Death of the author - yay or nay?

[Taake]

Death of the author

This has been discussed before on this forum, but encountering discussions on Neil Gaiman (I just learned of the accusations), I felt compelled to hear people’s thoughts on here as well.


Obviously, creators like Joss Whedon and JK Rowling have fallen from grace lately, but I put them in a bit of a separate category as they have appeared to seem grievously disappointing as people to their fans perhaps, or some of them, but they’re not criminals as far as I know. It is more of a difference of opinions – again, as far as I know – which may make it easier to argue for the fandom.


Hotter Potatoes:

Roman Polanski – long been a subject or discussion due to his rape of a young girl (in Jack Nicholson’s and Angelica Huston’s house by the way, supposedly with Huston present part of the time though not ‘in the room’ so to speak). I watched a long essay about it and it appears the girl, now a woman, has forgiven him/has some kind of relationship to him? But that is not really a get-out-of-jail free card. And people do have opinions on avoiding his works.

Harry Weinstein – creep deluxe, but not really a creator per say, so his involvement in various media appears to have had no influence on what people enjoy.

Danny Masterson – in jail for two rapes, and supposedly his involvement in That 70’s show is why it now is hard to find on streaming or to buy in physical form. Because he would benefit of it. Seems unfair to the rest involved in the show and the fans, to me at least.

Allison Mack – cult leader assistant, involved in abuse of other women. Don’t see a lot of talk about people boycotting Smallville due to this though. Even though her involvement in the show is kind of comparable to Masterson’s in That 70’s Show.

Neil Gaiman – accused by eight women of S.A. Outcome of legal battles due to this unclear as of yet.



I guess my question is – can you enjoy media where the creator or people involved in the creation of it have turned out to be really shitty people? Do you think Death of the Author makes sense?

DotA can also be argued simply from a point of interpretation, i.e. that what they meant to say with the art does not really dictate its meaning.

But in cases like the above - do you think art can ever really be separated from its author and if not, how does one tackle the creator being a disappointing person or even a criminal? Does it bother you, or does it not?

 

[nightshade]

I really don't pay attention to actors, authors etc. If I enjoy something I'll watch/read it.

However, actual death of authors annoy me, when they continue to publish books when the author has died. The author might have wrote notes but it's not their completed work anymore so it's essentially published fanfic.

 

[AlphaFoxtrot]

Well, did the Mists of Avalon stop being a master piece?

With Joss and Neil, I suspect the real problem is that both men presented themselves as ardent feminists, and cultivated a fan base that cares very much about this stuff. Without a fanbase to buy your high end stuff that lacks popular appeal, what good are you? Although, I don't understand why, Sarte treated Simone like garbage, so there's a precedent, if you know your history.

To extend this, Joan's appeal is too broad to be effectively cancelled. When you have theme park money, it's unlikely anyone was going to convince Warner Brothers in the long term to abandon Potter. But if you look at someone like say, Orson Scott Card, you can't challenge him in the world of science fiction literature, where he is the only consistently commercially successful author that's not a Star Wars book writer, but you can keep him from hitting the mainstream.

Arguably, I'm amendable to the idea that I never liked the art for the artist's personal life, one way or the other. But, so much of art relies on cultivating celebrity, and the fan cult that comes with it, I see why it's a liability.

 

[NotASlayer]

I think there can be two financial (as opposed to purely moral) questions:

Does the person benefit if I watch/read/buy this?
Does anyone else suffer if I blacklist them?

 

[hoponlilmama]

I guess my question is – can you enjoy media where the creator or people involved in the creation of it have turned out to be really shitty people? Do you think Death of the Author makes sense?



But in cases like the above - do you think art can ever really be separated from its author and if not, how does one tackle the creator being a disappointing person or even a criminal? Does it bother you, or does it not?

One has to separate the art from the artist. I guess there are extreme circumstances, but I've learned to separate, otherwise I'd be listening to silence, and staring at walls.

If you shun away from media because it's attached to someone who has been accused/convicted, this means:
a. You as the consumer suffer. It would be tough abandoning a television series/music/book/film you really love and means a lot to you.
b. It isn't fair to everyone else part of said project - the actors, the crew

 

[AlphaFoxtrot]

Agreed. Profit is always going to be a very small part of any enterprise, and those at the top seem to be able to loose billions without consequences.

 

[Kendar]

A large part of the answer will depend on how much knowing of someone's bad actions impacts your enjoyability of the material. And as others said it also depends on how big a part they play in the media in question.

My favorite comedian as a teen/young adult was Bill Cosby. Not his sitcoms, but his old comedy albums. I own them all in multiple formats.

...And once I realized how bad he actually was, I can't listen to them anymore. I can't separate the work from the person, because the work effectively IS the person in the case of his comedy albums.

There are people who I don't like anymore because of their actions/behaviors that I can still enjoy things they are in, but those things aren't usually showcasing the person in question.

 

[Plasma]

I guess my question is – can you enjoy media where the creator or people involved in the creation of it have turned out to be really shitty people? Do you think Death of the Author makes sense?

DotA can also be argued simply from a point of interpretation, i.e. that what they meant to say with the art does not really dictate its meaning.

But in cases like the above - do you think art can ever really be separated from its author and if not, how does one tackle the creator being a disappointing person or even a criminal? Does it bother you, or does it not?

Yes, I can enjoy media separate from its creator. I think a lot of the problem is so many people today, thanks to the internet, are caught up with learning everything about everyone they’ve ever known of. Everything by every single creative is under intense scrutiny, to the extent that even having a slightly differing ideology these days warrants death threats, doxxing, and calls for violence.

Here’s my take on it.

If genuine wrongdoing was perpetrated, let the legal system handle it. I don’t think it’s really anyone’s business what happened between two parties, aside from those two parties and the law. Boycotting media because so and so is in it or created it is just pointless grandstanding, especially when it’s not really anything illegal but is more and ideological difference, as with JK Rowling.

Maybe I’m wrong, but just like what you like and stop worrying about who made it. It’s all irrelevant anyways when you’re reading the piece or watching it or playing it or whatever. All that matters then is the quality of the product.

 

[thrasherpix]

If it did prohibit me from watching stuff, then I wouldn't be able to watch some Buffy and Angel today. Especially how Charisma, Sarah, and James were treated behind the scenes (James Marsters even said he had to get therapy over it and wouldn't surprise me if the other two did as well). By that I mean how those I named were treated by Joss and his crew. I like the Angel season 5 ep You're Welcome, but knowing Joss found another way to stick it to Charisma is felt by me (but it doesn't stop me from watching).

I've said before that the Cordelia love triangles didn't quite bother me as much as the ones around Fred (though it still grated on me), and it may be because I start thinking of meta and how Joss rewrote Charisma out of petty spite so that it kind of takes me out of the story while distracting me a bit from the story itself. That is, I'm thinking too much of Joss's petty spite behind the scenes that the story we get as a result impacts me less (still dislike it).


I'm glad it doesn't bar me as there are a lot of movies and series with the names above (and others I could think of) involved with them, sometimes going decades back. (JK Rowling annoys me with her pointless "updates" of what she meant in her books such as saying Dumbledore was gay but is never shown before or after which makes it pointless, but I don't think she's done anything wrong, at least not for the reasons some want her canceled. To my knowledge she hasn't acted out of petty spite against those under her nor abused her power.)


Someone told me once to never meet one's heroes as you'll be disappointed to get to know the real person behind the legend (or daydreams). That strikes me as sound advice.

 

[TheMaster666]

Wait, what did J. K. Rowing do that was a fall from grace? I thought she had the balls to actually stand up for women.

To answer your question, does a creator's crimes/scandals affect perception of their work? My answer is, it depends.

Some men got cancelled over falsehoods. Kevin Spacey, for instance, was tarred and feathered, so to speak, by the public, yet once the dust settled on his numerous trials, he was acquitted time and again, highlighting the necessity for awaiting verdicts and not pre-judging based on accusations alone.



Others, like Louis C. K., committed not criminal but inappropriate acts, for which he paid the social and professional costs for a number of years, but I don't think he should remain buried forever. He has attempted to mount a comeback, and I support that. He's acknowledged his mistakes, paid the price for them, and has shown growth. We should allow that.

I feel like the Dilbert creator, Scott Adams, should belong in this category. Dilbert is by far the funniest--heck, I'll say it's the only comic in the newspaper I actually found funny and consistently so. Dilbert's been around as long as the Simpsons, yet unlike America's family, he never lost his edge. What happened was Scott Adams, a couple years ago, was upset about certain political views in a personal podcast. And the specific wording of how he phrased his discontent sounded very, very racist. He basically called for white people to distance themselves completely from black people. Now, in context, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that he was more making a point about a poll's findings, but nevertheless, he said something pretty unforgiveable, and he was right to have been cancelled. As you might imagine, all newspapers and everybody pulled his comic immediately. However, it's been some years, and Dilbert is still basically blacklisted everywhere. I think we should allow room for growth and give Scott the opportunity to share Dilbert with the world once more. It was right to cancel him then, but should he be completely ignored forever? I don't think so.




In the case of Danny Masterson, however, how can his crimes not ruin the show? All I can say is, I'm very glad I watched That 70s Show before the trial happened, when I was blissfully unaware of anything. It's an incredible sitcom, and Danny's character was actually my favorite one on the show. So now how can you go back and still enjoy that, knowing what we know now in the back of your head? How can you look at that face again the same way?

On the other hand, we know that Bill Cosby was responsible for a lifetime of raping literally dozens of women. While I had never seen any of his famous self-titled sitcom before, I did somewhat recently see an episode of one of his earliest breakout roles, in "I, Spy," a 60s spy show, as he co-starred alongside Robert Culp, whom I became a fan of from his role in one of Stephen Cannell's 80s shows, "Greatest American Hero." This tv appearance with Cosby as a leading man remains quite historically significant, as it was the first tv show to really place a black person not only as a lead, but seen as an equal in every way to his white co-stars, just a few years after the Civil Rights Act was passed. It helped socially normalize this conception of racial equality, from lofty political speeches and legal victories, to re-shaping how Americans actually see each other in daily life.

The legacy of Bill Cosby, therefore, is complex. On the one hand, he was a serial abuser of women who got away with rapes for nearly his entire life (and got out of prison again on the most technicality of technicalities). Yet, he also was this powerful role model, in the 60s for enabling racial integration, and in the 80s as a beloved father figure. Obviously, no amount of good deeds makes up for a criminal sin, let alone such a hefty record that he has accrued. Yet, it's hard to just wipe away and not acknowledge that he also lived a life that did a lot of good. It's a difficult double-think to absorb, how one person could be two completely different things, both true at the same time.

 

[Stake fodder]

For me, it matters if the author was already "dead" when I became a fan of their work. For instance, I watched Buffy before I knew anything about its creator. Another example that comes to mind is Michael Jackson's music. So even now that I know things about them, I can separate the work in my mind, probably because watching/listening brings back my original, disconnected feelings of enjoyment.

But when I know something negative about the creator in the first place, it does give me pause about engaging with their work. I won't watch anything by Roman Polanski. I have only read one book by Neil Gaiman previously, and I have one book on my library holds list by him that I've been questioning whether I will read.

This brings up a different aspect. The library has already purchased its copies of this book. My reading it or not would not put any more or less royalties in Gaiman's pocket. So would it matter if I read it, assuming I could without thinking of him while doing it? Same goes for watching my DVDs of Buffy.

In short, I won't burn what I already own on the censorship pyre, but I would avoid future purchases if I disagreed with a creator's behavior. But then, a lot of creators of the past probably weren't clean, either, we just don't know about their foibles.

 

[nightshade]

The library has already purchased its copies of this book. My reading it or not would not put any more or less royalties in Gaiman's pocket. So would it matter if I read it, assuming I could without thinking of him while doing it?

I think it's different for library loans, or used to be, but for every loan of a book the author does get something, only small like 5p though.

Public Lending Right (PLR) – The Society of Authors

 

[Stake fodder]

I think it's different for library loans, or used to be, but for every loan of a book the author does get something, only small like 5p though.

Public Lending Right (PLR) – The Society of Authors

Wow, I did not know this! I think it's not true in the US that authors get paid beyond the royalties for the original copy purchases, but I'm going to research this more. I know there is something with e-books where the libraries have to re-purchase after so many loan-outs, but I read physical books almost exclusively.

 

[Kendar]

Wow, I did not know this! I think it's not true in the US that authors get paid beyond the royalties for the original copy purchases, but I'm going to research this more. I know there is something with e-books where the libraries have to re-purchase after so many loan-outs, but I read physical books almost exclusively.

In the USA writers only get the purchase royalties for the initial sale of physical books, so they get it once for each copy the library buys. They do not get money per checkout.

Depending on how popular the author is, sometimes the royalty rate for library purchases is a bit higher to reflect that the book will be loaned multiple times.

Digital books are a little different in that the library (most commonly) purchases a number of checkout of the book. A example might be 50 checkouts per year (per purchase). Once they check out the number of times they have to purchase more checkouts. More importantly, if the book checks out less than the number of purchases, they lose the extra if the deal was for a year (so purchase 50, use 45, lose 5).

There can be more variation in digital books, since a library system might purchase multiole books under one deal from a given publisher.

But the ultimate short answer is that in the US authors get nothing specifically from checkouts.