Terrible person = terrible at job

[Binglebong]

I've noticed recently that when someone is being recognised as a person you don't like/accused of terrible things (trying not to get sued here!) they are immediately labeled as being rubbish at their job. It's come up here with both David Tennant and now Neil Gaiman who, whatever you think of them as people, are good at what they do. Maybe not to your taste, but still good.

I think denying that is disingenuous but more than that I think it clouds the issue. They are getting away with what they are because they are good at what they do - it's given them a stage, freedom, and adoring fans who will tell then that they can do no wrong. And because they get away with it boundaries are reduced which makes it easier for other, non famous people.

There is also the matter of separating a person from what they produce which is a massive subject that I don't know where to start with, but that's not really the point of this thread. To be honest I'm not sure what is, other than to say that we too must be careful to not rewrite things because we don't like the people involved. I will say though that I'm finding rereads of NG and watching DT no longer provide the same escapism.

Very well put, WhereYouLeftIt. I've had the same experience with those comedians. If you're going to be an outrageous comedian, you have to make sure you're not punching down. But a fervent belief in gender ideology, coupled with the latent misogyny I think we all have, seems to result in a massive blind spot for so many.

Some really good points on here that make perfect sense. I hope that people can continue to be objective and realise that just because they no longer enjoy someone's work doesn't mean the work I bad, just bad for them.

And I agree with Frankie Boyle.

Sorry to abandon the thread- bad headrace.

I was a big admirer of Tennant: Hamlet, Jessica Jones, Casanova, but there has been a definite drop in quality over the last few years - I’d been saying this before he started spouting his drivel.
When he appeared with other celebrities on Derren Brown’s show I thought he showed real intelligence and thoughtfulness compared to the knee jerk reactions of others … that seems a long time ago now.

I do separate the artist from the art - I listen to Wagner and the Jacksons; I read books by authors who have bad reputations and have opinions I disagree with; I am in awe of Picasso’s achievements despite knowing of his misogyny.

I’ve been having trouble recently though. Whenever there is a drama where a trans person plays their pretend sex I cannot take it seriously. I had to stop watching the recent series of Ripley, and I'm not sure I can be bothered with the new House of the Dragon - it’s funny that I can suspend my disbelief to watch dragons, but I cannot stretch it to accept a lumpy great big bloke is a woman.

I should add that of course I have no problem with trans people playing trans people, or non binary people playing their actual sex - I just can’t bring myself to join in their game of ‘let’s pretend’.

I don't think artists have to be good people to make art. But I do think, I don't know how to put this in a non-weird way, but something of the artists soul goes into the painting/book/music etc in great art. (Or to be less wooo, their value systems and experiences). For example, you can sort of tell that JRR Tolkein or Neville Shute to their core actually liked people and humanity. I do think that comes out in their books. And a lot of Paul Gaugin's paintings already have a really uncomfortable sickly feeling to them due to the light and colour. They might sit right on the border of "uncomfortable therefore art", but knowing what he was sort of tips them over the edge into actively unpleasant. And that's before you get to the paintings of naked 14 year old girls. Its hard to separate the art from the artist when the artwork is of the child the artist was sexually abusing at the time. That doesn't mean Gaugin should be cancelled. But it does mean that some people won't be able to enjoy his art or want to look at it.

The same with Gaiman - there is nothing wrong with continuing to read Sandman etc. But also, its fine to go of the books now more is known about the author.

There has to be middle ground between "cancel all who are not completely morally pure" and "the art is completely seperate from the artist. They are but a vessel". I know most of that is completely irrelevant to Gaiman or Tennant. But the phrase is used all the time and I don't think its truthful.

It's not just creatives and performers. Some of the best and most skilful surgeons I've known have been deeply unpleasant human beings, horrible to those working with them and/or possessing eyebrow-raising political or religious beliefs. I still have no doubt about their competence in the operating theatre or their ability to make treatment decisions based on best available evidence.

Yes, but I don't want surgeons to put their own creative spin on their work, or personalise it in any way (though I am sure it is a job that requires creativity, they should not be pushing the boundaries in the name of "art. Although some surgeries you do wonder...)

I agree. I've never liked or really had any interest in David Tennant and I've quite enjoyed some of Gaiman's novels (but absolutely DESPISED the crappy guff that his Sandman comics are to the point where I felt irrationally insulted by how terrible they were) - but one of the best novels I have ever read is The Mists of Avalon and the author of that book was downright evil, there's no other way to describe her.

It's true that terrible people can be very good at what they do, but really it's the fully paid-up subscribers to identity politics who don't seem very keen on meritocracy. They make it all about ideological purity or authenticity or representation. (They change the criteria from situation to situation.)

As for these two, I've tried reading one Neil Gaiman novel and found it cringeworthy. Not my kind of thing. David Tennant is okayish. Not terrible but not first rate. He's good at playing OTT roles but a bit flat when he tries anything more grown-up or emotional. I've seen him on stage a few times and he is much better at comedy than drama.

That is why it surprised to see it from GC on here. I expect it from the people reinventing reality, I don't from realists.

Ever heard of a writer named Harry Horse? His real name was Richard Horne, and he wrote some very sweet picture books about a little rabbit. In 2007, he stabbed his disabled wife to death, killed their pets, and killed himself.

I still like the Little Rabbit books.

You're kidding me? He wrote A Friend For Little Bear, which my littlest adores! Fuck.

I've loved The Mists of Avalon since my early 20s, best retelling of the Arthurian legends I've ever read, but I didn't know anything about MZB...just looked up her Wiki page and OMG!

If we're talking Arthurian legends then Thomas Malory was a rapist and serial violent criminal. Wrote Le Morte d'Arthur during one of his spells in prison.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. 🙁 His wife had MS and was in a wheelchair; he stabbed her over thirty times, stabbed the pets, and stabbed himself 47 times.

The mists of Avalon has rape/sexual violence/coercion/general weird sex stuff as part of the plot though. Which makes sense given the world its set in, and the fact its main concern is women with shifting relationships to power. But, I can understand why, on finding out more about her, some people might find it too icky. Some parts of the book are uncomfortable but OK so long as you aren't worrying that the author was secretly getting of on it.
It is still a very well written book. People have every right to enjoy it. But its also human nature to feel squeamish about it. I think its up to people how far they separate the author from the book in their own mind. Neither is wrong or irrational.

What annoys me is when JKR gets lumped in with people like Gaugin/MZB in debates over "separating the art from the artist". Someone having different political opinions (even if they are unpleasant or racist) is completely different to being a child rapist. Besides which I actually think you get a lot of JKR's values/beliefs in the books anyway. There is a lot about standing up for what you believe in, institutional capture etc. But I think there are a lot of people wanting to have their cake (claiming the goblins in HP are antisemitic and that makes JKR bad) and eat it (claiming that artists don't truly own the works they create so its fine for them to continue their HP fandom).

@biscuitandcake

Besides which I actually think you get a lot of JKR's values/beliefs in the books anyway. There is a lot about standing up for what you believe in, institutional capture etc.

There’s even a little bit about women’s privacy and vulnerability; Hermione is able to go into Harry and Ron’s dorm room, but when they try to go to hers, the staircase turns into a slide and magically sends them down while a siren wails. IIRC, the Hogwarts founders didn’t want boys in the girls’ dormitories, but they thought girls were more trustworthy than boys.

But I think there are a lot of people wanting to have their cake (claiming the goblins in HP are antisemitic and that makes JKR bad) and eat it (claiming that artists don't truly own the works they create so its fine for them to continue their HP fandom).

I know, right?!

Before I heard people talk about this, it never occurred to me that someone might look at the goblins in HP and think of Jews. I was born in 1986, so I was the first generation to grow up with the books. Jewish stereotypes in my generation were about complaining a lot, and interfering mothers who wanted all their sons and sons-in-law to be doctors or lawyers. Jews as swarthy money-grabbers with long noses wasn’t really a thing presented in ‘90s/‘00s culture, at least not in US (I’m American).