Last year, I reviewed each of the Harry Potter books. I’m very lazily turning these into a book by adding reviews to the movies. I may also add the Fantastic Beasts movies because why not. Let it become a book about all the Wizarding World.
I will read Harry Potter and Cormac McCarthy over and over again for the rest of my life. They are great stories written by fallible humans. That’s good enough for me. Great essay.
The entire cancelling controversy, every instance of it, from perceived violation / infraction to aspirational shaming and profuse pearl clutching, including outraged reactions, is so ridiculously performative. Thanks for the perspective and the info about Jeffers. I wish you’d have the final word but we’ll see it again. And again. And again.
This was such a thoughtful essay, especially your points that the people who truly get cancelled—they lose their jobs—usually have the least power, and that DEI trainings that cause people to blame each other undermine worker solidarity and thus benefit management.
Like you, I think it’s ok to read and watch works by problematic people just because you find them enjoyable, but in my own life I add an additional criterion, which I’ve come to think of as Polanski’s Razor: Never mind the artist’s actions, but does the WORK advocate for or criticize evil?
Roman Polanski committed an extraordinarily evil crime when he raped a 12-year-old girl. But his films—especially Repulsion, Chinatown, and Tess—make it clear that this is an evil crime. So far from justifying his crime, Polanski’s films explore the extent of the evil of what he and men like him did and do to girls. So I think it’s ethically fine to watch his films.
By contrast, I don’t watch Woody Allen’s films, because to me he uses the films to justify old men getting with very young women. (For the record, I don’t find Dylan Farrow’s accusations credible, but he did begin an affair with Soon-Yi when he was old and she was very young.) Not only are the young women in Allen’s films more beautiful than older women, but they are wiser, kinder, and deeper than the older women, whom Allen depicts as pretentious, social-climbing, shrewish, and hysterical. As an older woman myself, I have no desire to watch movies that portray women like me that way. So regardless of what Allen did or didn’t do in his private life, his works serve a cause that I find immoral, so I don’t watch them.
That’s the system I’ve worked out for myself; ymmv.
I distinctly remember being taught in university (and even possibly in high school) that it is not only possible, but sometimes necessary, to separate the art from the artist. How is this no longer a concept that people can wrap their heads around? I don't get it, but it seems like a net loss for humanity.
I do wonder if things like this have a lot to do with not growing up on social media, where you're pummeled with very specific and narrow forms of morality. And deviating from those seeming moral norms can lead to big negative reactions.
Personally I have always found it easy to separate the artist from the art, but that doesn't change the fact you're trying to conflate the popular with the moral.
Seriously: looking at JK Rowling's bank account to discredit those who have deep issues with her views and more importantly her way of expressing them is lazy.
Which borders on the ironic because one thing you have to do once you decide to attack a billionaire is be willing to put the (yes performative) work in..
Your invocation of Jeffers suggests you know that in 40 years this will all have been decided, and then it will be easy to pick the right side, but in the meantime, what's your compass?
Again, mine is separation of work and author (and I'm actually currently reading The Road), but what if that's not good enough for you?
I'm not discrediting those with moral issues with Rowling. I'm saying that what they allege (her transphobia is hurting her career) is simply not true. Her bank account doesn't make her right, obviously, but it does mean that people have not found her critics or their moral arguments convincing enough to turn away from her.
I suppose one could take issue with comparing Rowling’s belief that sex is a biological reality with Cormac McCarthy having sex with a teenager. Still, McCarthy will always be my favorite writer regardless.
I will read Harry Potter and Cormac McCarthy over and over again for the rest of my life. They are great stories written by fallible humans. That’s good enough for me. Great essay.
The entire cancelling controversy, every instance of it, from perceived violation / infraction to aspirational shaming and profuse pearl clutching, including outraged reactions, is so ridiculously performative. Thanks for the perspective and the info about Jeffers. I wish you’d have the final word but we’ll see it again. And again. And again.
Jeffers is definitely worth checking out!
This was such a thoughtful essay, especially your points that the people who truly get cancelled—they lose their jobs—usually have the least power, and that DEI trainings that cause people to blame each other undermine worker solidarity and thus benefit management.
Like you, I think it’s ok to read and watch works by problematic people just because you find them enjoyable, but in my own life I add an additional criterion, which I’ve come to think of as Polanski’s Razor: Never mind the artist’s actions, but does the WORK advocate for or criticize evil?
Roman Polanski committed an extraordinarily evil crime when he raped a 12-year-old girl. But his films—especially Repulsion, Chinatown, and Tess—make it clear that this is an evil crime. So far from justifying his crime, Polanski’s films explore the extent of the evil of what he and men like him did and do to girls. So I think it’s ethically fine to watch his films.
By contrast, I don’t watch Woody Allen’s films, because to me he uses the films to justify old men getting with very young women. (For the record, I don’t find Dylan Farrow’s accusations credible, but he did begin an affair with Soon-Yi when he was old and she was very young.) Not only are the young women in Allen’s films more beautiful than older women, but they are wiser, kinder, and deeper than the older women, whom Allen depicts as pretentious, social-climbing, shrewish, and hysterical. As an older woman myself, I have no desire to watch movies that portray women like me that way. So regardless of what Allen did or didn’t do in his private life, his works serve a cause that I find immoral, so I don’t watch them.
That’s the system I’ve worked out for myself; ymmv.
Polanski's Razor! I like that
I distinctly remember being taught in university (and even possibly in high school) that it is not only possible, but sometimes necessary, to separate the art from the artist. How is this no longer a concept that people can wrap their heads around? I don't get it, but it seems like a net loss for humanity.
I do wonder if things like this have a lot to do with not growing up on social media, where you're pummeled with very specific and narrow forms of morality. And deviating from those seeming moral norms can lead to big negative reactions.
Personally I have always found it easy to separate the artist from the art, but that doesn't change the fact you're trying to conflate the popular with the moral.
Seriously: looking at JK Rowling's bank account to discredit those who have deep issues with her views and more importantly her way of expressing them is lazy.
Which borders on the ironic because one thing you have to do once you decide to attack a billionaire is be willing to put the (yes performative) work in..
Your invocation of Jeffers suggests you know that in 40 years this will all have been decided, and then it will be easy to pick the right side, but in the meantime, what's your compass?
Again, mine is separation of work and author (and I'm actually currently reading The Road), but what if that's not good enough for you?
I'm not discrediting those with moral issues with Rowling. I'm saying that what they allege (her transphobia is hurting her career) is simply not true. Her bank account doesn't make her right, obviously, but it does mean that people have not found her critics or their moral arguments convincing enough to turn away from her.
I suppose one could take issue with comparing Rowling’s belief that sex is a biological reality with Cormac McCarthy having sex with a teenager. Still, McCarthy will always be my favorite writer regardless.
Not comparing them. Only bringing them up together because this all came out around the same time.