Friday, August 23, 2024

Can you separate the art from the artist?

The Graveyard Book and American Gods are good books. Both before Neil Gaiman became embroiled in the current controversy … and after. 

That doesn’t mean I have to like Neil Gaiman the person to enjoy his books (and if the current allegations are accurate, he’s a pretty slimy dude). But I can still read and enjoy The Sandman.

Because art is separate from the artist. Anyone who claims they had an inkling of Gaiman’s alleged behavior from reading Coraline is full of shit. 

There is no need to learn all about your favorite artists. It used to be you knew almost nothing of SF/F authors, save in the occasional printed interview in Analog or the like.

Let’s step away from Gaiman for a moment, who for obvious reasons is a bit of a lightning rod.

Closer to home for me are writers like Robert E. Howard and H.P. Lovecraft. Both writers of a long-ago age, some of their stories literally published 100 years ago. 

Both with well-documented racist beliefs….beliefs which were incredibly common in their day and age. And which aren’t even immediately noticeable in huge swathes of their fiction, regardless.

Both are being read today, and will continue to be read, long after all their critics are dead and forgotten. 

You should be reading these guys if you’re a fan of speculative fiction.

You should be reading these guys if you’re a writer of speculative fiction.

You should be reading these guys if you’re a historian of speculative fiction.

If you don’t, you’re missing out on formative writers that will make you a better writer. And great stories that will give you experiences you can’t get anywhere else. And important literary history that will leave blind spots in your understanding of how fantasy fiction came to be today.

Are there some truly abhorrent writers that make this decision murky? Of course. Marion Zimmer Bradley and David Eddings come to mind. I understand why some want to disown these authors and never read them again.

But even these guys can still be read. I won’t stand up for MZB or Eddings like I do Howard and Lovecraft, both because of personal tastes and because I don’t think they’re nearly as good or important. I am not convinced either will be read 100 years from now. In fact, they probably won’t.

But both can still be read. Because we can separate art from artist.

I realize this question is subjective. Every individual’s threshold for offense is entirely unique. Each reader brings his or her own unique experiences to the table. Some readers are afflicted by past traumas they cannot overcome. Some readers are better than others at compartmentalizing.

But that makes the objective statement, “art cannot be separated from artist,” false. 

Yes, every artist brings something of his or herself to their writing, but the alchemy of creativity defies analysis. An artist does not pour everything of themselves into every story, they choose what goes in. Or they themselves compartmentalize, pour their self-loathing into evil characters committing bad deeds, in acts of self-introspection.

There are many beloved writers, living and dead, with skeletons in their closet—skeletons we don’t know about, skeletons which will never see the light of day. Because the artist is long dead, or no record of their behavior exists.

Every human being on the planet has skeletons. We just don’t know about many of them. Nor do we have to.

If you happen to be one of those rare birds who watches 30 minutes of local news, reads Neil Gaiman, and stays off the internet—you’d never know about the unfolding scandal. It would not diminish your enjoyment of his books. You don’t know who the artist is beyond what is on the page, and you don’t to have to, to enjoy and appreciate his or her work.

Can you separate art from artist? Ultimately it’s an individual choice.

But if you’re asking me? Of course you can. 

And you should.

You already have.

6 comments:

  1. I put my Sandman trades in the closet so I would not have to see them on my shelves after the third woman came out with accusations.

    Not that I disagree with you. The day may come I get them out and read them but not for awhile.

    I did come to believe that Gaiman was a sketchier person then he portrayed himself online before these accusations. He divorced his wife and well that happens. Then he quickly married Amanda Palmer. Too quickly to be a coincidence but well then it was not any of my business. Then he talk about having an open marriage. That was a warning sign.

    There's a weird idea that virtue is associated with talent when it not necessarily is. Thomas Malory's Le Mort de Arthur is a major canon work. It is also as idealistic as they come in someways. Malory wrote in prison for rape.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well said, Brian. I've come to the same perspective as you. The truth is, we don't truly know the people whose work we enjoy. I honestly prefer to just see them as a name and not dig into their personal lives or follow news about them. That's not to say I don't have my limits. I personally draw the line at child abuse, hence why like you I also don't feel comfortable reading Eddings or Bradley. But I have no right to impose that limit on others. I will keep reading what I want, because I know where I stand, regardless of the author's beliefs or actions (the aforementioned exception aside).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for the comments guys. What I was trying to convey (perhaps not well) is that we can decide to separate art from artist--we decide for example that we will continue to read and enjoy Lovecraft, but not Gaiman, or vice-versa (or Malory, as you mention Matthew, also an evident scoundrel). It's not that these aren't issues, just that individual readers are capable of making that decision. And that art will never contain every aspect of the artist.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh, I don't disagree with you. It was just that every time I saw my Sandman trades I thought RAPE and that wasn't pleasant. I completely believe that it should be left to the individual to decide.

    ReplyDelete
  5. To judge a given work by the character of its author is absurd. We are all sinners; some of us are worse than others. If I was to refuse to read, watch, or listen to works because a creator said or did something I find objectionable, there would be nothing left to enjoy. Likewise, I refuse to admire crap just because its creator is someone to be admired. Art must be judged on its own. Ars gratia artis indeed!

    ReplyDelete
  6. So...thanks to Perry's S&S Roundup telling me to read this post of Brian's...this is the first I've learned of something reprehensible Gaiman did. I'm one of those above-mentioned folks who doesn't watch the news and apparently my news feeds didn't include this. Which I guess is good and bad. I don't need an update, I rarely read him, though I am looking forward to season 2 of The Sandman.

    ReplyDelete