“On March 10, 1977…Roman Polanski brought Samatha Bailey to his friend Jack Nicholson’s house in the Hollywood Hills. He urged her into the Jacuzzi, encouraged her to strip, gave her a Quaalude, followed her to where she sat on a couch, penetrated her, shifted his position, penetrated her anally, ejaculated. All of these details piled up, but I was left with a simple fact: anal rape of a thirteen-year-old.” (p. 3)
Claire Dederer explores a question that has been raised on this blog occasionally–most incisively by Deb–how can you enjoy a novel, painting, movie, or sculpture when you know the artist is a monster? Dederer starts with Roman Polanski and moves on to Woody Allen, Michael Jackson, the anti-LGBTQ+ stance of J. K. Rowling, and other Big Name artists.
Dederer brings up Doris Lessing–who abandoned two of her children–and Joni Mitchell who sings about her child on Blue. The various mis-deeds of Raymond Carver and Miles Davis concludes Dederer’s study.
Artists are not saints. Dederer wonders if she’s a monster because she loves some of the movies, novels, paintings, and music created by people who have done some Bad Things.
In her brilliant comment on Michael Dirda’s article “predicting” writers who would stay relevant, Deb pretty much nails the crux of this dilemma:
“As for Saul Bellow and Philip Roth, it will be interesting to see how future critical opinion addresses ongoing accusations of misogyny, sexism and racism in their work.
Years ago, I remember posting something to the effect that now humanities majors were so often women rather than men, male authors who had been utter pigs toward women in their personal lives (regardless of their perceived liberal political outlooks) would not fare well in posterity. No one want to read the books of a man who almost stabbed his wife to death (Mailer) or was serially unfaithful (Bellow) or who served his wife with a petty itemized list of reimbursements he expected from her, including the down payment for her car (Roth). Women don’t want to waste their time reading books written by men like that.
I may have been on to something.”
What do you think? GRADE: A
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
- Prologue: The Child Rapist: Roman Polanski — 3
- Roll Call: Woody Allen — 14
- The Stain: Michael Jackson — 40
- The Fan: J. K. Rowling — 51
- The Critic: Clare Dederer — 61
- The Genius: Pablo Picasso, Ernest Hemingway — 81
- The Anti-Semite, the Racist, and the Problem of Time: Richard Wagner, Virginia Woolf, Willa Cather — 112
- The Anti-Monster: Vladimir Nabokov — 134
- The Silencer and the Silenced: Carl Andre, Ana Medieta — 151
- Am I a Monster? — 160
- Abandoning Mothers: Doris Lessing, Joni Mitchell — 175
- Lady Lazarus: Valerie Solana’s, Sylvia Plath – 210
- Drunks: Raymond Carver — 225
- The Beloveds: Miles Davis — 243
- Acknowledgments — 259
- Notes — 261
I think the issue of famdom and what it means to be a fan are crucial to the conversation. Calling oneself a fan conjures up a fabricated relationship between the creator and consumer that doesn’t exist and invariably distorts one’s perception of both the art and the person who created it. People also identify themselves by their cultural consumption which can get increasingly intertwined with their fantasy relationship with creators so fans tend to get only more delusional and defensive of their favorite atists as criticism of that person increases and the rise of social media has only exasperated the problem.
At the same time social media has shown that people, particularly younger people, form their self-identities and sense of community much more quickly and independent of mainstream culture than ever before. A lot of Rowling’s fans grew up with social media where they formed their sense of sexuality, gender and ideologies somewhat collectively after they’d read her books as children so it was much easier for them to disown her than it would have been a decade or two earlier (I’ve known some hardcore fans and they’ve all dropped her HARD).
I’ve always been fairly critical about the culture I enjoy and typically maintain a certain detachment about it. I can love a movie, a book or piece of music but have never felt the need to wrap myself up in it let alone the person who created it. I’ve NEVER had the desire to imagine a connection between an artist and myself. The question of whether or not someone can and should enjoy the work of monsters is strictly a personal one. I’m not going to police anyone but neither am I going to let anyone bullshit me in their defense of a person neither of us knows.
Byron, as you rightly point out, fans fabricate a relationship between the creator and the consumer. Just look at the extreme fan reactions to Taylor Swift’s latest concert tour. Claire Dederer’s book explores Bad Actors and their art. Rowling’s stance on the LGBQT+ community lost her a lot of fans.
What the sin was clearly matters. What happened to Al Franken was way out of proportion to his “sin.” But Matt Laurie or Roman Polanski or James Franco deserve more punishment than mere public ostracization. Sadly if we go back in time, we would have to exclude a lot of music, art, etc if we made decisions based on male behavior. And we looked at it very differently in earlier times-thinking along the lines that boys will be boys. I still hear that in my age group.
Patti, Diane hated that “Boys will be Boys” excuse when her Principals–under parental pressure–dismissed Bad Behavior in the classroom. Just as the Catholic Church “managed” the sexual abuse by priests by moving them around, organizations cover up the crimes of their money-makers like Harvey Weinstein. Or look the Other Way in the case of billionaires like Jeffrey Epstein.
Well, George, Epstein was Providing a Service, so he was excused when not actively blackmailing people.
Gils will be girls, too, if less commonly, perhaps. Blithe assumptions that abuse Doesn’t Really Matter are pretty damned common, since abuse is, as well.
Todd, I’m totally convinced that Jeffrey Epstein was killed. All the cameras weren’t working??? No one check on Epstein until he was well dead? It stinks to High Heaven!
Mostly I just don’t take this stuff too seriously. Some of these artists are people I never gave a rat’s ass about in the first place–Jackson, Rowling, Lessing, etc. I just don’t believe the shit I’ve heard about Allen and would take his word over that of his psychotic ex any day. What Polanski did was (if true) pretty awful, but Polanski also got screwed–by a judge. Am I gonna stop watching CHINATOWN or ROSEMARY’s BABY? Not a chance. I’m still not too sure what Mitchell is supposed to have done, but I’m definitely not giving up her music. As for the writers, Hemingway, Roth, and Mailer have been among my favorites for fifty years or more, and they still are. Finally, how much do you trust Dederer? I’ve never actually heard of her.
Michael, Claire Dederer provides plenty of documentation for her book. Her point is can we separate the behavior of artists from their work? Dederer admits she has problems with this, too.
For me, George, the key is when the nature of the abusers becomes clear in their work…Miles Davis’s contempt for nearly everyone became Extremely clear by his last years in his performances, for example. Didn’t stop sycophants, whom as I’ve noted before were more fascinated by his clothes/outfits and Attitude than his music anyway, from sycophancy.
Polanski’s hostility to humanity is pretty clear in much of his work, which is still often skillful. Woody Allen’s misogyny was always hard to miss, at least for me even when a child. J. K. Rowling…well, I wasn’t able to get past the opening chapters of the first Potter novel, so blatant was its Roald Dahl retreading, and he’s another whose hostility to humanity was hard to miss even in his worthwhile work.
You can separate the work from the artist when its at the most abstract, such as much of music without lyrics, but when narrative enters the equation, it’s usually clear, to at least some degree, what the artist Actually Thinks. And then you choose what you want. Or, pretend, as at least one commenter has, that nothing bad could possibly be true of their old fave.
Todd, in the case of Miles Davis, I think he’s the poster child for mental illness caused by excessive drug use.
Even in his early career, he had more Attitude than was good for him, or certainly for anyone else in his life. Probably even earlier than that.
I recall the feelings of an immature boy in his early-teens, back around 1964, thrilled by Truman Capote’s OTHER VOICES, OTHER ROOMS, then shocked to learn that Capote was (gasp!) GAY!
Dan, I had the same reaction to learning Truman Capote’s sexual orientation (after reading IN COLD BLOOD).
What Patti said is true. Just look at Picasso, who reveled in his bad behavior. Or Hemingway.
As for Woody Allen, I never believed Mia Farrow’s claims. Yeah, his behavior with his then-unofficial “stepdaughter” is creepy and probably unforgivable to many, but it is NOT the same as the child rape Mia accused him of. Certain people are beyond the pale, personally, like Polanski. I wouldn’t pay money today to see one of his movies, but no, it wouldn’t stop me watching CHINATOWN or REPULSION again.
Waiting for Deb to check in.
Jeff, like you I am skeptical of Mia Farrow’s claims. With all the available women in the world, why would you choose your unofficial “stepdaughter”? I’m baffled by some people’s choices.
I’m not at all certain that we get to be completely Skeptical of accusations thus about a guy who consistently tried to pretend, in his work, that rape or at least lesser forms of similar assault were hilarious, and that any women who would rebuff his loser persona was clearly an idiot at best.
Or, woman.
Wow—thank you, George. I feel like a minor celebrity: actually being quoted in a George Kelley post! It’s like the old days when I’d get a “Hat Tip” on Bill Crider’s blog. Anyway, to the subject at hand, I think my quote pretty much sums up my feelings: separating the dancer from the dance is rarely possible when you’re talking about a recent artist, especially if they’re still living. The further we are from the time in which the artist lived, the less their behavior will generally impact our enjoyment of their work. For example, in her biography of Samuel Pepys, Claire Tomalin makes it clear that some of the women Pepys had relationships with were extremely young, and, by the standards of our era, he would definitely have been accused of molesting a child. Am I going to refrain from reading Pepys diaries? No. I can’t change what Pepys did 350 years ago—and my purchase of his diaries won’t benefit him in any way. On the other hand, I’ll be interested in seeing how HBO (I think it is) is going to handle Rowling’s doubling-down on her ridiculous anti-trans TERF-ing position when they start filming the Harry Potter reboots. I’m guessing they’ll be able to cast plenty of young, struggling actors, but good luck getting anyone A-list. I know my daughters—who grew up with Harry Potter and were huge Potterheads—are completely done with Rowling, and I’m guessing they’re not the only ones of the generation (born in the 1990s) to feel that way.
TL;DR: It’s easier to overlook the bad behavior of an artist from an earlier time. When we’re discussing contemporary artists, it’s hard to square enjoying their work with what we know of their behavior/outlooks/beliefs, etc.
Deb, I totally agree with your position on this issue. Time does change things. So does the factor of whether or not the Bad Behavior artist benefits from our buying tickets to the movie or play or musical; or buying the book or painting or sculpture.
One last comment regarding Joni Mitchell (the queen of my teenage years—and the only artist whose autograph I have and cherish): I’m not sure what she’s supposed to have done. She did have a child out-of-wedlock in the early-1960s—and, like most women in that situation at that time, she gave her child up for adoption. She did reconnect with her daughter later in their lives (the daughter was married and had children of her own by this time). Based on what I can remember in the book GIRLS LIKE US, Joni’s relationship with her daughter has been fairly rocky, but I’m not aware of anything Joni has done that would alienate or appall her fans.
From what little I know of Mitchell’s situation, she was more sinned against than sinning, indeed. Not compelled to give up her child at gunpoint, but not too much better.
Deb, I guessing Claire Dederer was trying to “balance” her arguments by including women. I agree with you: Joni Mitchell and her child are a stretch.
If Dederer really wanted to find a female example of a “bad” person who was a good artist, I would suggest she look at Marion Zimmer Bradley, the SF/Fantasy writer perhaps best known for her feminist/female take on Arthurian legend, THE MISTS OF AVALON. I probably read that book ten times in the 1980s—but later revelations about Bradley’s behavior (both in enabling her pedophile husband to prey on little boys and her own abusive behavior towards her children) made my skin crawl every time I saw the book on my “Keeper Shelf”. There’s no way I could ever read THE MISTS OF AVALON today.
Deb, like you I found the stories of Marion Zimmer Bradley and her husbands exploits appalling.
As you know, I won’t watch or listen to or read anything from a Scientologist! I have no problem with Woody Allen and apparently a lot of people have no problem with Michael Jackson the Child Molester! I guess we each pick our villains!
Bob, sounds like you believe Evil is in the eye of the beholder.
No, evil is evil no matter what! Some folks are just not allowing themselves to be swayed by it!
The fictional TAR stands in for all the women who may have sexually harmed others. But if we step outside sexual abuse and look at emotional or psychological abuse we can find many women guilty. Some of us lived with them. (Not me).