Yeah, I’ve noticed that for myself as well. I can’t really figure out what my own criteria are.
I happened to go back and re-read some of the early posts in this thread, and found this from me. There were a couple of follow-up posts asking what I meant by this. I honestly don’t remember what I meant 19 months ago, but I can think of nothing creditable to me that those words could refer to. Therefore, I would like to apologize to everyone and consider this statement withdrawn with prejudice.
I admit I’m somewhat detached because I’ve never really “gotten” his stuff. I loved the Stardust movie but the book didn’t do much for me. I tried to read American Gods three times and every time I could not get past the lady swallowing men with her vagina.
I do think he has some brilliant things to say about the writing process so I admired him as an artist.
Yet I have friends who treasure his work so I respect the kind of loss it can be. I’ve lost my affection for celebrities I adored in the past and it sucks.
But not as much as it sucks for my trans colleagues who love Harry Potter.
Sometimes my reactions make a sort of sense. I liked some of Kevin Spacey’s stuff, but he turned to play abusive assholes. When i learned he was a real life abusive asshole, i simply couldn’t get past that, and couldn’t finish the TV show i was watching because it bothered me too much.
I didn’t even get that far. I couldn’t get into that book. I liked the sandman TV shows, but i tried the graphic novel and it was just okay. (Although, reading a library version on my phone probably didn’t do it any favors.) Anyway, I’m not going to seek out anything else of his unless i outlive him. But i didn’t retroactively dislike the Sandman TV shows.
My apologies. I thought it was a new thread. I should have looked at the start date.
Same. Lovecraft, for instance, I’ll still read. MZB, never again.
For some (including Gaiman and MZB), it’s not so much not wanting to read them , as for their fame to be destroyed. For every review/mention to carry a tagline. A kind of universal auto-replace of “Neil Gaiman” with “Neil Gaiman (rapist)”. But as the older Zimmer Bradley threads show, that kind of harshing of people’s buzz gets aggressive pushback.
Not that much worse. Gaiman was more prolific, in any case.
I think consumers/appreciators of an artist’s work lie on a continuum, between those at one end for whom it’s all about making a connection with the artist, and those who just care about the art itself and have no interest whatsoever in the people making it.
People near one end of this continuum will say “How could you possibly still enjoy this person’s work, after learning what they’ve done”; while people near the other end don’t see what the big deal is, from the standpoint of them enjoying the work itself.
I’m of the “It becomes much less of an issue once the artist is dead and cannot profit from it” camp (assuming the art isn’t in itself offensive). I will happily listen to Wagner, but I’m never giving another penny to JK Rowling.
It is a multidimensional continuum as well. The nature of the creepiness/crime; whether or not the individual profits in any event marginal way; and the nature/subject of the art.
Even another: for some artists more than others the artist, their story, their personality, is part of the complete product; for others minimally so. The more we as consumers are already aware of who we think the artist is, the more we have a parasocial relationship with them, the more our relationship to their art will be impacted by revelations about what they really are.
Gaiman hits all of those dimensions for me. I liked who I thought he was? That he worked with Pratchett. Listening to his stories as he was interviewed. Nah I didn’t buy his products for his personality but that persona was added value to my experience of the art.
One hypothetical to add to those who think it is all about the art as an object independent of who the artist is:
There is a very pretty painting with the subject being a group of bathing nude young women. Not dissimilar to many in museums labeled “river nymphs” or such, but in a modern setting. Great treatment of light. Beautiful composition. Something about a shadow at an edge that is interesting in some way. Do you respond to it the same once it is revealed to you that it was painted by Epstein?
Ah, I forgot he co-wrote Good Omens. That book I do love.
I suspect much of the issue for many of us is that the artist himself in this case made it clear he did not consider himself independent of his art or at least advertised it as such.
The way he presented/advertised himself and his work publicly was as an ally to various marginalized groups and as supportive for people he turned out to have actually exploited. This is also where MZB hits for some people - she held herself out to be a fan, supportive of the LBTGQ community, wrote fan fiction herself, etc.
Separating the art from the artist doesn’t work nearly so well in cases when the artists themselves deny that independence and actually make it part of their brand.
I’ve been thinking about this lately because I just this week found out that David and Leigh Eddings, who wrote some of my favorite fantasy novels, were jailed for child abuse in the 1970s. I’m not tossing their books off my shelf. For one thing, they’re both dead now, and for the other I bought all of their books from used bookstores so they didn’t get any of my money. And on the third/gripping hand, I was never really invested in the author as separate from the books. So I’m keeping the series, but I’m not recommending them anymore. There are books written in this century that deserve attention.
I really don’t mind, “I’m going to enjoy this person’s work even if they are a bad person.”
What I mind, what really sticks in my craw, is “I’m a huge fan of this person therefore they must be innocent.” Because that in many cases plays into societal norms about how we as a culture respond to allegations of abuse. That, to me, is real complicity in the negation of victim experience, which is a key feature of our society. That I take personally.
I don’t even have a problem with “I don’t know,” because in a lot of cases we really don’t know. But “the alleged victim must be lying because I prefer to enjoy this person’s work without cognitive dissonance” is fantastically shitty.
I have to wonder about Lewis Carol’s relationship with Alice. On the other hand, he’s been dead for a long time, and i don’t think anyone is hurt by enjoying his books. Which i do.
I think Caroll was more autistic awkward than pedophile, most likely. I think he struggled to relate to adults. A lot of the things people use to condemn him are often based on misunderstandings of upper class Victorian culture, like painting naked children. His society did not have the hangups we do about child nudity. “This guy liked to hang out with kids therefore he might have been a pedophile” isn’t really a line of thought I want to encourage.
On the other hand, I have a strong impression that Michael Jackson was a pedophile and he exhibited similar difficulty with relating to adults as Lewis Carroll. So no reason he couldn’t be both, I guess.
I’d just put my money on autistic and asexual.
Or just a guy who had a warm, asexual relationship with a child, for whatever reason. Yeah, that’s my best guess. It’s also not the only possibility. But i don’t feel any need to investigate it because they are both dead. And certainly, there’s nothing sexual in the books.
Polanski committed rape on underaged girls. Gaiman did nothing of the sort. Having a kinky sex life is not a crime.
There seems to be a lot of doubt now on that. And no criminal action at all. Not even an arrest. So if folks did that, that would be Slander.
Libel. Slander is spoken, libel (no initial cap needed) is written. Or if you want a more universal term that applies to both, defamation.
Always bearing in mind that if you sue someone for either kind of defamation, recall the fate of Oscar Wilde. The truth is a valid defense, and once you have someone in court, you can go after them and you might not be constrained by the same laws of evidence as in criminal trials.
(Wilde was convicted of the crime of gross indecency, based on admissions he made in his civil trial for libel against the Marquess of Queensbury.)
True, but Polanski was arrested and plead Guilty. And it was for sex with underaged girls. No criminal complain has even been filed vs Gaiman, and even so, “underaged” does not figure in it at all.
So there’s no doubt Polanski was much worse.