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?".

Rolf harris abused children lewis carrol these days would be a paedophille edgar allen poe married a child none of this is right regardless of great works

You do have to look at the law and social norms at the time people did these things. Rolf Harris has been convicted of breaking the law. People who married very young girls (e.g. John Peel, Jerry Lee Lewis, Edgar Allan Poe) all did so within the law. We may feel the law was wrong, but that's because attitudes are different now. If we retrospectively chuck out all the art and other achievements of people whose behaviour would be illegal or abhorrent now, we'd not have much left.

Not very far different from ISIS destroying Nimrud, in fact.

Yeah i understand that i just think the rolf harris thing is just to soon to compare to lewis carrol and Edgar Allen poe iyswim

Jerry Lee Lewis married his underage cousin. I think the timing is too fresh for RH to know what to do.

Springtimemama Your link is about the criminal law. There is a limitation on civil claims - claims for damages brought by victims - three years from age of majority, extendable if e.g. the perp was not worth suing but later becomes so - as in the lottery case - but not here.

Nobody said it was right but if you start throwing out art and literature because the creator was a bit of a cunt/criminal, you're not going to have a lot of culture left. Baby, bathwater anyone?

I disagree. I think there would be plenty left.
And besides, we all have our own moral barometer, so how we view a piece of work will be affected to different degrees by its creator's history.

If I found out someone was an abuser I would try to avoid their works, however I am willing to make some concession towards the moral standard of historical people. In the past it was considered OK to marry at young ages, for example or in ancient times to keep slaves as long as you treated them well. Also I don't think it is very fair to start accusing people like Lewis Carroll of things without really conclusive evidence, as he is not around to defend himself. But it really puts me off people if I find out they are a disgusting old pervert and I want nothing more to do with them.

I dont really care about celebrities being dodgy. Im not asking them to babysit

I feel very comfortable with separating the piece of work from the morally repugnant author, tbh. I would have no problem with sharing this book with my children.

Firstly, is it just child abusers that we're objecting to? Weren't Caravaggio and Ben Johnson (to pick 2 examples) murderers? I wouldn't keep my children from their works for that reason.

Firstly?
I dunno. It's an interesting point about where we individually draw the line around oir comfort zone.

It's a bit of a grey area, whether the work of a paedophile is in some way tainted by their crime. Personally I would feel that the fact Rolf Harris sold books/TVprogrammes/ etc made him money and brought him fame, his fame and money enabled his crimes, allowing him to abuse trust, and protected him from prosecution in a sense. So yes in my view his work is tainted.

The same could be argued for many others - it is harder in historical cases and it is here that I find myself uncomfortable and less sure of my moral stance and have to question whether I am guilty of hypocrisy. I suppose it is easy to say that historical figures such as Lewis Carroll weren't prosecuted so the jury is still out on their behaviour so it is all conjecture. But in reality I think that Carroll's work is unique and a valuable addition to English Literature, I think children and adult's benefit from reading it.

On the other hand although Rolf Harris' book maybe good, I doubt that there aren't equally good art books for children by other authors, it won't be a unique work, so I think deciding to get rid of it because of his behaviour is an easier decision.

I wouldn't buy a new one. But I wouldn't bin an old one. I am still trying to work out what to do with my Rolf Harris portrait of the queen.

I must admit I don't know as much of the history of art and literature as I should so I may not know about the artist's life, but if I found out they had done something I would consider evil, illegal or not, I would avoid their work in future. I'm not saying I would go and burn their book, but I wouldn't share it with my kids.

Have you read about what a shit narcissistic father Lucian freud was to his many children?

Also my favourite Artist, egon scheile, apparently had a very dodgy incestuous relationship with his younger sister

I honestly cant limit myself to only artists with a good moral compass

Lord Byron and his half-sister? I certainly don't want to cut his work out of the libraries.

And besides, we all have our own moral barometer, so how we view a piece of work will be affected to different degrees by its creator's history.

You like to think so, but your morals are only really decided by how much you know about it and how recent it is. If it was in the papers its bad, and if you haven't personally heard, you don't go looking. If you really cared that much about who was producing the culture you consume, you'd research the life of every author you read and every artist before you go to a museum.

I would put a plain cover in the book if I wanted to keep it. I wouldn't want to draw any attention to him as a personality - but I'd feel OK about keeping the content of the book. (I'm assuming it doesn't have lots more pictures of him inside).

So difficult. I had a huge dither about William Mayne- and reread looking to see if there was any indication of his "preferences" but couldn't find any. And A Parcel of Trees was so important to me as a child I felt that was more relevant to whether I gave it to my children than anything else. Sadly, my dd didn't enjoy it at all, so it ceased to be an issue!

Just to set the record straight, Marion Zimmer Bradley wasn't herself convicted of anything- but stood by her husband who was.

I think my point stands though madreloco
Eveyone has a different degree to which things affect them. Some of it will be based on knowledge, some on personal values.
Like free range eggs/ organic meat/ vegetarianism/ recycling.....
We all feel differently about different things. What is "ok" for oneperson might not be for another.

MZB wasn't convicted of child abuse (unlike her husband), but after her death her daughter made detailed and generally believed allegations that she had been sexually abused by her mother.

I think theres an elemtn of hysteria here.

The man is a paedophile. We get that. And I think we can all agree that you shouldn't sing his praises or even refer to him in a particularly warm way in front of anyone, let alone your children.

However, I fail to understand why a fictional story that you clearly enjoy should be binned and forgotten just because of the personal exploits of the author. Unless its a book detailing his abuses, I think you should just reads it to your kids.

I get the point about his face on it though - so why not get the book recovered so they cant see it?

I don't detect much hysteria. In fact, I'm pleasantly surprised by how calmly both opposite viewpoints have been aired here.

It seems a bit ridiculous to cover a book just to avoid seeing a face. For me, it's kind of intriguing, seeing a talented man whose humour and good nature entertained millions including me, and realising he had a dark side. But then don't we all have a lovely side and an ugly side that we hope the world will never see (even if nowhere near the depravity of what RH did)?

I was thinking of this the other day. I was humming a RH song, before it twigged that it was a RH song.

I think it's a bit sad that these things are now tainted for us. But it's obviously not as sad that we might have a feeling of unease when hearing a song, or reading a book, as it is sad for those whose childhoods were ruined by him. (I know that's clumsily worded; I'm very tired, but hopefully my meaning is clear.)

If the recent film by Mike Lee is to be believed, Turner raped his housekeeper.

Ultimately, I think all human beings have capacity for good and evil. And the fact that someone might do an evil thing does not mean that the creativity they displayed is less wonderful, or beautiful.

It's very tricky.