Fantasy Book Critic: GUEST POST: Bad People, Good Art by James Lloyd Dulin

Let's start with the understanding that even the framing of this title is disingenuous and lacks nuance. What is good art? Or, for that matter, a bad person? Are we defined by our worst actions? Can people change?

It all has to do with the way we relate to the person being defined. From the vantage point of someone who has been harmed by another's “bad behavior,” it's easy to see how one might label their perpetrator and similar people as bad. Juxtapose that to a loved one who knows the “bad person” outside of the context of their actions. I assume their view of the bad actor will be more nuanced and leave room for that person to be more than their actions.

What happens when we consume someone's bad actions from the sidelines? Do we empathize with the victim and label their victimizer a bad person? Do we identify as a person who loves or likes the victimizer and leave room for them to be more?

I think this choice is an individual one. However, just because a choice belongs to an individual doesn't mean it won't come with social consequences. There are many factors at play when deciding how to relate to an artist who has acted badly in a public way:

- personal trauma,

- political stances,

- parasocial relationships.

If you decide to publicly consume and support art produced by a “bad person,” many of the same factors that came into play when people defined their view of the artist will also factor into how they view you. This is not a value statement of whether or not that should be the case. It is instead an observational statement.

Everyone has trauma, and we use our experiences to evaluate whether the people in our lives are safe. Those who have experienced trauma related to the harm an artist inflicted on their victim(s) often feel obligated to use people's public opinions of bad actors as a factor in judging whether someone is a safe person in their lives.

For example, if you post your Hogwarts house in your social media bio, a trans person or trans ally may take that public support of Harry Potter and by extension, JK Rowling, as a statement of support for her transphobic views and behaviors. Do they know you, your views, and your personhood based on a silly comment about something you related to as a child? No, they don't have a full picture of you as a person. However, they might not have the luxury to give you the benefit of the doubt when there is rampant violence and hostility aimed at trans people. They may feel they have to read the signs of how you present publicly to determine whether you would be a safe person.

Likewise, if you continue to review Neil Giaman’s works in light of the many accusations of sexual assault, survivors of sexual assault might reconsider their relationships with you.
Just because you can compartmentalize a person’s art from their actions doesn’t mean everyone can. Or wants to.

As our online presence grows, the rate at which we form parasocial relationships with public figures has deepened. Celebrities share their diets, their romantic lives, and embarrassing stories of who they were as a child, and we believe we know them. We grow attached because their art has meant so much to us, and we feel an emotional resonance with them as an artist.

Due to our increasingly parasocial relationships with public figures, many of us struggle when we learn about their bad behavior. Their actions don't comport with the people we built up in our heads. So when someone speaks negatively about them, we respond as if someone is attacking a friend or family member rather than criticizing a stranger. This may lead to us giving an abuser more credit while we discredit their victims.

(Image credit Joss Whedon Twitter)

So what does this all mean? Does this mean I am telling everyone to stop reading Neil Gaiman, listening to Michael Jackson, and watching Joss Whedon movies?

Not necessarily. I believe that the consumption of art is a nuanced decision. We should consume art created by people we disagree with. I also think we should take into account whether the bad actor is financially benefiting from our consumption and if supporting them might help them continue their bad behavior.

In the case of J.K. Rowling, she benefits financially with every new Harry Potter project, and uses her money to support anti-trans groups and legislation. In fact, she has publicly announced her intensions to use her profits from the new HBO series to create an anti-trans advocacy organization. As opposed to Michael Jackson, who is no longer alive and can no longer financially benefit or cause harm.

Additionally, we have to consider private vs. public consumption. In what venue are we consuming art, and will there be people that can be negatively affected by our consumption in those spaces? In general, we need to think about our public consumption as an action and consider the consequences of it.

There is a difference between rewatching Annie Hall in the privacy of your home and doing a deep-dive YouTube review on the “brilliance” of Woody Allen’s script. We throw up signs every day of who we are, whether it is the cover of the book we have on the train or the post we make about how much we enjoyed a controversial video game. Just as we are free to choose the art we consume, others are able to make judgments about what that might mean about who we are.

Fair or not, it's true.

It can hurt when someone we felt a kinship with is accused of doing something terrible and the art we loved is subjected to mass critique. However, in most cases, we do not know the accused. So I personally try to think about the choices I make in relation to their art, how I display my choices to the world, the messages I am sending, and negotiate if I am comfortable with the consequences of my choices.

Some like to reframe all of these discussions as cancel culture. However, I would argue people have been making decisions about what art to consume and how to consume it since the beginning of art. The factors at play are different. The public nature of our consumption is different. But there have always been reasons why people make choices about art and peer pressure surrounding those choices.

I would argue the framing of things as cancel culture has more to do with who is being critiqued rather than the act of critiquing. Oscar Wilde was jailed for his sexuality, and I have no doubt that became a factor in how or if people read his works. Neil Gaiman has been accused of horrific sexual abuse and violence. However, he is a rich, straight, white man, and we have only recently begun to hold those with the most power accountable in public ways. The act of turning public critique on artists with more power in society is newer.

At the end of the day, I don't think anyone should dictate how others consume art. However, I do think that our choices, especially those we make in public, have consequences.

I read a quote, and I wish I could credit it but have been unable to find it again, that helped me think about my personal approach to art I have loved created by artists who have done great harm. "Don’t put your nostalgia for a piece of art over the reality of other people’s futures."

Official Author Website

Read Fantasy book Critic's review of No Heart For A Thief

OFFICIAL AUTHOR INFORMATION: James is a nerd with a head full of stories and limited time to put them on the page. He grew up in Grand Rapids, MI, spending an excessive amount of time at a local community theater where he developed his affinity for storytelling. This affinity grew into a deep admiration for language and spoken word poetry while studying mathematics and education at the University of Michigan. He firmly believes that art—even silly books about magic, or maybe especially silly books about magic—has the ability to tell stories that sink beneath the surface.