be careful what it is." (She was talking about money, politics, etc. But it applies to humans as well.)
Although I do think there is a difference between being obsessed/fannish about something, and worshiping someone. Picking apart a writer's work, being fannish about their work - isn't quite the same thing as idolizing. Or defending a writer - who may or may not have done something terrible isn't idolizing, depending on why? I question allegations, because I have a criminal defense background and was taught to question everything. And let's face it? The internet isn't reliable.
There's an excellent thread on Reddit about it.
Someone states that's why they only idolize fictional characters because they will never let them down. To which someone responds: "Didn't read Go
Set the Watchman, I take it?" (OR the Watchmen, I thought.)
And then in regards to Gaiman** - there's a thread that compares him to another famous and beloved British writer, Charles Dickens, who was also a bit of a mess. (I'm hesitant to call either terrible people, because I know people are more than one thing, and our actions don't necessarily define who we are. And never have. Our actions vary from day to day, one situation to the next, and we have different choices to make each time. That said, I admittedly am uncomfortable watching a couple of actors, and it may be a while before I read a few writers works.)
"This bit "I don’t think anyone should idolize anyone, ever. It’s not great for them, and it’s not great for you, they probably didn’t ask to be idolized (and if they did, holy shit, fucking run)". I've read a lot of Neil Gaiman and I particularly loved American Gods and the graveyard book. So when Neil Gaiman did an event at the Barbican with the BBC symphony orchestra in 2019, I got tickets. I came away disturbed. I didn't see any predatory behaviour or anything like that, but there was such an unhealthy atmosphere of basking in adoration."
" Playing in the Dark? I saw it on TV, and it put me uncomfortably in mind of descriptions of Charles Dickens' 1858 reading tour. (Dickens was an early literary hero of mine, so I had every modern fan's inevitable 😒 experience when I learned how he bullied and dumped his loyal wife, blocked her from seeing her children, and pursued an 18-year-old actress who was in the traditional, unenviable position of being desired by a man with vast power in her professional sphere.)
The atmosphere at such readings was febrile worship for one man's brilliant writing and acting skills, and they were extremely lucrative (in justice to Dickens, he did them for charity first). it's my opinion that he became psychologically dependent on them, and they did him no good at all; he was still doing the readings when he died at the age of 58.
The Barbican event made me think I was looking at something similar. I'm certain that idolization is one of the most reliable ways to bring out the absolute worst in somebody."
[I've not seen Playing in the Dark.]
Two statements to highlight:
* I don’t think anyone should idolize anyone, ever. It’s not great for them, and it’s not great for you, they probably didn’t ask to be idolized (and if they did, holy shit, fucking run)
*I'm certain that idolization is one of the most reliable ways to bring out the absolute worst in somebody
I agree with both. From everything I've read about famous folks - who do horrible things - it's usually the result of "idolization". They all fall into that trap. And idolization or adoration can be mistaken for love, it's not love. It's a false or empty kind of love that often destroys the object of it. There's parables, fables, fairy tells, and Greek Myths/stories that describe why this is a bad thing.
I've been watching "The Magicians" adapted from Lev Grossman's books. It's a story about a bunch of magic users who find a gateway into a world that was fictionalized in a bunch of beloved children's books. Halfway through the first season - it's revealed that the writer of the books is in reality a pedophile, with his sister's help, drugged, and molested the children in his charge. When he discovers that they can escape him into a fictional world, a world where he can do whatever he wants - he practices black magic to change himself in order to enter that world. The Writer is portrayed as a charming British writer, with graying hair, and tweed. Looks a bit like Neil Gaiman by way of CS Lewis.
The lead character, Quentin, who has steadfastly devoted himself to the study of these books, and adored the writer. To the extent that he believes the books and that writer saved his life. (He had a mental breakdown and the books pulled him out of it - and he's been utilizing them to keep him sane ever since.)
The series - up to this point - appears to be a commentary on how we use external things to escape internal pain, and instead of dealing with it - people find various ways to escape, if only for short periods of times. (Sex, magic, fictional worlds, drugs, alcohol.) Alice escapes into magic. Perry into alcohol and drugs. Margo - sex. Quentin - the fictional world of Fillory.)
But there's another broader theme - as long as the fictional world of Fillory is fictional - it is this wonderous place, and the writer has control over it. Once he discovers it is an actual place, that each child who visits it changes to meet that child's wants/desires - the writer feels a need to assert control over it, and shut off all gateways to it. He also kills anyone who can question his views of the world, or his carefully marketed persona. Quentin - his greatest fan - becomes his main target. The writer intends to kill Quentin - because by killing his greatest fan, he regains control of the world he created. And in turn, the work and writer who saved Quentin's life, also kills and destroys Quentin.
Coincidentally this morning, the lay-worship sermon at my church, via FB, was on how humans, writers or AI creators, create things and then wish to assert control over them. And at what point does the creation become its own entity, with it's own free will, and desires? No longer an extension of the creator? And how do we interact with these creations? As separate from the creator of part of them.
The sermon argues that while all things are ecologically connected and we are indefinably a part of each other, at the same time we are separate entities and once the creation is released into the world - it becomes its own entity.
This furthers the view that yes, you can love Harry Potter and it's world, without supporting JK Rowling's views, or you can love A Tale of Two Cities or a Christmas Carol without supporting or loving Dickens (he's long dead anyhow and I think he's works are in the public domain), or you can adore the works of folks like Gaiman or Whedon without condoning their actions or worshiping them. The creation can survive outside of the creator, and in some cases expand and become more - based on every interaction others have with it.
In short? It is safer (well for the most part - not to the extent you get lost inside of it) to love the fictional work than the creator of the work. Or? Ignore the person behind the curtain, they are but a shyster and a conman, hardly a wizard worth worshiping. But their creation can be loved and adores separately.
** A side note about Gaiman? Unlike Whedon and Munroe, the allegations aren't being reported by any reliable news sources. Doesn't mean they are false, but doesn't mean they are true either. The more reliable news sources are silent. Rolling Stone was the only one that mentioned it. I'm not sure the others care or see the story as reliable? The news sources reporting it via a google search appear to be only underground, social media outlets - such as an Australian podcast which claims exclusive rights to the story, and substack. I don't trust either. I don't trust people randomly telling me about it on Reddit, Bluesky or DW either. And I was taught that we don't convict people of a crime until they've been "proven" guilty of it, which requires more than someone accusing them of doing it. If all it required was an accusation - then we could accuse anyone who pissed us off of doing something horrible. Your next door neighbor who you babysat for, could. There's most likely more to the story. The tendency to side with the accuser because we find them relatable etc - is a problem I've noticed on social media. Yes, people lie, often without realizing it. And embellish. So at this point, I really don't know if Gaiman did anything.
What unnerves me about social media is how many people assume that if XYZ publication reports it is true. Or if someone says it in a publication - than it is true without any fact checking whatsoever. A reputable source fact checks. [I had a massage therapist who fully believed that vaccines were tainted and caused autism because...wait for it...she read it on an internet discussion board???] This is why people died of COVID. How do you know if something is true? There has to be reliable and primary sources, preponderance of the evidence, and a level of accountability. And even then, we don't necessarily know for certain. My father was on the jury of a child molestation case, he and the jury found the defendant guilty, only for the judge to throw out the case because it was determined that the therapists had manipulated the child's testimony to support the ends of whomever wanted custody. And this is easy to do.
That Reddit thread is weirdly disturbing - in how many people misread Scalzi's piece, and how many are quick to judgement based solely on something they read on the internet. And are insanely self-righteous about it.
no subject
It is scary how easy it is to get accused of sexual misconduct, thanks to the Internet.
The dilemma of writers vis a vie their creations is not unlike parents and their children. Knowing when to relinquish control and when to guide, when to help, when to step back. The stakes are even higher, mistakes harder to correct.
It's essential to separate love for a work of art from worshipping the artist. I don't know why this is so hard for people.
no subject
I just have a persistent and somewhat annoying cough, and a runny nose. But my throat isn't that sore. It feels like a bad cold or a mild flu. I'll probably stay home until Tuesday or Wed (depending on the cough and if I can talk and if I test negative).
Feel much better today. Very similar to the last time I had it.
no subject
Yup. It's scaring me as well. People rush to judgement without any real evidence. I checked out the sources investigating Gaiman? The Tortoise is publication funded with conservative funds, and the lead reporter on the case is related to Boris Johnson, and Terf. Gaiman is heavily for transgender and LGBTA rights. The person parsing this out on Reddit, decided we could trust the source because the other investigator was from Malta and they adored that person and felt sympathetic towards them - so of course they are reliable and we should believe them. WTF?? Then someone said - "well yes, those reporting it are like Fox News, but we totally believe the allegations any how." And I'm thinking were people bounced on their heads as children?
In a court of law - you need more than someone telling you a story. It has to be corroborated. And the stories these folks tell could be twisted various ways. Witness testimony is not reliable, in fact it is the least reliable evidence there is - because people don't often remember things accurately. Memory lies. It twists and embellishes. That's why you have to do a rape kit to prove it.