5 ms·

>And then it all went bad. The Daily Telegraph, following up on biographical discrepancy in a BBC documentary, uncovered proof that Patrick O’Brian…was not Patr

by nabbed 2mo ago

>And then it all went bad. The Daily Telegraph, following up on biographical discrepancy in a BBC documentary, uncovered proof that Patrick O’Brian…was not Patrick O’Brian. About 15 years ago, I decided to know as little as possible about the musicians/artists/writers whose work I was consuming, because I didn't want my enjoyment of their work to be influenced or spoiled by what I knew about them (even superficial things, e.g., how they looked). I remember mentioning that to a co-worker, when discussing a band I had just learned about and enjoyed, and he pointed out that by insisting on maintaining ignorance, I could be funding a very bad person. I figured if the person was bad enough, the information would get to me somehow.

SanjayMehta 2mo ago
> he pointed out that by insisting on maintaining ignorance, I could be funding a very bad person Does your friend use a smartphone? He could be funding very bad people. https://voiceofenvironment.com/2019/06/21/conflict-minerals-smartphone-dark-side/ https://voiceofenvironment.com/2019/06/21/conflict-minerals-...
JoeDaDude 2mo ago
The "human connection to the artist" is believed to be important by some, but I disagree. People tend to create an image of a musician and are too often disappointed because, for example, they disapprove of the musician's lifestyle (the expression sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll exists for a reason), or because of disagreement with the social or political causes the musicians support. Occasionally, fans follow an artist for their commitment to their art later to discover they sell out, like their style changes to pursue mass appeal, or they sell their work to become a jingle for sugar pops or similar. I think it is best to appreciate an artist's creation and leave it at that. To quote a film, I think it is best to "separate the art from the artist".
- Nursie 2mo ago
  I don't, especially when the artist flows into the art. Take H.P. Lovecraft. Very big name in supernatural horror, created Great Cthulu and various other tropes that survive and are influential to today. Famously misogynistic and racist. Particularly on the racism side it's not really even fair to say he was 'of his time', it seems to go beyond that. And it's all there in the fiction. Fear of the other, racist tropes about clothing and appearance and mistrust of women. The works are pretty amazing, he spins an atmosphere so well. His ideas of horrors beyond time and space are well realised (with a lot of emphasis on what is not seen) and his dreamy fantasy sequences really work and draw me into a dreamlike state. But they're all run through with racist stereotypes about people (or demons) with darker skin or racialised features. Does this mean no Cthulu for anyone? I don't believe that's a good answer either, but I also don't believe one should consume the art in ignorance. (And I very much enjoyed reading Lovecraft Country a few years back)
  - the_af 2mo ago
    Some authors are indeed very hard to separate from their work, and Lovecraft is one of them. I still enjoy reading him, but I always struggle reading his passages about mongrels, halfbreeds or dark skinned people being evil or deceitful, because that's what he truly believed. So yes, it flowed into what he wrote. A much less odious -- and better! -- writer who I also had trouble with was Jack London, who also wrote some racist descriptions of blacks and Native Americans, doubly troubling because he was a socialist.
    - abnercoimbre 2mo ago
      I drink it all in. It enhances the art for me while making sure I sharpen my own ethics (“don’t ever wanna believe the B.S. this person did.”)
      - fluoridation 2mo ago
        I couldn't really stand Lovecraft's style, but I'm with you. I'd read it like I read an ironic racist comment on 4chan and chuckle to myself.
        the_af 2mo ago
        I get what you're saying. The problem is that I cannot stand ironic (or otherwise) racists comments on 4chan, so reading it like that wouldn't be a saving grace for Lovecraft. I actually find 4chan more grating. I appreciate Lovecraft, especially for the influence it had on other writers, on comics, tabletop and video games; and some of this stories are pretty good (e.g. The Color Out of Space, The Outsider). But it's really hard to swallow his racism and xenophobia, especially since as mentioned by others, it cannot simply be excused by saying he was "a man of his time". He was xenophobic even for his time.
        fluoridation 2mo ago
        I guess you have to have the right outlook for it. An ironic comment is (supposed to be) funny because it makes you think "haha, what if someone actually said that?" In Lovecraft's case there's no irony to it, so I think it helps to try to empathize with him. Why is he like this? He's not just some monster that hates/fears people for no reason. There must be a reason, and it's probably either his upbringing or his lifestyle. At that point, at least for me, it can no longer evoke disgust, and it just causes either pity or laughter, like listening to a flat-earther.
- jimnotgym 2mo ago
  Indeed, unless the artist is some kind of moralist, where i may be concerned about hypocrisy, I believe their public appearance to be part of the act, what they are like at home is none of my business.
bigstrat2003 2mo ago
> he pointed out that by insisting on maintaining ignorance, I could be funding a very bad person. I don't consider that to be something worth worrying about. On the contrary, I find the obsession that some have with moral purity and not ever supporting the wrong type of person to be a serious mark of immaturity. Every person, without exception, is a collection of both good and bad traits. I believe that the adult thing to do is to encourage and reward the good, while discouraging and punishing the bad. When I support an artist's work, I do not thereby endorse everything that person does. I think that the desire to reduce everyone to "good guy" or "bad guy" (and acting towards them accordingly) is literally the sort of thing one would expect from a child, not an adult who has learned to have some nuance in thinking.
- Nursie 2mo ago
  I think the desire to not have to be accountable for ones choices and their effect on the world is also childlike, personally. One of the powers we have in this capitalist world is to decide where our money goes. If there's a decent chance it'll end up perpetuating something I find massively objectionable, it's my choice not to fund that. Beyond that it's not just about reducing everything to good or bad, it's also about understanding the context of the works you're consuming. Sometimes the author's life, prejudices and mores seep into the work, and put a new spin on the characters and scenarios.
  - teddyh 2mo ago
    > One of the powers we have in this capitalist world is to decide where our money goes. If there's a decent chance it'll end up perpetuating something I find massively objectionable, it's my choice not to fund that. “I believe that almost everyone fails to completely understand how badly they need the people they can’t stand.” — Jason K. Pargin: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3GzrYI8Tj4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3GzrYI8Tj4>
    - Nursie 2mo ago
      “It's not easy being green.” - Kermit The Frog: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRZ-IxZ46ng https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRZ-IxZ46ng> Eh, I'm not watching a video to see a quote from someone I've never heard of and have no particular reason to value. And whatever he might have to say, I'm not reliant on the work of a specific author, which is the context here. Nor do I buy into "you can't survive without relying on/funding some people you disagree with therefore you shouldn't seek to act consistently with your own ethics in any regard" as a philosophy.

by nabbed 2mo ago

SanjayMehta 2mo ago

> he pointed out that by insisting on maintaining ignorance, I could be funding a very bad person Does your friend use a smartphone? He could be funding very bad people. https://voiceofenvironment.com/2019/06/21/conflict-minerals-smartphone-dark-side/ https://voiceofenvironment.com/2019/06/21/conflict-minerals-...

JoeDaDude 2mo ago

The "human connection to the artist" is believed to be important by some, but I disagree. People tend to create an image of a musician and are too often disappointed because, for example, they disapprove of the musician's lifestyle (the expression sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll exists for a reason), or because of disagreement with the social or political causes the musicians support. Occasionally, fans follow an artist for their commitment to their art later to discover they sell out, like their style changes to pursue mass appeal, or they sell their work to become a jingle for sugar pops or similar. I think it is best to appreciate an artist's creation and leave it at that. To quote a film, I think it is best to "separate the art from the artist".

Nursie 2mo ago
I don't, especially when the artist flows into the art. Take H.P. Lovecraft. Very big name in supernatural horror, created Great Cthulu and various other tropes that survive and are influential to today. Famously misogynistic and racist. Particularly on the racism side it's not really even fair to say he was 'of his time', it seems to go beyond that. And it's all there in the fiction. Fear of the other, racist tropes about clothing and appearance and mistrust of women. The works are pretty amazing, he spins an atmosphere so well. His ideas of horrors beyond time and space are well realised (with a lot of emphasis on what is not seen) and his dreamy fantasy sequences really work and draw me into a dreamlike state. But they're all run through with racist stereotypes about people (or demons) with darker skin or racialised features. Does this mean no Cthulu for anyone? I don't believe that's a good answer either, but I also don't believe one should consume the art in ignorance. (And I very much enjoyed reading Lovecraft Country a few years back)
- the_af 2mo ago
  Some authors are indeed very hard to separate from their work, and Lovecraft is one of them. I still enjoy reading him, but I always struggle reading his passages about mongrels, halfbreeds or dark skinned people being evil or deceitful, because that's what he truly believed. So yes, it flowed into what he wrote. A much less odious -- and better! -- writer who I also had trouble with was Jack London, who also wrote some racist descriptions of blacks and Native Americans, doubly troubling because he was a socialist.
  - abnercoimbre 2mo ago
    I drink it all in. It enhances the art for me while making sure I sharpen my own ethics (“don’t ever wanna believe the B.S. this person did.”)
    - fluoridation 2mo ago
      I couldn't really stand Lovecraft's style, but I'm with you. I'd read it like I read an ironic racist comment on 4chan and chuckle to myself.
      - the_af 2mo ago
        I get what you're saying. The problem is that I cannot stand ironic (or otherwise) racists comments on 4chan, so reading it like that wouldn't be a saving grace for Lovecraft. I actually find 4chan more grating. I appreciate Lovecraft, especially for the influence it had on other writers, on comics, tabletop and video games; and some of this stories are pretty good (e.g. The Color Out of Space, The Outsider). But it's really hard to swallow his racism and xenophobia, especially since as mentioned by others, it cannot simply be excused by saying he was "a man of his time". He was xenophobic even for his time.
        fluoridation 2mo ago
        I guess you have to have the right outlook for it. An ironic comment is (supposed to be) funny because it makes you think "haha, what if someone actually said that?" In Lovecraft's case there's no irony to it, so I think it helps to try to empathize with him. Why is he like this? He's not just some monster that hates/fears people for no reason. There must be a reason, and it's probably either his upbringing or his lifestyle. At that point, at least for me, it can no longer evoke disgust, and it just causes either pity or laughter, like listening to a flat-earther.
jimnotgym 2mo ago
Indeed, unless the artist is some kind of moralist, where i may be concerned about hypocrisy, I believe their public appearance to be part of the act, what they are like at home is none of my business.

bigstrat2003 2mo ago

> he pointed out that by insisting on maintaining ignorance, I could be funding a very bad person. I don't consider that to be something worth worrying about. On the contrary, I find the obsession that some have with moral purity and not ever supporting the wrong type of person to be a serious mark of immaturity. Every person, without exception, is a collection of both good and bad traits. I believe that the adult thing to do is to encourage and reward the good, while discouraging and punishing the bad. When I support an artist's work, I do not thereby endorse everything that person does. I think that the desire to reduce everyone to "good guy" or "bad guy" (and acting towards them accordingly) is literally the sort of thing one would expect from a child, not an adult who has learned to have some nuance in thinking.

Nursie 2mo ago
I think the desire to not have to be accountable for ones choices and their effect on the world is also childlike, personally. One of the powers we have in this capitalist world is to decide where our money goes. If there's a decent chance it'll end up perpetuating something I find massively objectionable, it's my choice not to fund that. Beyond that it's not just about reducing everything to good or bad, it's also about understanding the context of the works you're consuming. Sometimes the author's life, prejudices and mores seep into the work, and put a new spin on the characters and scenarios.
- teddyh 2mo ago
  > One of the powers we have in this capitalist world is to decide where our money goes. If there's a decent chance it'll end up perpetuating something I find massively objectionable, it's my choice not to fund that. “I believe that almost everyone fails to completely understand how badly they need the people they can’t stand.” — Jason K. Pargin: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3GzrYI8Tj4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3GzrYI8Tj4>
  - Nursie 2mo ago
    “It's not easy being green.” - Kermit The Frog: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRZ-IxZ46ng https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRZ-IxZ46ng> Eh, I'm not watching a video to see a quote from someone I've never heard of and have no particular reason to value. And whatever he might have to say, I'm not reliant on the work of a specific author, which is the context here. Nor do I buy into "you can't survive without relying on/funding some people you disagree with therefore you shouldn't seek to act consistently with your own ethics in any regard" as a philosophy.