First, I have got to apologize to the “Powers that RTB” for the tardiness of this post. Life got in the way bigtime in recent days. And second, I’ll apologize to the readers in advance for the hastiness with which I wrote it. I thought being less late and less polished was better than being more late and more polished. Some days I feel like my entire life is a series of choices between lesser evils, and today is one of those days.
Ok, so what do I mean by the title of this post? Well, by “bad”, I mean morally bad, and by “good” I mean artistically good.
I don’t care all that much, to be honest, whether writers are good or bad people in real life, and that extends to their behavior on the internet. My issue is not that I am reluctant to judge someone’s behavior immoral: I have no problem doing that. Rather, it’s that I think there is a difference between a writer and her books. If I am going to rely on that difference to write negative — even snarky — reviews (”I’m criticizing her book, not her personally.”), then I have to be consistent and acknowledge it when it comes to author behavior.
I’ll go further. I actually think it is a bad idea, in general, to reject books by immoral authors. Think of all the biographies and biopics you may have read or seen. Visual artists, musicians, film directors, and writers throughout history have been some of our most wretched human beings: liars, cheats, egomaniacs, thieves, heartbreakers, sellouts, and all purpose scumbags. A favorite example among philosophers is the painter Gauguin, who left his wife and family destitute so he could go to Tahiti and paint nudes. To use a very recent case, I agree with our President’s assessment of Kanye West (”He’s a jackass.”) but Kanye’s music is still on constant rotation on my ipod.
In other words, I think I would miss out on a lot if I restricted my intake of creative products to morally good creators, and I might even be contributing in some way to a move towards censorship.
In that sense, I think it’s a shame that the internet and the 24/7 news cycle has (further) opened up private lives of artists to public consumption. Many readers enjoy personal contact with their favorite romance authors online, but does such contact really enhance the book itself for the reader or the creative process for the writer? And at what cost, if it also opens the door to enjoyment-sabotaging judgments of the author?
I do, however, think about the business practices of companies from which I purchase products, and I do try to avoid companies with business practices I abhor (sweatshops, union breaking, race based or sex based discrimination, for example). The difference, I think, is that art is a special category. I can visit Target instead of Wal-Mart and buy the same product, but I can’t swap one author for another in the same way. I also think art has a special place in our society which paper towels and cat litter do not.
Admittedly, there are those who present tougher cases than most romance authors’ foibles. Charles Manson would be one. It’s true that he isn’t legally allowed to profit from his music, but he still produces it and people still listen to it. I’ve never listened to it, personally, so Perhaps there is some limit beyond which even I can’t go.
I don’t mean to imply some insurmountable gap between an artist and her work. For sure, a good biography of an artist can shed light on some aspects of her work. And I don’t mean to imply that we can’t make moral judgments of the work itself. But how bad can a good writer be? Pretty darn bad, I say.
No related posts.
Very interesting bloggery! I’m a visual artist and we’re frequently confronted with this issue too. It comes into play frequently when an artist is perceived to have ’sold out’, or isn’t growing or evolving in their craft. They get dogged on, and I confess, I do much of the dogging. Their business practices reflect on their rep as an artist. Happens to writers as well, I suppose!
“I might even be contributing in some way to a move towards censorship.”
I would argue that you’re doing just the opposite. The capitalist infrastructure that brings us a variety of products also requires that we, the consumers, draw lines that corporations (and by extension, authors, performing artists, etc.) are unwilling to draw for themselves. They’re chasing the buck; it’s our job to keep them honest.
I’m 100% opposed to censorship enacted BY A GOVERNING AUTHORITY. I don’t see any problem, however, with censorship as a natural result of a lack of a market in a capitalist society–we do it already, and choosing how and when to spend our dollars is what gives “power to the people.”
I absolutely refuse to purchase products by artists or writers whose acts or words I find morally offensive. I won’t watch a television program or movie with Martin Sheen in it, for example, and I’ve been boycotting Tom Cruise for years.
When you’re in the public eye, you should be aware that everything you do or say reflects upon you and impacts your ability to sell your product to a specific audience. When you’re selling an artistic creation, you’re selling a part of you, and if you or it is morally offensive to me, I have the right–and I would even argue, the civic responsibility–as a consumer to refuse to buy it.
I see something a little different there. If I pay an artist who spews hate, then I’m funding his/her hate. I’m supporting it, even if I do it in a roundabout way. Not like politicians who you hand money to for their opinions, but a sideways version of that. I know you beat your wife, but you’re such a good comic I’ll keep buying you’re videos to be sure you have enough money to keep drinking and beating your wife.
I don’t follow celeb stuff, so I’ve probably done it accidentally a time or two. I don’t buy a book then automatically search out every bit of personal information on the author I can find, so there’s a chance I’ve supported the wrong people there too. But if it’s big enough to hit the public news for me to see it and it’s something that I cannot find a way to see in a positive (or at least reasonable) light, I will stop giving that person money.
This is a totally interesting topic. Is it almost another step beyond, you know, the news is fractured, and people listen only to newshows that reflect their views? And now people might only consume art produced by those who reflect their views? I think that’s really dangerous, and that you make an excellent point here. Let the artist be bad. Let the art not be.
Because, I do not enjoy novels that argue for a point of view, even if I agree with it. But that’s boring art, which is a different discussion.
Just out of curiosity, what horrible things did Cruise and Sheen do?
Cruise is an all-around whackjob, but I don’t know about Sheen.
I mostly disregard what artists do in their personal life, but when it trickles into their work, I can and do reject that. A good example is Piers Anthony. I enjoyed a lot of his earlier work when I was a teen, but his recent child-porn controversy is just gross. Besides the fact that his work either deterioriated significantly or my taste became more sophisticated (could be either) I couldn’t stomach that at all.
So I guess I don’t worry about it much until it becomes really egregious to me, and I do tend to research it a bit if it gets to that point, because after all, I’m giving something up, and I want to be sure it’s justified. With the state of the media these days sometimes it’s hard to tell.
I don’t think it’s always a conscious thing – seeing Tom Cruise was mentioned, I would admit I haven’t watched anything he’s done since he left Nicole Kidman. (And I know I don’t know anything real about his life or marriage.)
But while I’m not in any sense boycotting him, I just don’t want to watch him any more.
In a sense the artist is their own brand, and my perception of the brand will colour my desire to purchase, or not, the product that they sell.
That’s not censorship, it’s the realities of the market place.
While I don’t think artists should be held to higher standards of morality than anyone else, I also don’t believe that moral standards should be lowered especially for them.
In general, I don’t let something like graceless online behavior keep me from reading (or positively reviewing) an author whose books I otherwise enjoy, but nonetheless, I do have limits — and pedophilia is where draw the line.
I haven’t watched a Woody Allen movie since Mia Farrow accused him of molesting their four year old daughter. I did go to “The Pianist,” mainly because my parents dragged me to it, and I thought it was a sublime work of art, but still, when I think of the fact that Roman Polanski directed it, it makes me queasy.
Janine wrote, “I also don’t believe that moral standards should be lowered especially for them. ”
Oh, I agree here. I hope I didn’t come off otherwise. Pedophilia is equally bad whether an artist or a nonartist does it.
No, you didn’t come off otherwise — it is just that I’ve heard people imply that artists shouldn’t consider morality when creating their art, and I guess I don’t agree with that. I’ve also heard the same argued about scientists in pursuit of scientific discoveries, and I don’t agree there either. And obviously politicians and CEOs also try to ignore morality at times. I think that moral standards apply to all people equally, and no one — not even Shakespeare or Mozart or Van Gogh — should get a free pass.
Like others who’ve posted, every once in awhile, there is just someone whose work I lose interest in, relative to things they’ve done in their personal lives. It’s not always consistent, either. Practically everyone in Hollywood sleeps around, it seems, but I can’t get excited about a Brad Pitt or
Angelina project any more because I always end up thinking, “yeah, but….”
I started out as an English major in college, but switched to history, because I realized that what really interested me were the “true stories”–the author bios, the times they lived in, and how those influenced their work. While I think any artist, no matter how morally bankrupt, can create something of value, I think that the more we know about a person, the better we can understand his/her work. I got into it with a colleague once over this issue, (she was, interestingly, a philosophy professor), and she pretty much never spoke to me again, even though we were about 10 ft away in the same office. But I still believe that no one creates in a vacuum, and that personality, history, circumstances, and surroundings all work with imagination to create art.
As far as sales go–if your immoral (or just obnoxius) behavior has a negative impact on your sales, not to mention your personal life, well, then, maybe you should rethink it.
And with Tom Cruise–yeah, all I can think when I see him is “Scientology goofus,” I am also curious about Martin Sheen. Or did you mean Charlie?
Folks thought I belonged to the ‘perfect’ family growing up. They were upset when my parents split. I, however, knew my dad, the ‘perfect’ dad, was a bad, bad, BAD man. The split was a cause for celebration.
It was a great lesson. I try not to judge anyone, especially on second hand evidence.
I think there is good and bad in everyone and no one knows the truth except for that person (and often not even him/her). Maybe that’s why I write heroes and heroines that some may judge to be baddies.
You know, it’s kind of like Beauty and the Beast, isn’t it? When you like someone as a person, you’re inclined to think the best of them. They become a little smarter, or prettier, or more talented than before. But when you don’t, even the most beautiful person can come off looking fugly.
There are only a handful of authors I’ve blacklisted from my library because of their behavior off the page, but it happens, and when it does, I often feel like I’m not missing anything, anyway, since their behavior took the fun out of their books in the first place. Irrational? Unfounded? Mean-spirited? Sure, whatever. But the fact is, if I don’t like it, I don’t buy it, and I have a hard time liking books by those kinds of people.
That said, it takes a whole lot to piss me off to the point where I give up on an author and her work. I’m not talking one bad day, or one outburst, or one blog post that perhaps shouldn’t have been published, and I take hearsay with a grain of salt. But when the behavior becomes a chronic case of bad attituditis, it’s time to pull the plug.
I can understand how a person is not always her product, but the fact of the matter is, if you’re an author, you are THE representative of your brand, and that calls for a little class and decorum, even when you don’t feel like it. It irritates me when authors take to their blogs to state their opinions, then complain about the backlash they’ve received. The fact of the matter is, whether you like it or not, if your website or blog is used to promote your products, it’s no longer a personal site, it’s a business site, and as such, any expectation of privacy or leniency flies right out the window.
I suddenly feel very unpopular for saying that, but it’s true. I’ve helped cultivate online presence for businesses for years, and while every industry has their cliques, I’ve never seen one as intimate as the romance community, often to the exclusion of everyone else. Sometimes it can feel as though everyone reads everything, and knows the ins and outs of every situation, and I can understand how easy it is to fall into the trap of writing for with the assumption that every reader is on the same page in regards to behind-the-scenes knowledge. Unfortunately, that’s not always the case, and how authors present themselves online–even for just one post, or twitter update, or interview–is how they’re likely to be remembered by some.
One piece of advise I always give my clients is to assume every social update you make is your first and your last. Would you introduce yourself at a conference with, “Hi, I’m Author X, and I think all my readers are shits”? Would you close a workshop with, “Thank you for attending, and by the way, my editor is a ham-fisted cow who couldn’t STET her way out of a paper bag”?
Didn’t think so. So why blog about it? Even if your readers are shits or your editor a ham-fisted cow, comments like that say more about the author than they do the persons she’s referencing, and as first impressions go, it’s not a good one.
This post, for example, will reach at most 5,000 unique visitors. Some will agree that passing over an author’s product is unfair and a bad idea. Others will not. But it’s the other million or so you have to worry about. They’re the ones who will think to themselves, regardless of popular opinion or community standards.
You’re not alone. I’ve stopped reading some authors and websites because of what they’ve said on blogs of their political postings. Those type of site have the purpose of promoting their product — books, themselves as authors, etc. — their personal thoughts on political matters has no place and has the chance of offending 50% of the audience (no matter position one is on). When I’ve replied to that effect, I’ve been told off. I guess they think one person doesn’t matter, but I’m just the vocal one.
For a ‘rush’ job I thought you did an excellent job of getting across an interesting point about how the Internet gives ‘fans’ an opportunity to learn more about an artist – writer, entertainer, painter, politician, etc. – than they may want to know.
Then you raise the question as to whether that information – if it differs from the ‘fans’ belief – should be a part of how an artist is perceived/judged, and whether or not that judgment should transfer to whether or not to appreciate their art (book, painting, etc.).
It’s a dangerous topic, as you can see from the comments. As many different takes as there are comments – almost:).
Sure, the Internet adds to the equation because it gives access to all sorts of information (never as readily available before the Internet), and even by commenting on this article, I’m ‘giving’ away’ information about my personal beliefs that a reader might disagree with, and if I’m ever published:)…what if that perspective reader (book buyer) decided not to buy my book. Risky business this blogging, commenting, easy access to all sorts of information that may or may not matter.
Nonetheless, I believe in choice. I have the right to separate what I like about Tom Cruise’s acting from what I might dislike about his religious beliefs. The person above who hasn’t watched a Tom Cruise movie since he and Nicole Kidman divorced has that right, too – totally her choice.
I do have a challenge when unconfirmed rumor and/or accusations go as far as to damage an artists career (McCarthy era anyone?). But in this technological age of information, information, information, we’re bound to read, google or blog on something we don’t agree with, which may impact how we make choices about art.
Now, is that right or wrong?
I’d just say it’s a choice.
PS: I’m not condoning or supporting criminal acts by artists. I don’t plan on reading a suspense story about a serial killer, written by a child molester – no matter how many critics say it’s a really good story.
As an aside, not that long ago, I read a very, very old category romance with a hero named Charles Manson in it. Had a hard time getting into that one, let’s just say.
What an interesting blog post–thank you for the food for thought! I don’t think this has anything to do with censorship, however, unless, as someone posted before, you’re talking about some kind of governing body exercising its authority through the banning of material based on the creator’s life choices. Individuals choosing not to read a particular book for ANY reason is simply a matter of personal choice.
I have chosen not to read certain books, or see certain films, based on the author/actor’s life choices. This is not to judge or punish the artist somehow, but because what I have learned–regardless of its truth, sadly–inhibits my enjoyment of the product. This is mostly with film & TV actors, as the visual reminder of the person is stronger to me than the written word.
I think not reading/watching/listening/etc if you disagree with the creator’s life choices is a perfectly valid and acceptable way to exercise personal discernment. I also think there is not that big a gap between an artist and her work. Speaking as a writer, a lot of who I am as a person–what I believe, what my dreams are, what I’m afraid of–go into my books. And I write for Harlequin Presents–pure fantasy, but the emotions are from my own heart and mind. While the trappings of their books might be different, most writers’ hearts are in their books, and reflect some aspects of their lives–probably more than they even realize or are willing to admit. So, in some way, their life choices will be reflected in their books too.
Kate
“Individuals choosing not to read a particular book for ANY reason is simply a matter of personal choice.”
Jessica’s a philosopher, though. I wonder if this view of personal choice comes into conflict with Kant’s idea of the Categorical Imperative. I’m not a philospher, I hasten to add, so I can’t answer that.
You raise an interesting issue and I find it especially interesting that you draw a line between companies and artists. I find some artists actions beyond inexcusable, for example Jane Fonda’s actions during VietNam. I won’t watch anything with her in it and I was barely even alive when she did what she did. But as a soldier, I find her actions, even though she’s apologized for them, abhorrent.
So even in those two examples, there’s a wide discrepancy between how I as an individual feel on different subjects, both related to the military.
I imagine people have the same dichotomy inside themselves about a multitude of subjects. I won’t listen to artists who’s message I find objectionable. As a parent, I refuse to allow Bratz dolls and other toys like that in my home because I find the message they send to my daughters beyond morally corrupt. I limit the television my kids watch and I talk to them about the choices we make. As members of our society, if you find something so morally reprehensible that you cannot watch
It is other’s rights to do the same thing toward me. I gave a talk at my RWA chapter before I deployed to Iraq. I found out later that someone completely left our group because she found the fact that I was a soldier completely offensive. For a while, that bothered me, because that was not simply a rejection of my chosen profession but me as a person, because being a soldier defines me.
I had to let it go. I understand that some of my own writing might be found objectionable. I understand that I cannot please everyone. Some people will not buy my books because they will find the fact that I am soldier abhorrent. I cannot change their minds, nor will I try. It is their money, it is their choice.
At the end of the day, that’s all we can do. Make decisions about what we decide enters our lives. I don’t agree that the government or anyone else should decide for me what is or is not morally acceptable. I am capable of making that decision for myself, just as ever reader makes decisions about what to read.
Great post and fantastic topic! You really got my thoughts going with this one!
I agree with this. Your mention of Kanye made me think of Chris Brown. Yes, he beat up Rihanna, that is inexcusable…but think of that YouTube Wedding video featuring his song. When i watched that I cried happy tears. I love that song because it makes me feel good. Maybe that is his positive contribution to this world…his talent. Now, that bride and groom are taking donations for a domestic violence charity because of their sudden fame. Everyone deserves the chance to give what they can. And as a final comment…everyone is ugly and immoral in some way or another. You may keep it inside or hidden but its there….and people that live in glass houses….blah, blah,blah.
Really thought provoking post, and for a rushed job, it’s well written and really raises an interesting question.
In marketing speak, celebrities, artists, politicians and even CEOs should engage in some ‘personal branding’. It’s inevitable that there will be fans who would associate their actions/ behaviour with their values and character.
As very public role models, I think there should be some accountability towards their adoring fans, who nonetheless, have the choice of accepting or rejecting them based on their perception of the artists/ public figures.
For every follower who decamp, there will always be new fans. It’s good to remember that no one is infallible, so unless the crime is heinous, sometimes giving second chances may be the charitable thing to do.