Surely everyone (myself included) has experienced disappointment when they found out a celebrity that they liked did something atrocious. Some people choose to live in denial- witness the throngs of Mel Gibson defenders for a recent example- but some wonder if they should divorce themselves from their love and financial support of the offending celeb. It can be difficult to call. One can likely watch Mad Max with impunity, as movies are a collaborative effort. Surely not everyone involved was such a hater.
But what about writers? They are, with some notable exceptions, solely responsible for their output. Do we want to give our money to a person who is known as a misogynist? A racist? Or can we still enjoy a work of literature that was written by someone who we strongly dislike?
I'm not talking about content here. It's easy to feel uncomfortable when the prose itself is sexist. We've heard all about Roth and Updike, Hemingway and Faulkner. I'm talking about behind the scenes. Like Norman Mailer famously stabbing his second wife with a penknife. Like V.S. Naipaul, his racist rants, and the way he used women without giving them anything in return. What does it say about us if we enjoy literature born of these unattractive personalities?
Maybe nothing. Many great artists have something unpalatable in their histories- just like everyone. Some are alcoholics, some are rude, some egotistical, some selfish. Self-aggrandizement or self-destruction can be off-putting, but then again, fame does strange things to people, and notoriety can be quite a curse. But there's a special kind of turn off that comes from harming or discriminating against others. I can understand the many motivations behind drinking to excess, but stabbing your wife... well, that's something else entirely.
What if someone you knew did such things? Would you avoid their company? If you somehow caught wind of a neighbor doing something unthinkable, you likely wouldn't give him any show of support, even if you didn't condemn the actions outright. We don't actually know the folks in question, though, so that makes standing against an action seem less necessary.
We can't know everything about everyone. We all unwittingly give financial or other support to people who have disregarded our strongly-held personal values. Do boycotts achieve the desired result (especially since many authors on this list have already passed)? Public humiliation could be effective, if only we didn't operate on the assumption that “any publicity is good publicity.” And ultimately, what happened has already happened. Our reactions can't change that.
We could be focusing our efforts on prevention rather than opposition, but if calling out someone for their actions helps to change the culture, then perhaps it is worth the effort. What if every time someone famous was found to be an abuser, he didn't get away with it? What if over-the-line sexist or homophobic remarks diminished popularity and financial return? Granted, famous people are still just people at their core, but in our culture, we lift them up above normal status. If someone we idolize says or does something terrible, it is permissioned. Considered normal. It's hard enough to call our friends on jokes made in poor taste, so getting folks to disregard media images can seem like an insurmountable challenge. This isn't as prevalent amongst authors, but it does happen. How many young women adore Stephanie Meyer, author of the abusive-relationship-couched-in-sparkly-vampire-terms Twilight Saga? (How I long for the days when 'tweens read about Hermione, the independent and intelligent heroine in the Harry Potter books.)
There is no right answer. Fortunately, there are options for opting out. We can check out books from the library, where we are not directly financially supporting folks whose views or actions make us uneasy. It goes without saying that we don't have to write fan letters. Maybe we can distance ourselves and still enjoy the book.
No comments:
Post a Comment