As a working historian in a public museum, I spend a great deal of time painting the picture of what the world was like rather than what we see through today's lens. Humanity has not really changed. Thank you for the rational, wise conversation.
For the authors who have passed, I keep the epilogue of the film *Barry Lyndon* in mind: _It was in the reign of King George III that the aforementioned personages lived and quarreled;_ _Good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now._
The problem with problematic authors is that they are usually better than non problematic authors. Think I'll carry on reading these problematic authors.
After all these years of reading Lovecraft, I never put two and two together: that he wrote so effectively about monsters because he saw them all around him in the real world. That’s really interesting.
That's a great discussion on your original point. Everyone's got a line somewhere, and if they don't want to read an author, fine. But this idea of "vetting" authors to see if I can read thier stuff....no. I'm not asking an author to marry into my family or be my BFF, I'm just reading the book. Probably better than half the (fiction) books I've read in my life, I know nothing about the author at all. I read those paperback sci-fi books with the great covers like Pez candy back when, and most were written by someone completely unknown to me. Your final point was very well taken. If an author upsets someone to the point that they cannot read thier work, then they shouldn't. But leave everyone else alone.
Thank you for this insightful and well-thought out video. I agree with you completely. As a human being of the female persuasion, I am constantly confronted with excellent writers who blow off women as: hysterical, delicate, non-thinkers, lesser humans, irrational, inconsequential, sex objects. Does that mean I shouldn’t read Montaigne? Or Asimov? Or a hundred other classical writers? I don’t think so. I keep my ire in a box, and appreciate the ideas and craft being offered me.
Of course when a candidate for the GOP in Ohio in 2022 has publicly stated that the vote should be taken away from women for all your stated reason. Maybe we should wake up and take notice.
A friend of mine said adamantly that Book X by Author X should definitely be canceled. I countered with no book, no matter how awful should ever be canceled. Ever. Because by reading these books with whatever appalling content they may contain leads us to understand the perspectives that lead humanity down terrible paths. And by understanding and analyzing these ideas we can more effectively prevent us all winding up back in terrible places. The idea of canceling the Other, no matter who or what the Other represents, dooms us to repeat the same toxic cycles again and again.
Back in the 1980s, I was sitting in a cafe in reading "The Twelve-Year Reich: A Social History of National Socialist Germany". An elderly gentleman walked up to me and said he was concerned that I might be going down "the wrong path". I gather he meant that reading that book would turn me into a Nazi or that I was only reading such a book because I was already a Nazi. It doesn't surprise me that cancel culture has become the norm. We've been building up to it for a long time. A lot of it has to do with an idea - popular in left wing academic circles - that words are the same as physical acts and that certain words can be the equivalent of physical violence. Thus, in colleges today, we have a whole generation of "snowflakes" who need to have their protected "safe spaces" from certain ideas. Antifa members believe that they are completely justified in violently attacking people for wrongthink because ideas they don't like are "violence".
Is it really about left/right? (After all, anti-vaxxers and "pro-lifers" are happily attacking people, and they aren't left wing. Isn't it really about judgemental nosey-parkers who think they have the right to tell others what they should or shouldn't do?
All of these day's political correctness in all of its forms can be summed up in this sentence. People like to judge others and feel supperior to them. We have found a way as a sociery to judge others and think that a virtue.
Well, society has always been judgmental. A century ago, Clark Ashton Smith was regarded as a suspicious outsider to his little town of Auburn, and literary society shunned his poetry as childish, decadent, improper, etc. The difference, I think, is that social media allows everyone to voice their judgment and gather followers, which wasn't as easy to do in ye oldene daiyes.
Thank you Michael for not only being nuanced about your thoughts on problematic authors but your explanation of our ideas. More people not only need to hear this but really listen and contemplate it.
Excellent topic and excellent thoughts! I agree that we should be more tolerant of the past, knowing that we have grown and improved as a society. What I find frightening is the us vs. them attitudes in our current society, vilifying people who disagree with them. Our society is intended to be a place where we can have a variety of beliefs and its all okay! We can disagree and still live together. So long as you don't harm other people.
This was a great discussion Michael. Especially the part about the human experience of religion. People do get almost religious when approaching authors sometimes. Change is definitely constant, and it’s definitely a good thing.
Anyone who sits in your comments and complains that you're reading an author who was racist 100 years ago is trying way too hard to be on the moral highground. No one's gonna stop me enjoying Lovecraft and other pulp fiction writers
Well said. I’ve said similar things elsewhere, if there are future generations of readers, they will judge us, possibly on meat eating or fossil fuel burning, or something else entirely.
No doubt they will judge us for being narcissists on social media. It's my opinion that in the future, our descendents will see all our selfies with both amusement and shame.
Great video. I completely agree and you discussed it so well. It’s important to understand that these were products of the time. And you can not understand those times or current times without this context. And one cannot assume to know the artist by their art either and people do change. Love this video. Thank you for it.
I think it's useful to talk about the problems of old artists through today's lens. Get those problems out in the open so that we can further explore today's culture as well as yesterday's. Great video, thank you.
Some great points raised here Michael, and presented in an intelligent, rational, and balanced way. Very refreshing and, in my humble opinion, quite inarguable. Far too much hysteria and judgement surrounding artists and writers, especially those who died long ago, and aren't going to suffer or benefit from whether people buy the things they created 100 years ago. Also, it seems to be the most disturbed or conflicted people who have historically been the greatest creative minds, so to dismiss them because of their personalities, views and beliefs would eradicate some of the most beautiful paintings, architecture, music, and writing that the human race has ever produced. The other thing that springs to mind is that great art is celebrated for being an example of human excellence. To hold the humans who created it to an impossibly high standard would sort of negate that premise, because if it was created by a being we knew to be superior, then it wouldn't really be an achievement, we would just take for granted that they could create great things.
Fantastic video! I loved the depth of discussion. This comes up for me in all arts. For example with film. I’m a massive fan of Roman Polanski’s films and they rank amongst my favourites, but he’s done terrible things and is still alive and hasn’t faced proper punishment. There’s an added weirdness as Rosemary’s Baby for example has a lot of feminist undertones to it which just seem undermined by Polanski’s real life actions. But regardless I love those films very deeply regardless of the terrible acts of the creator. It does mean I don’t develop the same kind of relationship with the artist as I would with one whose work I love and who was a great person in real life. But I still love the work.
This was a wonderful video on such a thought provoking conversation. I really struggle with this concept of separating art from the artist, it's a very multi layered subject. Bottom line for me is though, that like you, I don't want my money going to certain people even though I might like their writing/stories. Thanks for making this in the way you did.
The Whisperer in Darkness is another excellent example where HP Lovecraft gives some more humanity to his monsters, where the creatures seem to have benevolent tendencies towards lesser races. I do wish that Lovecraft would have lived longer, if only to see how far his views might have changed and how that would have affected his writing. More generally on problematic authors, I do agree with the sentiment. Although, I also think it is useful to know about an author to get more out of a work. And of course, I think it is totally valid if someone can't mentally separate the art from the artist if it causes the individual to feel upset, i.e. I would never expect someone to watch the movies and tv shows of Kevin Spacy if they can't ignore the crimes he committed. Also, it's really cool to hear that you're a vegan. If I may ask, what do you eat day to day? I went vegan about two years ago for ethical reasons, and right now I'm trying to alter my diet a bit. Eat less processed vegan junk food and more whole food vegan meals.
Very well said. Bill Maher did a segment in his last episode on the unfortunate rise of presentism. While the definition seems to be limited to judging "events," I'd say it's equally applicable to judging "people." Separating authors from their works is a corollary to all that...else everyone and everything prior to 2022 would be cancelled.
You're very well spoken. Thanks for the video! I try very hard to judge the art separately from the artist. Occasionally, though, I can't get past certain behaviors. For example, when I learned that author Anne Perry was convicted with her teenage friend of murder, and did prison time, that was depravity that I couldn't see beyond. In other words, there ARE instances, for me at least, where art is simply not the significant issue. That being said, I accept each person must make their own decision.
Interesting, well spoken video 👍. I've been thinking that a lot about your work recently so I decided I should sub. I see something of my younger self in what you say about Lovecraft. It's easy when you're young to be influenced by your surroundings, if you're lucky you meet positive influences who encourage you to examine your views and modify where necessary. I was lucky. I also have this problem with music; Wagner's music can make my soul cry, but he was a bit of a character to say the least. PS I could drop eating meat tomorrow, but the concept of giving up cheese isn't something my brain can cope with.
Great discussion. I do think there’s a bit of difference between deceased authors from different eras who “didn’t know better because of the times” and modern authors who absolutely have no reason not to know better. I don’t think it means you shouldn’t read one of their books, but I do like your mention of not supporting them financially. I also think it’s okay/important to be critical of said behaviors/view points when discussing them and their art. Ultimately, I think it becomes a personal choice. Some people can overlook moral flaws for art and others can’t. I don’t think we should impose out personal rules on others though. If I don’t enjoy what a channel reads/discusses, I simply just don’t watch it or interact with it.
Thank you. Ive had a hard struggle with pushing past a bad person to reach the art that comes from them. Books, movies, music, anything. But it has been difficult for me solely because i worry of how some of my more politically active friends might think. I dont have a great way of speaking my own beliefs about important topics. Typically, i try to avoid them at all costs because of this. But listening to you talk about it, i think in some cases, specifically reading from creators with "old fashioned" beliefs, 1) it doesnt necessarily mean that their beliefs are in their work. Some authors dont put their politics and such into their works. 2) just reading the books doesnt mean you are bad like them. I was taught to think for myself and to learn from what i read and see around me. I think that thr key to this issue is, yes you can read these books. Maybe you dont have to buy them new so you aren't supporting them. But the point of reading had always always always been to learn and decipher what is good and what is wrong. Make your own decisons. Its exactly the same reason i can say that watching horror movies or playing video games doesnt make people violent or dangerous. Same logic. P.S. A book about lizard kids sounds awesome
There are no unproblematic authors, and no unproblematic ideas. All thoughts, concepts, ideas and moral precepts carry the seed of their own corruption. One can adhere to these, but never feel safe with them.
I’m super late to the party! I was talking with a friend about this very topic recently-can we separate the art from the odious, vile person who created it? It can be difficult, but ultimately, I just can’t help loving the characters they created or the stories they told. Those fictional people and worlds stand independently from their creators. Also, I just discovered your channel and subscribed immediately. You remind me of a friend from my old job that I miss so much-we used to spend our lunch hour talking about books and music and movies. Thanks for sharing these conversations with us! I’m really loving your content. 📚
As a life long martial artist and philosopher I live in a world of applying ideas. It is normal in my view to keep morphing. So just read your books that you enjoy. Who knows tomorrow your ideas may change drastically. Try to go with the ebb and flow.
The Muse speaks through an artist, and even if the artist has serious moral failings (a great many people do), the Muse speaks some truth, some beauty, that enriches the communal thought-life of humanity. If we rejected everything that came through a flawed instrument, there would be very little art left. But we need art; it's the communal property of humanity and without it we would be deeply impoverished.
This has always been my ideal. Beauty and clarity do not inherently belong to "good" people. In fact, many "good" people can be really clumsy with words, ideas, art skills, etc. I give no support for the traditional moral failings of older generations, but I don't see what makes the average person today any better than people back then, except maybe that they are less racist.
@@justjoe4390 And even that being "less racist" is highly questionable, given that it is accompanied in many cases by expressions of hatred of white people.
Totally agree 👍 Every year, bit by bit, humans and their ideas evolve. Some beliefs that we have now will seem bad in 50/75/100 years time. Sure, some beliefs are bad now with authors that are still alive, but to say for example you don't like the works of some one long dead for their opinions, which were relevant back years ago, is a bit much, especially if their work is not promoting their opinions.
Great video. I read a lot of Asimov as a teen, I only learnt of his problematic behaviour when I came onto booktube. Ender's Game is a great story, but I haven't been impressed with other books I've read by him. It is not just in literature that there are problematic creators. Michelangelo and Leonardo DaVinci both great artists but problematic people. If we can't separate the artist from the book, we would have much less to read and the art galleries would be full of gaps...
"... probably too frequently, and yet here I am talking about it." That's funny. I love that you share this message. As I listened, I kept thinking "Oh, I'll say in the comments," and then you covered it. You pretty much said it as I would have. No human is perfect, including us in the modern day, but our imperfections do not stop us from approximating the truth and sharing with other imperfect humans. That's how we all slowly become more perfect, not by ignoring the past. I think the only thing I could add which you didn't say is that, since we aren't born knowing the truth from the get go, even when we give considerable thought to our ideas we may still be wrong in the end. If we persist in a wrong idea after giving it serious though, even this does not make us bad. I think most people deserve more understanding than what most other people are willing to give them. Here's an example of how people who disagree can still get along and learn from each other. As you spoke, could tell that we would likely disagree on the specifics of many of the examples you gave. But still, with some I agree wholeheartedly, and I can recognize that the fundamental idea at the root of your message is true even if I personally think it is at times misapplied. And in the end, I went away edified by listening to your thoughts, and glad to have you make me question my own. I love your videos. Keep up the great work.
The UA-cam Algorithm suggested a video on this same topic by another creator that I do not follow. In fact, two of the three author's I believe are discussed by you both. The discussion was very interesting and frankly well presented. It was almost as if you had collaborated with one another on this subject. The channel is the Council of Geeks and the video is named Enjoying the Works of Problematic Creators. I found this interesting. Thanks for the videos we all enjoy Michael.
I separate the art from the artist. But for those who can’t, a secondhand/used bookstore allows you to read all the work you want from Orson Scott Card (or [fill in problematic living author]) without concerns of profiting the author since the author receives no royalties from a secondary sale.
An excellent, rational discussion on a very emotive subject. 👍 Old books, movies, art are snapshots of history. They show us how people in the past viewed themselves and the societies they lived in. How can one be offended by history? You can learn from it or use it to compare against our current views but being offended by or denying history is like shouting at the wind. Lovecraft, for example, was born in a country that had only decided that slavery was bad a mere 25 years previously. Can we really blame him for his views when that was the environment in which he was raised? Or do we seek to understand and educate ourselves as to why those views were formed in the first place? Asimov is more troubling in many regards as his behaviour was a clear abuse of power & status, rather than a product of the more general society in which he lived (though of course, the pervading views on sexual equality were a factor). I think this says more about Asimov as a person than the time in which he lived. These types of predators are still around today and are often lauded for their views by certain sections of society allowing them to propagate their views further and influence new generations.
I read a lot of historical books, biographies, etc. It is a huge mistake to apply today's morality to yesteryear's practices. There is a context to history and it is not ours. The whole point is to understand the people, the mindsets, the era. I do not have to agree with what they did or believed to learn something. Furthermore, applying modern morals to history makes it so that we cannot understand and learning is stunted.
Late in life HP Lovecraft read THE SCIENCE OF LIFE by HG Wells, Frank Wells and Julian Huxley. We know from his letters he was fascinated by this book, and re-borrowed it many times from a friend. He had a lot of respect for HG Wells of course. Apparently this book caused him to moderate his views and set him straight on matters of race. I think Wells wrote a book ANTICIPATIONS in about 1900 where he suggested the non-white population of the world might eventually have to be euthanized. George Orwell was a colonial policeman in Burma who beat his houseboy, etc, etc, etc.
Your commentary is correct to 10 decimal places. If we start cancelling authors for their bad beliefs or character flaws we will soon have nothing to read. My only addition to your argument would be to recommend buying used copies of the books of those authors you don't want to contribute money too. Don't restrict your reading over something as trivial as politics or dislike of the author's behavior.
Very well stated Michael. Change is easiest (though not easy) when we are in control of it. But change is necessary, otherwise stagnation sets in. As for myself, I read a work and judge it on its own merits from a literary perspective (or see a film from a cinematographic perspective); the work once created gains its own life.
It is so strange to think that we live in one of those rare times in history when we have freedom of thought and to chose our own moral values, and what do we do? We try to restrict that and attack people because of what they think and read. We don’t need the government to do that, we do this ourselves. It is so scary to see this… in the words of Kierkegaard, people are so obsessed with freedom of speech, but they don’t use their freedom to think! Anyway, the only writer I cannot separate from the work is Marion Zimmer Bradley. Mists of Avalon was so important to me when I was a teenager, she inspired my imagination. Las year I decided to re-read the book for the first time in 20 years and I found out she was involved in pedophilia. Her own daughter was a victim. I was so heart broken I couldn’t read the book. I will try again in a couple of years.
JK Rowling is extremely problematic to many, but to me and to many others she is heroic (and I'm not a fan of her fiction). What about the most problematic living author from a muslim perspective, Salman Rushdie?! He's another heroic writer, who's symbolic for those of us who value freedom of expression; I hope he's doing well following that horrid attack.
That's exactly why I find "problematic" to be such a meaningless term. It usually just means "I don't agree / It makes me uncomfortable", which does not express anything of substance unless one has an actual argument.
How much influence to authors and celebrities really have over their readers/fans? Sure they can give us a thought or point of view, but it is up the the reader to decide what to believe. They're not sheep. They may make the wrong choice, but it is still their choice and cannot be blamed on anyone but themselves. Orson Scott Card has ideas on same sex marriage and homosexuality that I do not agree with, but it is a belief that many people have as it is common amongst most major religions. To my knowledge, Card is not funding chemical castration or asylum commitment of homosexuals. If he was funding projects to physically harm members of the LGBTQ community, I could see refusing to support him financially by not buying his books. However, he is just saying his common religious belief. If we are to punish people financially for having that religious belief, shouldn't we also punish all those who give money in the offering plates at churches, synagogues, and mosques? Whether you agree with Card's view or not, you should be alarmed by people wanting to take away his livelihood because of his public beliefs. It reminds me how Dashiell Hammett was blackballed from work (and even went to jail) because of his public socialist/communist beliefs during the McCarthy era.
If you are a terrible person then so am I because I love listening to you. Seriously though these people who like to sit behind computers and sling mud need to realise that if they were born one hundred years prior they would think totally differently.
I am a firm believer in never judging the past with the standards and morals of the present. Does it bother me that a lot of old authors held views that are in diametric opposition with the current day? Absolutely not. It doesn't bother me that Lovecraft would never mix in a social setting with me, I can still enjoy his stories.
You can sometimes take even a good idea too far. And there are many authors or people who morally did “good” things to cover up a darker aspect of themselves that they had tried to hide. So for those who outright denounce authors like Lovecraft for his open racism and Anglocentric worldview I think at least we knew what camp he stood in and that’s more than can be said for many other people.
Very well said. It's a complicated issue and I have far too much to say about it than what can be accommodated in a youtube comment. I had no idea you were getting condemnatory comments on your videos -- that's pretty awful. I can honestly say I've never been yelled at or condemned for my reading choices -- maybe talked down to condescendingly, but I can take that. Sometimes it makes me wonder if people are really doing this condemnation of others or if people are just bothered that the artists they like are being "dissected". But your video reminded me that this stuff really does happen in the world. I've never been wholly comfortable with the phrase "separate the art from the artist", because even though in principle I agree with you 100%, I don't actually think you *can* -- I mean, *you* try separating an artist from his art and see what happens! haha...seriously though, like you said in this video when talking about Lovecraft, his ideas *did* influence his fiction, and so if you're going to examine and talk about the fiction on anything beyond a surface level, you're going to have to talk about his racism. Speaking of which, we talked about this a bit on the last episode of the Chrononauts podcast. i'm one of those people who do think lovecraft was capable of change, and, like a friend put it recently, he died "at the beginning of his redemption arc". So we'll never really know for sure. But I have read some of his letters, and a few from the later 30s at least speak of a surprisingly open-minded person, who readily speaks of how awful he was in his younger days, and who admired people who could do away with bigotry and intolerancea ltogether, and who even seems to be espousing some left wing principles that even today might be considered "a bit too risky". I think he never repudiated the racism outright, and nobody said, "hey Mr. Lovecraft, are you still a racist ****?" -- but I think he would have come out and said it eventually.
The guilt-by-association ideology held by many today is really untenable. If we thought one was bad because of the books he reads, the films he reads, or even the people with whom he associates, then everyone is bad, because everyone has something or someone in their life who has a less-than-stellar character. It’s also not clear that what one writes reflects his own attitude. It seems that one should have to appeal to a writer’s personal life and opinions and not use their fiction as the basis of forming an opinion about their character.
Michael, good video, and bravely and logically presented with understanding. I fo not agree with all your thoughts but that is the good thing about living in a free country where people are free to be different and have different ideas. Good job.
Will introduce my ten year old son to Harry Potter this year. Agree with you, it's hardly fair for him to have to miss out on that entire experience. The books themselves don't give the same message that the tweets do.
Your take on wanting to read OSC but not wanting to give him any money is spot-on. I'm always arguing within my own community: why do you want to give money to businesses that you know hate us? I want to know exactly which local businesses are homophobic (or sexist, racist, etc.) so that I can specifically direct my funds AWAY from them. Many of my people do not agree with this approach.
But don't fall into the trap of thinking you're above them when you haven't lived in their shoes. You say it's for the better, but you couldn't know that. Your views are based on an idealized world that exists in your own surroundings or in your personal life story. Much of which has likely not even been constructed by you, yourself. I think you would find much more humanity in individuals you call bad than you might in your own self if you looked deeply enough.
Thanks for your rational view! In general, I'd rather not know too much about an author's biography and let the texts stand on their own. Having said that, I hugely enjoy biographical surveys of an author's work. Two favorite examples: The Dawn Watch: Joseph Conrad in a Global World, by Maya Jasanoff; and The Ministry of Truth: a Biography of George Orwell's 1984, by Dorian Lynskey. I also enjoy reading the biographical intros in anthologies. I'm at an age where it's clear I'll never read everything that I want to read (unless some tech company invents direct downloads to brains). So I sometimes use biographical information as a sorting mechanism. We all have a selection process when choosing what we read. If the person of the author makes my skin crawl for some reason, easy pass for me. If the author is alive and says obnoxious and moronic things in public (like Larry Niven saying odious things about immigrants and people of color; even Pournelle thought he went too far), easily sorted out. Add the corollary that a living author never gets any further income from me.
I was thinking of Niven & Pournelle myself, specifically A Mote in God's Eye. Wonderful, incredible depictions of an alien society, but the portrayals of Earth women were practically pre-Seventeenth Century. Given the opportunity, I think Sally Ride probably would have kicked Niven's butt.
Belief is an idea reinforced by emotion. When we want something to be true we believe it to be true. Admire the art not the artist. I'm full of cliches today.
Great video. I strongly believe in separating the author from the work. Whole video was great, though… sometimes the social ramifications of honestly reevaluating the ideas you grew up with can be difficult.
There are degrees of problematic. Also sometimes something isn’t problematic at one point and becomes problematic to you particularly or to society writ large. Burroughs and Tolkien were both men of their time although I would say Burroughs definitely had some more wacky views, in other ways the themes of his stories resonate more clearly - preserverance, humanism, a closeness with nature. Tolkien for me mainly sparks my interest thematically on his so far as his paraprimitivism, and skepticism of technology. Burroughs is more complicated bc he lauds living rough but also extols the virtue of technology. I don’t think Burroughs was overthinking things that much though - he just wanted to tell a kick ass story. Other more modern authors like Terry Goodkinds became problematic in a way I can’t really look past. I enjoyed the first 8 sword of truth books but I was also a hardcore libertarian when I was in my early 20s now two decades in my rear view. His books became overly books became overly preachy and as I shifted away from libertarianism I just couldn’t do his later books anymore. Burroughs and Tolkien were not extremely heavy handed while Terry Goodkinds became increasingly heavy handed.
At this point I just kinda roll with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Like you, a lot of the authors I read lived in (thankfully) bygone times, so a lot of them probably held views I disagree with, but I try not to hold that against them, and that doesn't impair my enjoyment of their work, unless said work is intrinsically wrapped up in their views. Tolstoy is pretty problematic to me, although I dislike his work for other, more legitimate reasons as well. But yeah. Nice vid; well said. :)
“Not a week goes by that I don’t receive at least one pissed-off letter (most weeks there are more) accusing me of being foulmouthed, bigoted, homophobic, murderous, frivolous, or downright psychopathic.” - Stephen King. Just because you write something doesn't mean you have those believes. I think Lovecraft suffers from this; the only difference is that, unlike Stephen, he isn't around to defend himself. 2:26 you are experiencing this very thing too. My two cents (even though we don't use cents here): Books are the best way to go into things that can't be done in any other way. You can write a story about a psychopathic dog and killings it - and people will have a reaction to that. And that's a pretty tame example.
I don't see authors as being problematic. It's the readers that are problematic. To impose 21st century ideals upon someone from another time (and place) is unfair, ridiculous and as unforgiving as the racist, sexist (fill in the blank here) ideas they are condemning. As concerns videos in which problematic authors are disparaged, my problem with BookTube is there are entirely too many people putting up videos expressing their opinions in the guise of having an extraordinary gift of intellect. When it comes to reading, no one - book critics included, especially book critics - has the right to explain the merits or demerits of a book in order to bully a reader into accepting as gospel what is nothing more than a personal opinion. To do so is to do a disservice to the reader as well as to the author of said book. Yes, I write reviews on a reading site. But, I always mention that my opinion is just my opinion. You see, when it comes to evaluating a book, the only people who are capable of doing it are the author and the individual reading the book. No book club member, no college grad schmoe with a BookTube channel and for doggone sure it's not a book critic for their credentials do not come from on high but do very often come tainted with the critic's personal ego. In a truly "enlightened" world, the individual reader should be left in peace when it comes to choosing whatever book they want to read. My grandfather is remembered for saying to my mother when she was a child that he did not care what she read so long as she read. Even writing of the lowest order will inform the reader on some level. This is so true.
And I was watching the tape that you made on problematic authors. I think when it comes to people that write they have a people have a Puritan way of thinking about them you know you have to be God fearing you have to be righteous you have to be you know above boarding and all these different things you have to be when I was brought up we had a loss of holding his people in our family and we wasn't brought up I wouldn't I would say a lot of them did believe that but it was a few that believed and also know it's to be true that when you born you're born in sin you're not born in righteousness you're not born and purity you're not born in the ray of light of the Lord you know you're not born in all of that you came from a sinful place okay and a lot of things come out of that you know you have all kinds of shades of Gray in that that the person is not really white the person will never be that some of them you have people that just downright evil it's no real goodness there at all and then you have the people that's good they may not be righteous but they all good people fall into so many different colors and and so many different shades of different and when it comes to good evil or somewhere in the middle. Sorry people are saying awful things to you about this a lot of people are blinded by their own righteousness or what they perceive to be righteousness but I always believe you have to separate the person from the ability and talent because if you're going to judge everybody that way what about doctors you know you may have doctors that's gay you may have doctors that a wife abused a wives you may have doctors that abuse their children you may have doctors that are alcohol or drug addicts into children p*** I mean it's a whole list of things a doctor can be into and if you were dying of a disease or you need a critical surgery will you say I don't want you to operate on me because you're not a good person I don't think anybody going to say that but it is going to be people out there probably will and die you know your ability and talent have nothing to do with the person you know they are evil people that do good things a lot of old people in my family said you know you know God May bless you with something even though he have Lucifer delivery.have said that a lot of times and people look at me like I done lost my mind but it's true if you look in the Bible it's going to be things in the Bible that you say why didn't God do this why didn't he help these people oh my goodness you know it's going to be things you disagree with him about if things in the Bible that people read in their first thing they say God never made a mistake God was always righteous and and always and pure and they have a whole list of things they say that God is about and then you read in a Bible where his son but when they said something about good master and he told the people why do you call me good only God is good now this is Jesus saying this this is not someone that believed Jesus said this okay then you read in the Bible where they say God was going to destroy something I mean just totally destroy it and then all it was he repented now if he's righteous he's pure and all those things people believe him repentant shouldn't have never took place I have also spoke to people and they say well I don't believe in reincarnate now I don't believe in in aliens you know such thing as aliens and reincarnation then I turn around and say well you believe in Jesus right and God yes I believe in them okay you do know God is an alien he never was human and you do know they put Jesus and a like cave-like place when they buried him and guess what he rode from the dead looking different walking through a part of steel they look at me like I don't know my mind but all those things are true so you can't people of fickle when it comes to what they believe is good and what they believe is evil and and has no goodness in them at all or whatever or you know like he said people shouldn't judge things you have to get the evil out of yourself before you can judge anything out and a lot of people don't believe in that they believe they already you know I already cleaned myself how can you clean yourself if Jesus had to die in order for you may have salvation and I'm going to stretch that may how can you be pure how can you be righteous how can your judgment be perfect so don't take it to heart when people say awful things about some of the authors you know you love they work or don't don't just ignore that basically because they can't see what they are doing is wrong but getting still they want to judge something else and I really enjoy you and what you do on that you too because it's a loss of writers out there may not have been all that perfect when it comes to being a person but no one can out do they writing or how do they imagination in their writing or to creativity they had when you read something it's almost like you in the jungle with them or you're walking the world with them and you seeing all these different sites with an experience and all these different things it's hard to find a writer this time and age that has that creativity in them a lot of people play copycats and I think that's that's a terrible thing when it comes to trying to create something on your own because everyone is different everyone have they made it the brain may look the same but it don't function the same way it don't have the same creativity they don't have the same feel emotional love that people pulled into their writing you don't see that that much. I'm like I was saying you see a lot of psychology you see a lot of sex and and fantasy but you don't see the creativity when it comes to creating the world that you're not indulging in all those different things that you out there really fighting fighting wolves and helping people and and suffering and you doing all these different you don't see all that now in writing you see more fantasy than you see reality and I think a lot of those old office really tried to create a world so I'm glad you have this on the internet and really introducing people to his writing and maybe inspired people to really write you know it's easy to put out fantasy sex and and all kinds of other things but it's hard to put really create a world that have it has it but has left of it and has more of other things in it so I'm really happy that you doing this and keep on😊 doing ❤️ it 😊 thank ❤️ you 😊 I ❤️ hope 😊 you ❤️ prosper 😊 in ❤️ everything 😊 you ❤️ do 😊. Thank ❤️ you 😊❤️
Stephen King is one of the biggest assholes you can find on Twitter, like, literally. Unbelievable guy. I think bacon is going to be the least of his worries.
Great video. It still surprises me that a lot of people still don't realize Card is a terrible person. I def think it's easier to ignore what makes an author problematic, if they are deceased. Enders Game is such an incredible book and Ender Wiggin such an incredible character, worthy of our empathy, and its amazing someone as virulent homophobic as Card could write such an evolved character.
Do you know Card personally? If not, then how on Earth could you make the determination that he's a terrible person? Because he holds an opinion with which you don't agree? Vaughan's mischaracterization of Card's comments on gay marriage, as well as carelessly tossing out the fashionable "homophobe" do nothing to further anyone's understanding of the man behind the art. Indeed they only serve to muddy the waters on an already complex subject that is far more nuanced than the black and white thinking on display in your comment and in some places in the video.
@@robertreid2931 Orson Card is a terrible person. I dont say that lightly. If your unable to see why or are not informed enough to know why, I'm not the one to lead you on it.
@@FIT2BREAD If you don't know him personally, or if he's done nothing to harm anyone else, then you're judging from a position of ignorance and thus in no position to lead *anyone*.
Ha, now I really want to read about Lizard Kids. A really interesting discussion. I for one enjoyed the Potter books. I dont have too much of a problem with "she who must not be read" expressing her opinion, she's entitled to it. Her current Galbraith "Strike" series isn't too bad actually. I think I had more of a problem with her retrospectively trying to change characters in the Potter series, like she needed to checkoff some sort of inclusivity list, that's not on. Those characters dont belong to her anymore. I'm off now I need to dust off some skeletons...
I’m getting a library together for my retirement and have enjoyed your channel and recommendations. Thanks! I agree that we should read the books we like, regardless of the author’s behavior, though I liked your caveat about living authors. However, as long as you have your head on straight, it doesn’t hurt to read absolutely despicable things, like Mein Kampf. The reason is to understand history, in that case, not to agree with that author. I think if you have ever called people commies, you should read Karl Marx. The more you learn, the more you can understand how things work to make history what it is. Thanks again.
I absolutely agree with you. Only thing I would add is that in today's digitally advanced society it's very easy to get books for free, so you can still read books by bad people that are still alive without supporting them monetarily. Reading on a screen doesn't have the same feeling as reading a real book, but at least you'll be able to read whatever you want without worrying too much about the morality of it.
If you couldn't consume art because the artist was flawed there would literally be no art to consume. Orwellian madness.
As a working historian in a public museum, I spend a great deal of time painting the picture of what the world was like rather than what we see through today's lens. Humanity has not really changed. Thank you for the rational, wise conversation.
Very sad to realize, isn't it?
For the authors who have passed, I keep the epilogue of the film *Barry Lyndon* in mind:
_It was in the reign of King George III that the aforementioned personages lived and quarreled;_
_Good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor, they are all equal now._
The problem with problematic authors is that they are usually better than non problematic authors. Think I'll carry on reading these problematic authors.
After all these years of reading Lovecraft, I never put two and two together: that he wrote so effectively about monsters because he saw them all around him in the real world. That’s really interesting.
There's about as much myth about Lovecraft's person as he wrote himself.
(Hm... that's not a bad line; I should write that down :P)
That's a great discussion on your original point. Everyone's got a line somewhere, and if they don't want to read an author, fine. But this idea of "vetting" authors to see if I can read thier stuff....no. I'm not asking an author to marry into my family or be my BFF, I'm just reading the book. Probably better than half the (fiction) books I've read in my life, I know nothing about the author at all. I read those paperback sci-fi books with the great covers like Pez candy back when, and most were written by someone completely unknown to me. Your final point was very well taken. If an author upsets someone to the point that they cannot read thier work, then they shouldn't. But leave everyone else alone.
Thank you for this insightful and well-thought out video.
I agree with you completely. As a human being of the female persuasion, I am constantly confronted with excellent writers who blow off women as: hysterical, delicate, non-thinkers, lesser humans, irrational, inconsequential, sex objects.
Does that mean I shouldn’t read Montaigne? Or Asimov? Or a hundred other classical writers? I don’t think so. I keep my ire in a box, and appreciate the ideas and craft being offered me.
Search . ' Solving 9-11 By Christopher Bollyn . '
Of course when a candidate for the GOP in Ohio in 2022 has publicly stated that the vote should be taken away from women for all your stated reason. Maybe we should wake up and take notice.
Please stop being so hysterical! Now go make me a sandwich!
This was a brilliant video. Not just a brilliant BookTube video. A brilliant video full stop.
Thanks Olly!
Absolutely agree.
Byron wasn't exactly a model citizen and he led a pretty scandalous life but his poetry is impossible to put down.
A friend of mine said adamantly that Book X by Author X should definitely be canceled.
I countered with no book, no matter how awful should ever be canceled. Ever.
Because by reading these books with whatever appalling content they may contain leads us to understand the perspectives that lead humanity down terrible paths.
And by understanding and analyzing these ideas we can more effectively prevent us all winding up back in terrible places.
The idea of canceling the Other, no matter who or what the Other represents, dooms us to repeat the same toxic cycles again and again.
Back in the 1980s, I was sitting in a cafe in reading "The Twelve-Year Reich: A Social History of National Socialist Germany". An elderly gentleman walked up to me and said he was concerned that I might be going down "the wrong path". I gather he meant that reading that book would turn me into a Nazi or that I was only reading such a book because I was already a Nazi. It doesn't surprise me that cancel culture has become the norm. We've been building up to it for a long time. A lot of it has to do with an idea - popular in left wing academic circles - that words are the same as physical acts and that certain words can be the equivalent of physical violence. Thus, in colleges today, we have a whole generation of "snowflakes" who need to have their protected "safe spaces" from certain ideas. Antifa members believe that they are completely justified in violently attacking people for wrongthink because ideas they don't like are "violence".
Is it really about left/right? (After all, anti-vaxxers and "pro-lifers" are happily attacking people, and they aren't left wing.
Isn't it really about judgemental nosey-parkers who think they have the right to tell others what they should or shouldn't do?
A thoughtful and well-considered talk. I wish people could look at beliefs rationally because we could solve so many problems that way.
All of these day's political correctness in all of its forms can be summed up in this sentence. People like to judge others and feel supperior to them.
We have found a way as a sociery to judge others and think that a virtue.
Well, society has always been judgmental. A century ago, Clark Ashton Smith was regarded as a suspicious outsider to his little town of Auburn, and literary society shunned his poetry as childish, decadent, improper, etc. The difference, I think, is that social media allows everyone to voice their judgment and gather followers, which wasn't as easy to do in ye oldene daiyes.
On the other hand, the more authors we cancel, the closer I get to becoming well read.
I hadn’t thought of that!
I guess when there are NO books allowed to be read, being a well-educated person is a trivial task! Hahaha
Thank you Michael for not only being nuanced about your thoughts on problematic authors but your explanation of our ideas. More people not only need to hear this but really listen and contemplate it.
Wonderfully put. So many great points.
Changing or removing beliefs is also challenging because it cast everything else into doubt.
Excellent topic and excellent thoughts! I agree that we should be more tolerant of the past, knowing that we have grown and improved as a society. What I find frightening is the us vs. them attitudes in our current society, vilifying people who disagree with them. Our society is intended to be a place where we can have a variety of beliefs and its all okay! We can disagree and still live together. So long as you don't harm other people.
This was a great discussion Michael. Especially the part about the human experience of religion. People do get almost religious when approaching authors sometimes. Change is definitely constant, and it’s definitely a good thing.
Anyone who sits in your comments and complains that you're reading an author who was racist 100 years ago is trying way too hard to be on the moral highground. No one's gonna stop me enjoying Lovecraft and other pulp fiction writers
I could not love this more.
Lots of problematic authors on my 1001 list 🤷♀️ appreciate the conversation!
Well said. I’ve said similar things elsewhere, if there are future generations of readers, they will judge us, possibly on meat eating or fossil fuel burning, or something else entirely.
Probably the plastics we use as well and etc and so on
No doubt they will judge us for being narcissists on social media. It's my opinion that in the future, our descendents will see all our selfies with both amusement and shame.
Great video. I completely agree and you discussed it so well. It’s important to understand that these were products of the time. And you can not understand those times or current times without this context. And one cannot assume to know the artist by their art either and people do change. Love this video. Thank you for it.
Thank you Michael for this insightful and well thought video. It gave me so much to think about and I agree with everything you said. Thanks again.
I think it's useful to talk about the problems of old artists through today's lens. Get those problems out in the open so that we can further explore today's culture as well as yesterday's. Great video, thank you.
Perhaps one of the best videos ever, Michael. Very well spoken.
Wow! Thanks!
Some great points raised here Michael, and presented in an intelligent, rational, and balanced way. Very refreshing and, in my humble opinion, quite inarguable. Far too much hysteria and judgement surrounding artists and writers, especially those who died long ago, and aren't going to suffer or benefit from whether people buy the things they created 100 years ago. Also, it seems to be the most disturbed or conflicted people who have historically been the greatest creative minds, so to dismiss them because of their personalities, views and beliefs would eradicate some of the most beautiful paintings, architecture, music, and writing that the human race has ever produced.
The other thing that springs to mind is that great art is celebrated for being an example of human excellence. To hold the humans who created it to an impossibly high standard would sort of negate that premise, because if it was created by a being we knew to be superior, then it wouldn't really be an achievement, we would just take for granted that they could create great things.
Fantastic video! I loved the depth of discussion.
This comes up for me in all arts. For example with film. I’m a massive fan of Roman Polanski’s films and they rank amongst my favourites, but he’s done terrible things and is still alive and hasn’t faced proper punishment. There’s an added weirdness as Rosemary’s Baby for example has a lot of feminist undertones to it which just seem undermined by Polanski’s real life actions. But regardless I love those films very deeply regardless of the terrible acts of the creator. It does mean I don’t develop the same kind of relationship with the artist as I would with one whose work I love and who was a great person in real life. But I still love the work.
This was a wonderful video on such a thought provoking conversation. I really struggle with this concept of separating art from the artist, it's a very multi layered subject. Bottom line for me is though, that like you, I don't want my money going to certain people even though I might like their writing/stories. Thanks for making this in the way you did.
Thank you for watching it and for your kind words!
Judging the past to todays standards always makes me chuckle. People get their panties in a bunch over the silliest things.
The Whisperer in Darkness is another excellent example where HP Lovecraft gives some more humanity to his monsters, where the creatures seem to have benevolent tendencies towards lesser races. I do wish that Lovecraft would have lived longer, if only to see how far his views might have changed and how that would have affected his writing.
More generally on problematic authors, I do agree with the sentiment. Although, I also think it is useful to know about an author to get more out of a work. And of course, I think it is totally valid if someone can't mentally separate the art from the artist if it causes the individual to feel upset, i.e. I would never expect someone to watch the movies and tv shows of Kevin Spacy if they can't ignore the crimes he committed.
Also, it's really cool to hear that you're a vegan. If I may ask, what do you eat day to day? I went vegan about two years ago for ethical reasons, and right now I'm trying to alter my diet a bit. Eat less processed vegan junk food and more whole food vegan meals.
Very well said. Bill Maher did a segment in his last episode on the unfortunate rise of presentism. While the definition seems to be limited to judging "events," I'd say it's equally applicable to judging "people." Separating authors from their works is a corollary to all that...else everyone and everything prior to 2022 would be cancelled.
Search . ' Solving 9-11 By Christopher Bollyn . '
You're very well spoken. Thanks for the video! I try very hard to judge the art separately from the artist. Occasionally, though, I can't get past certain behaviors. For example, when I learned that author Anne Perry was convicted with her teenage friend of murder, and did prison time, that was depravity that I couldn't see beyond. In other words, there ARE instances, for me at least, where art is simply not the significant issue. That being said, I accept each person must make their own decision.
Interesting, well spoken video 👍. I've been thinking that a lot about your work recently so I decided I should sub. I see something of my younger self in what you say about Lovecraft. It's easy when you're young to be influenced by your surroundings, if you're lucky you meet positive influences who encourage you to examine your views and modify where necessary. I was lucky. I also have this problem with music; Wagner's music can make my soul cry, but he was a bit of a character to say the least.
PS I could drop eating meat tomorrow, but the concept of giving up cheese isn't something my brain can cope with.
WOW What a POWERFUL discussion ...that was awesome on so many levels !! Thank you Michael...I def agree all across the board...so wise
Great discussion. I do think there’s a bit of difference between deceased authors from different eras who “didn’t know better because of the times” and modern authors who absolutely have no reason not to know better. I don’t think it means you shouldn’t read one of their books, but I do like your mention of not supporting them financially. I also think it’s okay/important to be critical of said behaviors/view points when discussing them and their art. Ultimately, I think it becomes a personal choice. Some people can overlook moral flaws for art and others can’t. I don’t think we should impose out personal rules on others though. If I don’t enjoy what a channel reads/discusses, I simply just don’t watch it or interact with it.
Thank you. Ive had a hard struggle with pushing past a bad person to reach the art that comes from them. Books, movies, music, anything. But it has been difficult for me solely because i worry of how some of my more politically active friends might think. I dont have a great way of speaking my own beliefs about important topics. Typically, i try to avoid them at all costs because of this. But listening to you talk about it, i think in some cases, specifically reading from creators with "old fashioned" beliefs, 1) it doesnt necessarily mean that their beliefs are in their work. Some authors dont put their politics and such into their works. 2) just reading the books doesnt mean you are bad like them. I was taught to think for myself and to learn from what i read and see around me. I think that thr key to this issue is, yes you can read these books. Maybe you dont have to buy them new so you aren't supporting them. But the point of reading had always always always been to learn and decipher what is good and what is wrong. Make your own decisons. Its exactly the same reason i can say that watching horror movies or playing video games doesnt make people violent or dangerous. Same logic.
P.S. A book about lizard kids sounds awesome
William Burroughs was the biggest creep who was a genius! His creepiness pervades his novels…utterly brilliant. (great video)!
I think "creep" is too small and week a word for somebody shoots his wife.
I feel the same about the films of Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, etc.
There are no unproblematic authors, and no unproblematic ideas. All thoughts, concepts, ideas and moral precepts carry the seed of their own corruption. One can adhere to these, but never feel safe with them.
This is your finest video. I am glad that I caught up with it.
Thanks!
I’m super late to the party! I was talking with a friend about this very topic recently-can we separate the art from the odious, vile person who created it? It can be difficult, but ultimately, I just can’t help loving the characters they created or the stories they told. Those fictional people and worlds stand independently from their creators.
Also, I just discovered your channel and subscribed immediately. You remind me of a friend from my old job that I miss so much-we used to spend our lunch hour talking about books and music and movies. Thanks for sharing these conversations with us! I’m really loving your content. 📚
Thanks!
Very much enjoyed your explanation. Your speaking cadence is very relaxing and seems very thoughtful, like ASMR almost haha
You make many great points and I couldn't agree more with everything you said.
As a life long martial artist and philosopher I live in a world of applying ideas. It is normal in my view to keep morphing. So just read your books that you enjoy. Who knows tomorrow your ideas may change drastically. Try to go with the ebb and flow.
Wonderful commentary, Michael! Your mom raised you right!
She did!
Thank you for this very important video.
The Muse speaks through an artist, and even if the artist has serious moral failings (a great many people do), the Muse speaks some truth, some beauty, that enriches the communal thought-life of humanity. If we rejected everything that came through a flawed instrument, there would be very little art left. But we need art; it's the communal property of humanity and without it we would be deeply impoverished.
This has always been my ideal. Beauty and clarity do not inherently belong to "good" people. In fact, many "good" people can be really clumsy with words, ideas, art skills, etc. I give no support for the traditional moral failings of older generations, but I don't see what makes the average person today any better than people back then, except maybe that they are less racist.
@@justjoe4390 And even that being "less racist" is highly questionable, given that it is accompanied in many cases by expressions of hatred of white people.
I love you for saying "old-timey."
Totally agree 👍 Every year, bit by bit, humans and their ideas evolve. Some beliefs that we have now will seem bad in 50/75/100 years time. Sure, some beliefs are bad now with authors that are still alive, but to say for example you don't like the works of some one long dead for their opinions, which were relevant back years ago, is a bit much, especially if their work is not promoting their opinions.
Great video. I read a lot of Asimov as a teen, I only learnt of his problematic behaviour when I came onto booktube. Ender's Game is a great story, but I haven't been impressed with other books I've read by him. It is not just in literature that there are problematic creators. Michelangelo and Leonardo DaVinci both great artists but problematic people. If we can't separate the artist from the book, we would have much less to read and the art galleries would be full of gaps...
Very true.
"... probably too frequently, and yet here I am talking about it." That's funny.
I love that you share this message. As I listened, I kept thinking "Oh, I'll say in the comments," and then you covered it. You pretty much said it as I would have. No human is perfect, including us in the modern day, but our imperfections do not stop us from approximating the truth and sharing with other imperfect humans. That's how we all slowly become more perfect, not by ignoring the past. I think the only thing I could add which you didn't say is that, since we aren't born knowing the truth from the get go, even when we give considerable thought to our ideas we may still be wrong in the end. If we persist in a wrong idea after giving it serious though, even this does not make us bad. I think most people deserve more understanding than what most other people are willing to give them.
Here's an example of how people who disagree can still get along and learn from each other. As you spoke, could tell that we would likely disagree on the specifics of many of the examples you gave. But still, with some I agree wholeheartedly, and I can recognize that the fundamental idea at the root of your message is true even if I personally think it is at times misapplied. And in the end, I went away edified by listening to your thoughts, and glad to have you make me question my own.
I love your videos. Keep up the great work.
Thanks Matt, for the thoughtful comment.
The UA-cam Algorithm suggested a video on this same topic by another creator that I do not follow. In fact, two of the three author's I believe are discussed by you both. The discussion was very interesting and frankly well presented. It was almost as if you had collaborated with one another on this subject. The channel is the Council of Geeks and the video is named Enjoying the Works of Problematic Creators. I found this interesting. Thanks for the videos we all enjoy Michael.
I didn’t know about that channel. Thanks!
I separate the art from the artist. But for those who can’t, a secondhand/used bookstore allows you to read all the work you want from Orson Scott Card (or [fill in problematic living author]) without concerns of profiting the author since the author receives no royalties from a secondary sale.
An excellent, rational discussion on a very emotive subject. 👍
Old books, movies, art are snapshots of history. They show us how people in the past viewed themselves and the societies they lived in. How can one be offended by history? You can learn from it or use it to compare against our current views but being offended by or denying history is like shouting at the wind.
Lovecraft, for example, was born in a country that had only decided that slavery was bad a mere 25 years previously. Can we really blame him for his views when that was the environment in which he was raised? Or do we seek to understand and educate ourselves as to why those views were formed in the first place?
Asimov is more troubling in many regards as his behaviour was a clear abuse of power & status, rather than a product of the more general society in which he lived (though of course, the pervading views on sexual equality were a factor). I think this says more about Asimov as a person than the time in which he lived.
These types of predators are still around today and are often lauded for their views by certain sections of society allowing them to propagate their views further and influence new generations.
Brilliant Video !!
Well said and thought provoking.
I read a lot of historical books, biographies, etc. It is a huge mistake to apply today's morality to yesteryear's practices. There is a context to history and it is not ours. The whole point is to understand the people, the mindsets, the era. I do not have to agree with what they did or believed to learn something. Furthermore, applying modern morals to history makes it so that we cannot understand and learning is stunted.
One might argue that there are barely any morals today.
Late in life HP Lovecraft read THE SCIENCE OF LIFE by HG Wells, Frank Wells and Julian Huxley. We know from his letters he was fascinated by this book, and re-borrowed it many times from a friend. He had a lot of respect for HG Wells of course. Apparently this book caused him to moderate his views and set him straight on matters of race. I think Wells wrote a book ANTICIPATIONS in about 1900 where he suggested the non-white population of the world might eventually have to be euthanized. George Orwell was a colonial policeman in Burma who beat his houseboy, etc, etc, etc.
Your commentary is correct to 10 decimal places. If we start cancelling authors for their bad beliefs or character flaws we will soon have nothing to read.
My only addition to your argument would be to recommend buying used copies of the books of those authors you don't want to contribute money too. Don't restrict your reading over something as trivial as politics or dislike of the author's behavior.
Very well stated Michael. Change is easiest (though not easy) when we are in control of it. But change is necessary, otherwise stagnation sets in. As for myself, I read a work and judge it on its own merits from a literary perspective (or see a film from a cinematographic perspective); the work once created gains its own life.
It is so strange to think that we live in one of those rare times in history when we have freedom of thought and to chose our own moral values, and what do we do? We try to restrict that and attack people because of what they think and read. We don’t need the government to do that, we do this ourselves. It is so scary to see this… in the words of Kierkegaard, people are so obsessed with freedom of speech, but they don’t use their freedom to think!
Anyway, the only writer I cannot separate from the work is Marion Zimmer Bradley. Mists of Avalon was so important to me when I was a teenager, she inspired my imagination. Las year I decided to re-read the book for the first time in 20 years and I found out she was involved in pedophilia. Her own daughter was a victim. I was so heart broken I couldn’t read the book. I will try again in a couple of years.
Yes, yes, and yes! Have a fantastic day!
I’m late to this video, but this was a fantastic examination. Very well thought out and out together - thank you for doing this sir!
Thanks!
I wish our culture was as rational towards the artists & figures of the past as you are in this day & age. A well said video.
JK Rowling is extremely problematic to many, but to me and to many others she is heroic (and I'm not a fan of her fiction). What about the most problematic living author from a muslim perspective, Salman Rushdie?! He's another heroic writer, who's symbolic for those of us who value freedom of expression; I hope he's doing well following that horrid attack.
That's exactly why I find "problematic" to be such a meaningless term. It usually just means "I don't agree / It makes me uncomfortable", which does not express anything of substance unless one has an actual argument.
I completely agree with you, thanks for the video. With respect B. Florin
How much influence to authors and celebrities really have over their readers/fans? Sure they can give us a thought or point of view, but it is up the the reader to decide what to believe. They're not sheep. They may make the wrong choice, but it is still their choice and cannot be blamed on anyone but themselves.
Orson Scott Card has ideas on same sex marriage and homosexuality that I do not agree with, but it is a belief that many people have as it is common amongst most major religions. To my knowledge, Card is not funding chemical castration or asylum commitment of homosexuals. If he was funding projects to physically harm members of the LGBTQ community, I could see refusing to support him financially by not buying his books. However, he is just saying his common religious belief.
If we are to punish people financially for having that religious belief, shouldn't we also punish all those who give money in the offering plates at churches, synagogues, and mosques?
Whether you agree with Card's view or not, you should be alarmed by people wanting to take away his livelihood because of his public beliefs. It reminds me how Dashiell Hammett was blackballed from work (and even went to jail) because of his public socialist/communist beliefs during the McCarthy era.
If you are a terrible person then so am I because I love listening to you. Seriously though these people who like to sit behind computers and sling mud need to realise that if they were born one hundred years prior they would think totally differently.
I am a firm believer in never judging the past with the standards and morals of the present. Does it bother me that a lot of old authors held views that are in diametric opposition with the current day? Absolutely not. It doesn't bother me that Lovecraft would never mix in a social setting with me, I can still enjoy his stories.
You can sometimes take even a good idea too far.
And there are many authors or people who morally did “good” things to cover up a darker aspect of themselves that they had tried to hide.
So for those who outright denounce authors like Lovecraft for his open racism and Anglocentric worldview I think at least we knew what camp he stood in and that’s more than can be said for many other people.
Very well said. It's a complicated issue and I have far too much to say about it than what can be accommodated in a youtube comment. I had no idea you were getting condemnatory comments on your videos -- that's pretty awful. I can honestly say I've never been yelled at or condemned for my reading choices -- maybe talked down to condescendingly, but I can take that. Sometimes it makes me wonder if people are really doing this condemnation of others or if people are just bothered that the artists they like are being "dissected". But your video reminded me that this stuff really does happen in the world.
I've never been wholly comfortable with the phrase "separate the art from the artist", because even though in principle I agree with you 100%, I don't actually think you *can* -- I mean, *you* try separating an artist from his art and see what happens! haha...seriously though, like you said in this video when talking about Lovecraft, his ideas *did* influence his fiction, and so if you're going to examine and talk about the fiction on anything beyond a surface level, you're going to have to talk about his racism.
Speaking of which, we talked about this a bit on the last episode of the Chrononauts podcast. i'm one of those people who do think lovecraft was capable of change, and, like a friend put it recently, he died "at the beginning of his redemption arc". So we'll never really know for sure. But I have read some of his letters, and a few from the later 30s at least speak of a surprisingly open-minded person, who readily speaks of how awful he was in his younger days, and who admired people who could do away with bigotry and intolerancea ltogether, and who even seems to be espousing some left wing principles that even today might be considered "a bit too risky". I think he never repudiated the racism outright, and nobody said, "hey Mr. Lovecraft, are you still a racist ****?" -- but I think he would have come out and said it eventually.
I hope he would have. I think he might have been heading in that direction. I really wish he could have lived longer.
Great video!❤
Wise words indeed.
The guilt-by-association ideology held by many today is really untenable. If we thought one was bad because of the books he reads, the films he reads, or even the people with whom he associates, then everyone is bad, because everyone has something or someone in their life who has a less-than-stellar character.
It’s also not clear that what one writes reflects his own attitude. It seems that one should have to appeal to a writer’s personal life and opinions and not use their fiction as the basis of forming an opinion about their character.
Michael, good video, and bravely and logically presented with understanding. I fo not agree with all your thoughts but that is the good thing about living in a free country where people are free to be different and have different ideas. Good job.
Thanks Gary.
Will introduce my ten year old son to Harry Potter this year. Agree with you, it's hardly fair for him to have to miss out on that entire experience. The books themselves don't give the same message that the tweets do.
Your take on wanting to read OSC but not wanting to give him any money is spot-on. I'm always arguing within my own community: why do you want to give money to businesses that you know hate us? I want to know exactly which local businesses are homophobic (or sexist, racist, etc.) so that I can specifically direct my funds AWAY from them. Many of my people do not agree with this approach.
Here’s to shelves full of problematic books. Variety is the spice
I found in my real life you have to find humanity even in the bad ones. This may help them change for the better.
But don't fall into the trap of thinking you're above them when you haven't lived in their shoes. You say it's for the better, but you couldn't know that. Your views are based on an idealized world that exists in your own surroundings or in your personal life story. Much of which has likely not even been constructed by you, yourself. I think you would find much more humanity in individuals you call bad than you might in your own self if you looked deeply enough.
@@gabbyk1391 well put
Thanks for your rational view!
In general, I'd rather not know too much about an author's biography and let the texts stand on their own.
Having said that, I hugely enjoy biographical surveys of an author's work. Two favorite examples: The Dawn Watch: Joseph Conrad in a Global World, by Maya Jasanoff; and The Ministry of Truth: a Biography of George Orwell's 1984, by Dorian Lynskey. I also enjoy reading the biographical intros in anthologies.
I'm at an age where it's clear I'll never read everything that I want to read (unless some tech company invents direct downloads to brains). So I sometimes use biographical information as a sorting mechanism. We all have a selection process when choosing what we read. If the person of the author makes my skin crawl for some reason, easy pass for me. If the author is alive and says obnoxious and moronic things in public (like Larry Niven saying odious things about immigrants and people of color; even Pournelle thought he went too far), easily sorted out. Add the corollary that a living author never gets any further income from me.
I was thinking of Niven & Pournelle myself, specifically A Mote in God's Eye. Wonderful, incredible depictions of an alien society, but the portrayals of Earth women were practically pre-Seventeenth Century. Given the opportunity, I think Sally Ride probably would have kicked Niven's butt.
I didn't know that about Asimov. I've been reading the Foundation Trilogy this week.
Belief is an idea reinforced by emotion. When we want something to be true we believe it to be true.
Admire the art not the artist.
I'm full of cliches today.
Great video. I strongly believe in separating the author from the work. Whole video was great, though… sometimes the social ramifications of honestly reevaluating the ideas you grew up with can be difficult.
There are degrees of problematic. Also sometimes something isn’t problematic at one point and becomes problematic to you particularly or to society writ large. Burroughs and Tolkien were both men of their time although I would say Burroughs definitely had some more wacky views, in other ways the themes of his stories resonate more clearly - preserverance, humanism, a closeness with nature. Tolkien for me mainly sparks my interest thematically on his so far as his paraprimitivism, and skepticism of technology. Burroughs is more complicated bc he lauds living rough but also extols the virtue of technology. I don’t think Burroughs was overthinking things that much though - he just wanted to tell a kick ass story. Other more modern authors like Terry Goodkinds became problematic in a way I can’t really look past. I enjoyed the first 8 sword of truth books but I was also a hardcore libertarian when I was in my early 20s now two decades in my rear view. His books became overly books became overly preachy and as I shifted away from libertarianism I just couldn’t do his later books anymore. Burroughs and Tolkien were not extremely heavy handed while Terry Goodkinds became increasingly heavy handed.
At this point I just kinda roll with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Like you, a lot of the authors I read lived in (thankfully) bygone times, so a lot of them probably held views I disagree with, but I try not to hold that against them, and that doesn't impair my enjoyment of their work, unless said work is intrinsically wrapped up in their views. Tolstoy is pretty problematic to me, although I dislike his work for other, more legitimate reasons as well. But yeah. Nice vid; well said. :)
“Not a week goes by that I don’t receive at least one pissed-off letter (most weeks there are more) accusing me of being foulmouthed, bigoted, homophobic, murderous, frivolous, or downright psychopathic.” - Stephen King.
Just because you write something doesn't mean you have those believes. I think Lovecraft suffers from this; the only difference is that, unlike Stephen, he isn't around to defend himself.
2:26 you are experiencing this very thing too.
My two cents (even though we don't use cents here): Books are the best way to go into things that can't be done in any other way. You can write a story about a psychopathic dog and killings it - and people will have a reaction to that. And that's a pretty tame example.
Well said
I don't see authors as being problematic. It's the readers that are problematic. To impose 21st century ideals upon someone from another time (and place) is unfair, ridiculous and as unforgiving as the racist, sexist (fill in the blank here) ideas they are condemning.
As concerns videos in which problematic authors are disparaged, my problem with BookTube is there are entirely too many people putting up videos expressing their opinions in the guise of having an extraordinary gift of intellect. When it comes to reading, no one - book critics included, especially book critics - has the right to explain the merits or demerits of a book in order to bully a reader into accepting as gospel what is nothing more than a personal opinion. To do so is to do a disservice to the reader as well as to the author of said book. Yes, I write reviews on a reading site. But, I always mention that my opinion is just my opinion. You see, when it comes to evaluating a book, the only people who are capable of doing it are the author and the individual reading the book. No book club member, no college grad schmoe with a BookTube channel and for doggone sure it's not a book critic for their credentials do not come from on high but do very often come tainted with the critic's personal ego.
In a truly "enlightened" world, the individual reader should be left in peace when it comes to choosing whatever book they want to read. My grandfather is remembered for saying to my mother when she was a child that he did not care what she read so long as she read. Even writing of the lowest order will inform the reader on some level. This is so true.
Great discussion!
Thanks James!
And I was watching the tape that you made on problematic authors. I think when it comes to people that write they have a people have a Puritan way of thinking about them you know you have to be God fearing you have to be righteous you have to be you know above boarding and all these different things you have to be when I was brought up we had a loss of holding his people in our family and we wasn't brought up I wouldn't I would say a lot of them did believe that but it was a few that believed and also know it's to be true that when you born you're born in sin you're not born in righteousness you're not born and purity you're not born in the ray of light of the Lord you know you're not born in all of that you came from a sinful place okay and a lot of things come out of that you know you have all kinds of shades of Gray in that that the person is not really white the person will never be that some of them you have people that just downright evil it's no real goodness there at all and then you have the people that's good they may not be righteous but they all good people fall into so many different colors and and so many different shades of different and when it comes to good evil or somewhere in the middle. Sorry people are saying awful things to you about this a lot of people are blinded by their own righteousness or what they perceive to be righteousness but I always believe you have to separate the person from the ability and talent because if you're going to judge everybody that way what about doctors you know you may have doctors that's gay you may have doctors that a wife abused a wives you may have doctors that abuse their children you may have doctors that are alcohol or drug addicts into children p*** I mean it's a whole list of things a doctor can be into and if you were dying of a disease or you need a critical surgery will you say I don't want you to operate on me because you're not a good person I don't think anybody going to say that but it is going to be people out there probably will and die you know your ability and talent have nothing to do with the person you know they are evil people that do good things a lot of old people in my family said you know you know God May bless you with something even though he have Lucifer delivery.have said that a lot of times and people look at me like I done lost my mind but it's true if you look in the Bible it's going to be things in the Bible that you say why didn't God do this why didn't he help these people oh my goodness you know it's going to be things you disagree with him about if things in the Bible that people read in their first thing they say God never made a mistake God was always righteous and and always and pure and they have a whole list of things they say that God is about and then you read in a Bible where his son but when they said something about good master and he told the people why do you call me good only God is good now this is Jesus saying this this is not someone that believed Jesus said this okay then you read in the Bible where they say God was going to destroy something I mean just totally destroy it and then all it was he repented now if he's righteous he's pure and all those things people believe him repentant shouldn't have never took place I have also spoke to people and they say well I don't believe in reincarnate now I don't believe in in aliens you know such thing as aliens and reincarnation then I turn around and say well you believe in Jesus right and God yes I believe in them okay you do know God is an alien he never was human and you do know they put Jesus and a like cave-like place when they buried him and guess what he rode from the dead looking different walking through a part of steel they look at me like I don't know my mind but all those things are true so you can't people of fickle when it comes to what they believe is good and what they believe is evil and and has no goodness in them at all or whatever or you know like he said people shouldn't judge things you have to get the evil out of yourself before you can judge anything out and a lot of people don't believe in that they believe they already you know I already cleaned myself how can you clean yourself if Jesus had to die in order for you may have salvation and I'm going to stretch that may how can you be pure how can you be righteous how can your judgment be perfect so don't take it to heart when people say awful things about some of the authors you know you love they work or don't don't just ignore that basically because they can't see what they are doing is wrong but getting still they want to judge something else and I really enjoy you and what you do on that you too because it's a loss of writers out there may not have been all that perfect when it comes to being a person but no one can out do they writing or how do they imagination in their writing or to creativity they had when you read something it's almost like you in the jungle with them or you're walking the world with them and you seeing all these different sites with an experience and all these different things it's hard to find a writer this time and age that has that creativity in them a lot of people play copycats and I think that's that's a terrible thing when it comes to trying to create something on your own because everyone is different everyone have they made it the brain may look the same but it don't function the same way it don't have the same creativity they don't have the same feel emotional love that people pulled into their writing you don't see that that much. I'm like I was saying you see a lot of psychology you see a lot of sex and and fantasy but you don't see the creativity when it comes to creating the world that you're not indulging in all those different things that you out there really fighting fighting wolves and helping people and and suffering and you doing all these different you don't see all that now in writing you see more fantasy than you see reality and I think a lot of those old office really tried to create a world so I'm glad you have this on the internet and really introducing people to his writing and maybe inspired people to really write you know it's easy to put out fantasy sex and and all kinds of other things but it's hard to put really create a world that have it has it but has left of it and has more of other things in it so I'm really happy that you doing this and keep on😊 doing ❤️ it 😊 thank ❤️ you 😊 I ❤️ hope 😊 you ❤️ prosper 😊 in ❤️ everything 😊 you ❤️ do 😊. Thank ❤️ you 😊❤️
Someone in the year 2122 is refusing to read 'The Shining' because Stephen King partook of bacon.
Stephen King is one of the biggest assholes you can find on Twitter, like, literally. Unbelievable guy. I think bacon is going to be the least of his worries.
I am so glad I don’t use Twitter.
@@sjoerdvanloon I hope twitter won’t still exist by then
Great video. It still surprises me that a lot of people still don't realize Card is a terrible person. I def think it's easier to ignore what makes an author problematic, if they are deceased. Enders Game is such an incredible book and Ender Wiggin such an incredible character, worthy of our empathy, and its amazing someone as virulent homophobic as Card could write such an evolved character.
Do you know Card personally? If not, then how on Earth could you make the determination that he's a terrible person? Because he holds an opinion with which you don't agree? Vaughan's mischaracterization of Card's comments on gay marriage, as well as carelessly tossing out the fashionable "homophobe" do nothing to further anyone's understanding of the man behind the art. Indeed they only serve to muddy the waters on an already complex subject that is far more nuanced than the black and white thinking on display in your comment and in some places in the video.
@@robertreid2931 Orson Card is a terrible person. I dont say that lightly. If your unable to see why or are not informed enough to know why, I'm not the one to lead you on it.
@@FIT2BREAD If you don't know him personally, or if he's done nothing to harm anyone else, then you're judging from a position of ignorance and thus in no position to lead *anyone*.
Ha, now I really want to read about Lizard Kids. A really interesting discussion. I for one enjoyed the Potter books. I dont have too much of a problem with "she who must not be read" expressing her opinion, she's entitled to it. Her current Galbraith "Strike" series isn't too bad actually. I think I had more of a problem with her retrospectively trying to change characters in the Potter series, like she needed to checkoff some sort of inclusivity list, that's not on. Those characters dont belong to her anymore. I'm off now I need to dust off some skeletons...
Yeah, someone really needs to write that 🦎 lizard kids book!
I’m getting a library together for my retirement and have enjoyed your channel and recommendations. Thanks!
I agree that we should read the books we like, regardless of the author’s behavior, though I liked your caveat about living authors. However, as long as you have your head on straight, it doesn’t hurt to read absolutely despicable things, like Mein Kampf. The reason is to understand history, in that case, not to agree with that author. I think if you have ever called people commies, you should read Karl Marx. The more you learn, the more you can understand how things work to make history what it is.
Thanks again.
Thanks for watching!
Top video. Very well put.
Well articulated view, agree with you 100% - worship the art, not the artist.
To be honest you probably shouldn't worship it. That's kind of weird.
@@gabbyk1391 -worship- celebrate
Very good. I agree, but must say this was a great vid.
(I didn’t mean to write “film he reads”, since one doesn’t read a film, but you get the idea)
I absolutely agree with you. Only thing I would add is that in today's digitally advanced society it's very easy to get books for free, so you can still read books by bad people that are still alive without supporting them monetarily. Reading on a screen doesn't have the same feeling as reading a real book, but at least you'll be able to read whatever you want without worrying too much about the morality of it.