Can I share this book with my children despite who it's by?

[DadDadDad]

"Every Picture Tells a Story" is a book about famous paintings with reproductions of a number of interesting and striking examples. The author adds humorous child-friendly commentary, and as he is an artist himself, he adds further sketches and insights (including a few autobiographical details). We've had it for years and I've always thought it a good book to share with children (although my DC seem to have limited interest in the subject ).

Anyway, your eyes have probably jumped straight here to the "punchline", that the author is Rolf Harris - there he is smiling with some children on the cover. In a way, I don't have a problem with it - the work stands on its own whatever horrible things the author has done. But would you just throw it in the bin? The AIBU is: "AIBU to leave a book with RH's face and name on the cover lying around where children will read it, despite its completely innocent content?".

Some interesting points here.

I didn't know that information about Marion Zimmer Bradley either
www.theguardian.com/books/2004/may/27/childprotection.uk

X-post about Oscar Muskey.

As I say, no consensus has been reached about Dodgson/Carroll. Interestingly, discussions have also taken place regarding J.M. Barrie.
We don't know, and we'll probably never know, but nobody is going to take their books out of print, and very few would stop reading them.

Maybe its all in the timing.

And maybe this highlights the point that so many men are partial to "yong girls"
Maybe.

I dont think I could knowing what he has done especially if there are pictures of him with children which could have been victims of his.

and to the person who mentioned the lost prophets singer - I used to love their music, saw them live and had a song as a ringtone, was a pretty big fan. I deleted and threw away all their music/merchandise. he is a disgusting man and I hope he rots. I would judge anyone who carried on listening to their music.

I don't check every artist/author my daughters or I like but once u know what they have done it makes it very difficult to enjoy their work.

Tondelayo

I would now never knowingly contribute to the financial success of someone known to abuse women or children but otherwise I do divorce the art from the artist.

There are potential civil claims against RH and the more he has the more he can pay.

In fact I doubt if any will be launched. Limitation will block them. This is not like the Rapist Who Won The Lottery - he's been there and rich for decades and I doubt if the time limit would be extended as it was in the lottery case. Limitation has not been pleaded in the claims against Savile - the charities and family members to whom he left his estate have chosen not to do so - but RH probably would.

Er, is there evidence that so many men are partial to young girls, as amanda implies?

Er, I dunno. I doubt it. I mean, how would such evidnce be gathered?
But, ImO, it is not unusual for men to be sexually attracted to girls who are below the age of consent, certainly those under 18. Not neccessarily young as in pre pubescent, but yes, young as in teens.
And I think our society is such that men in a position of power (and there are many, given that we live in a patriarchal society) will often abuse their position to satisfy their leanings.
RH? Tip of the iceberg.

Funnily enough I've just done a clear out of books for the charity shop and found one called Funny Animal Stories or some such by RH. Decided to bin it rather than donate it with the others!

When Michael Jackson was in court 10 years or so ago, there was a discussion on the radio about if in the event of a conviction, would his music be shunned in the same way that Gary Glitter's had been. The concensus was that it wouldn't, as the music had more value of its own accord to survive the reputation of the artist. (That particular example didn't unfold that way, but with the doubt upon his reputation, airplay of MJ's music was reduced until his death. Interestingly, with the explosion of his music when he died, many teenagers who had heard little of the music and more of the reputation suddenly lapped up the music based on its own value.)

An existing book where continued ownership or disposal has no effect on the author probably should be judged on its own merit. If it's a decent book of art irrespective of the author, then there is value in keeping it. Something like a memoire, would be more worthy of the recycling bin.

To take a totally made up example, suppose Hitler had gone further with his artistic training and ambitions and painted a beautiful painting, I can't imagine that any art gallery in the world would want it on display

I see that differently, as one of the most important people of the 20th century I'd expect any great paintings by him to be sought after for public display. It would certainly cause a lot of discussion and provide people with more of an insight into the man. Personally I find WW2 fascinating and obviously as part of that I find Hitler a really interesting subject.

Genuine thought here, not being snippy. Why is it simply accepted that Savile was guilty and yet if anyone mentions Michael Jackson it's met with howls of 'he was never convicted!'. Why the double standards? As I say, not being snippy just curious...

If you want the book but not the cover, couldn't you cover it in wrapping/brown paper? You could probably even get some arty paper from a museum gift shop to go with the subject matter if you really wanted to.

Difference between Michael Jackson and Jimmy Savile is that a police investigation after Savile's death declared decisively that he was guilty of many many criminal offences. Hundreds of victims have spoken on the record, though anonymously.

In Jackson's case the hard evidence boils down to one criminal case in which he was acquitted, and one civil case in which the alleged victim was paid off so it never went to trial.

Would I have let MJ anywhere near my son? Hell no! But the evidence is not the same as it was for Savile. You could conceivably believe that it was all an innocent misunderstanding or that the accusers were gold diggers.

What if it was a good book by jimmy saville or a gary glitter record ? I just think ignoring the crime is saying och but his paintings were so nice it doesnt matter it does matter imo

No I wouldn't want that book in my house. For a start I couldn't stand seeing his face on the front cover, it's the same when the news put Savilles picture on the screen, it makes me think of all the lives they have ruined.

Get rid of the book, I'm sure there's an alternative out there.

Interesting dilemma. I loved the song Rock and Roll pt2 but never listen to it now. He always creeped me out as a child.

What about the adults now who had a Jim'll fix it badge as a child?

I'd be grateful that this book has helped your DCs understanding of art, if it upsets you then recover the cover or put it away.

We have a Hitler 'fan' book, you collected the tokens for photos to paste in the pages in the 1930's. It doesn't make me approve of his beliefs or has turned my DCs into Nazis.

Michael Jackson went to court and was found innocent of all charges.

Jimmy Saville would almost definitely be found guilty.

Also, so many came forward after Savilles death, interestingly this has so far not been the same case since Jackson died - to me this speaks volumes.

I find it odd that you should throw out a persons whole life and work because of certain deeds they have done. It doesnt seem to apply to people who have been dead awhile though, if it did, a good half of the classics would be thrown out. A lot of famous painters, poets, writers etc were pretty dodgy people........

Edgar Allan Poe married a 13 year old