The argument made by the article is that each of us ought to be able to choose our own way to deal with this. But, instead, we are denied that opportunity because publishers/distributors/editors/agents/directors/producers/newspapers/etc are "severing all ties" and going further by expunging the existence of the guilty party as far as possible.
I agree with the article. I don't think much of Roman Polanki as a human being, but I've watched most of his movies and I think many of them are spectacularly good. And, no, I don't think his movies are permeated by some kind of inappropriate lust for teenage girls. Bad people can make good art. Bad people have made good art.
If it came to light that Shakespeare had been an abusive husband, would you think less of his plays and poems? Would you support publishers if they chose to stop printing Shakespeare? What if they stopped distribution of what had been printed? What if amazon stopped selling Shakespeare?
I support your right to boycott, but I think restricting my ability to not boycott is going too far.
Shakespeare might have been a douche. He might’ve used his success in the theatre as an effective means to abuse others and get away with it. We don’t know. What we do know is that that does happen in our society—and it is a social dynamic we ought to change. This inaccessibilité of some works is a consequence. I doubt it will last indefinitely. I don’t think anyone is actually making the straw man argument Shriver is attacking on the article—people aren’t interested in saying there’s some innate connection between the moral quality of artists and the quality of their work—they’re realizing the power of popularity and attempting to bring justice to those who have abuséd that power.
Is it really a problem specific to our society that being famous/rich/talented/pretty/etc allows people to, sometimes literally, get away with murder?
> The révocation of works is not some abstract association between morals and the value of artworks as such—it is the concrete fallout of our particular situation and the realization that in our particular society wide distribution grants you some form of power that plenty of assholes have used to abuse other human beings and skirt the legal repercussions.
It seems facile to say that it's bad that "powerful assholes can abuse their power and then skirt the repercussions". I think we're all in agreement about that. In a just world, no matter how rich or famous you are, if you do the crime, you will be caught and punished. The question is: how do we bring about that world?
Our justice/legal system is a series of compromises. I think we've basically made the right compromises. I'm open to people questioning those compromises, to people suggesting new compromises or rethinking the old ones. At the same time I'm skeptical that there are easy solutions that would result in a fairer society. I also don't see a lot of what I would describe as "useful and productive questioning" on this subject.
Furthermore, some of this stuff has nothing to do with crimes at all. Roseanne Barr saying something racist is not a crime.
> people aren’t interested in saying there’s some innate connection between the moral quality of artists and the quality of their work
The comment I responded to is making this exact argument. Lots of the outrage about Cosby/Louie CK/Polanski/etc makes the argument that their work is rife with vileness.
A boycott. Don't buy the stuff.
Seriously, the core of the problem is not moral judgement (although that may be worthy discussing at a second, non-fire emergency, time.
The problem is automatic moral contagion. A publisher may make the approximate market or moral guess that it should suspend its relationship with an author. But a literary agent doing the same at lightning speed is deferring moral judgement to the amorphous crowd, the "They". And the "They" is structurally incapable of thought, let alone moral thought. The consequence is bookstores getting caught in the wave and erasing traces of the author's existence.
I never thought Ayn Rand's Fountainhead, which seemed so overwrought and sanctimonious ten years ago, had this much wisdom about human nature. Search wikiquote for some choice rambling about "second handers".
It's really badly written too, so it's a shame human behavior is making it more prescient and deeper than, say, 1984.
> But a literary agent doing the same at lightning speed is deferring moral judgement to the amorphous crowd
Is that not the same thing? Boycotts affect distributors, producers, agents, etc. Who wants to hire an agent that represents X, Y, or Z? That public radio station could leave his recordings online, and suffer the consequences of donors not donating. I can not-watch a show on Netflix that I don't like, or I can cancel my subscription.
These are the effects of a boycott.
That said, her acute pessimism about mob human behavior appears to be dead-on.
If Sorkin wrote a play and a would be serial killer was cast as the protagonist , I will have a hard time liking the play when the actualities play out. This is probably wrong and contradicts what i wrote before because i am attributing the integrity of the play with one single actors behavior.
Its not easy. Does some one have a better way to deal with this.