A Political Thread pt. 2

[Saintjay]

Unless Lewis Carroll has come back from the dead and is drawing attention to himself sticking it to transpersons I'm not sure why you're bringing him up

Problematic artists and there art might be a reason. Especially when it's still relevant. It might also have escaped your attention they are both two problematic authors who's main literary works were aimed at children.

Or is it only a criteria if they are living In this debate. I can't wait for your reaction if someone mentions Hitler.

Or would you prefer I run all my posts by you first mein fuhrer.

 

[ncurd]

Problematic artists and there art might be a reason. Especially when it's still relevant. It might also have escaped your attention they are both two problematic authors who's main literary works were aimed at children.

Or is it only a criteria if they are living In this debate. I can't wait for your reaction if someone mentions Hitler.

Or would you prefer I run all my posts by you first mein fuhrer.

I think in this regard living and dead makes a huge difference. Part of the JKR or Neil Gaiman issues is they still directly profit from your consumption of their work. As opposed to Roald Dahl, Lewis Caroll or HP Lovercraft. That's where a lot of discussion lies in circles where the decision to consume comes from.

As I saw someone once say "I take great satisfication HP Lovercraft died penniless, alone, unsuccessful and nobody really discovered his work until after he died"

 

[Welsh Exile]

Problematic artists and there art might be a reason. Especially when it's still relevant. It might also have escaped your attention they are both two problematic authors who's main literary works were aimed at children.

Or is it only a criteria if they are living In this debate. I can't wait for your reaction if someone mentions Hitler.

Or would you prefer I run all my posts by you first mein fuhrer.

No one wants to buy Hitlers old paintings do they. Give it time.

Actually, I bet there's some weirdo super rich collector that has an extensive Hitler art collection. It wouldn't surprise me.

It's an interesting one, would you accept a Hitler piece if it was free and, more importantly, you really, really liked it.

 

[Which Tyler]

Not wanting to speak for Vaquer (which means, I'm going to try to anyway) but*...
There's a difference between something being problematic, and of its time, and something that is problematic in its time AND the originator the problems is alive and profiting AND is using those profits to actively increase the problem.

Lewis Caroll isn't profiting from wonderland films; nor is he then using those profits to suppress a minority.

FTR: I'm in the "separate the art from the artist" camp - despite Ncurd's objections to me using that phrase, the intent of Ronald Barthes in "Death of the Author" doesn't really matter to me
I'm generally in the "how much is the problematic person involved in the art as a proportion of that art?" - which isn't much. She wrote the story, and is a producer, but it's based on works written 25-15 years ago. I regard her as a very small part of this new interpretation. This is very different from buying a book of hers where she's pretty much the sole participant.
But*
She's also explicitly said that she's going to use the profits from this to fund anti-trans groups, sentiments and policies; and that crossed a red line for me.




* See, "anything a man says before the word 'but' can be ignored"

 

[Welsh Exile]

What about old re runs of Father Ted? Is that ok to watch now?

I only learned about that dude the other week when he was arrested at Heathrow.

 

[Which Tyler]

What about old re runs of Father Ted? Is that ok to watch now?

I only learned about that dude the other week when he was arrested at Heathrow.

Everyone's going to have their own lines in the sand.

For me - it's fine to enjoy that art - it's been out for long enough, the problematic elements were of their time, and it's a re-run - the equivalent of buying a Potter book* in the second hand store, or reading your 20 year old copy.
A re-make with Linehan at the helm would be a different matter. Especially if he said that he'd use the profits to fund anti-trans groups, and use the show to push his agenda.



* explicitly Potter, as those were written before she descended into the problematic



Gaiman's a closer call for me...
I'm not going to buy another of his books (unless he's shown to be innocent) - but I don't have a problem with reading one I already own (the "damage" is done).
Same for an old film / show of one of his works.
Sandman Season 2 was basically finished before the allegations came out, and he's a primary driving force behind it (actual show runner, not just taking his royalties with an ego-sating producer role). Or the audiobooks where he's the narrator...
But then, he's also not using the profits in order to abuse more women...

I still haven't decided where I stand on those yet.



Eric Clapton... was kinda of its time, but also not cool even then.
Relationship between audience and artist is way more direct, even that Gaiman adaptations above (adaptations, as opposed to books)...
I come down on "not buying anything new, but happy to listen to stuff I already own". Would have a debate with myself if I see something new of his to buy 2nd hand.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Everyone's going to have their own lines in the sand.

For me - it's fine to enjoy that art - it's been out for long enough, the problematic elements were of their time, and it's a re-run - the equivalent of buying a Galbraith book in the second had store, or reading your 20 year old copy.
A re-make with Linehan at the helm would be a different matter. Especially if he said that he'd use the profits to fund anti-trans groups, and use the show to push his agenda.

Yeah, I think the point you are ncurd raise is fair.

I’m honestly torn on it to be honest. Ncurd definitely convinced me (after doing a bit of research as well) that there isn’t something right about Rowling.

 

[Saintjay]

Is somebody somewhere profiting off of the works of Carroll and other artists. Companies make money from Mein Kampf adaptions / translations etc.

Is it ok to enjoy the works of someone who was possibly a paedophile or views were distasteful because they are dead and others profit. Yet people shouldn't enjoy works of those who are living as they directly profit. There's definitely lots cashing in on Alice and Harry.

As @Which Tyler says it's on where people's lines in the sand are.

I just think it's a interesting debate on profits based on seperating the art from the artist. What is acceptable criteria to some and not others. Dead vs not dead, current works vs old.

#just finished Norse Mythology again, I really had no idea Gaiman had done anything till today

 

[ncurd]

Everyone's going to have their own lines in the sand.

This is pretty much my opinion. My friend discussion basically boiled down you do you but if your not acknowledging or denying these people/things are a problem that's when to take exception.

 

[Which Tyler]

This is pretty much my opinion. My friend discussion basically boiled down you do you but if your not acknowledging or denying these people/things are a problem that's when to take exception.

Yeah, you and I have had this discussion before IRRC.

When it comes down to what "someone who isn't me" does:
If you're unaware (you'd have to be pretty blind these days to be unaware of Galbraith; but plenty won't know about Carroll, or Clapton; somewhere in between for Gaiman or Linehan), then no problem, we can chat about it if you like (otherwise you're deliberately keeping yourself ignorant)
If you've thought about it, and come to a different conclusion to me - that's fine, there's plenty of nuance to go around.
If you've thought about it, and delight in the problematic - then we have deeper issues to clear up.
If you've thought about it, and come to the precise same conclusion as me - then have you actually thought about it, or do you just want to escape this conversation?



Although point 3 there brings up another element of nuance - how unforgivable do you consider the problematic behaviour? and how much leeway do you give for societal attitudes of the time?

 

[ncurd]

I'm honestly torn on it to be honest. Ncurd definitely convinced me (after doing a bit of research as well) that there isn't something right about Rowling.

Rowling has been a slow burn to complete batshit crazy the trans community tried to engae with her in the early days but its been quite clear for sometime she has no interest in her moving away from her bigotry. FWIW I know people personally who expressed views similar to Rowling at that time and have gone the other way from being properly engaged with.

Sadly Rowling's sainthood for inspiring now generations of kids into reading and their parents reading to them means shes not scrutinised the same way others are and is granted a massive megaphone whenever she does. Plus the rampant transphobia in British media.

 

[Saintjay]

Rowling has been a slow burn to complete batshit crazy the trans community tried to engae with her in the early days but its been quite clear for sometime she has no interest in her moving away from her bigotry. FWIW I know people personally who expressed views similar to Rowling at that time and have gone the other way from being properly engaged with.

Sadly Rowling's sainthood for inspiring now generations of kids into reading and their parents reading to them means shes not scrutinised the same way others are and is granted a massive megaphone whenever she does. Plus the rampant transphobia in British media.

I'd like to know where it all went wrong. From advocating for domestic violence victims and the hardship of single mothers to being the extremist of today.

She could have been more like a Jess Philips but that ship long sailed away.

 

[dirty harry]

Absolutely. Fabulous beasts was a load of rubbish too.

Was it successful?

 

[McTallshort]

Was it successful?

Don't know but not as successful as Potter. It's a bit like the Hobbit was to Lord of the Rings

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

This is how I see it. Reform supporters are mostly single issue voters. They aren't that interested in the state of the economy, public services and foreign policy.

Even if Farage gave a car crash performance when interviewed by the media on their other non immigration policies I don't think it would move the dial. It would take a major implosion with him at the heart of it.

Reform will be more than just single issue voters though. If it's single issue voters only, they will never get in. It's the disenfranchised voters who have somehow convinced themselves reform are a viable alternative that he'd to be won over. Pointing out racist reform policies will do nothing to swing it, they already have that badge. They need to be shown up as having no actual answers.

 

[ncurd]

Don't know but not as successful as Potter. It's a bit like the Hobbit was to Lord of the Rings

They stopped making the films before they finished the intended story arc. It washed its face using the double budget rule. But it was 200million less than the previous one and that was 200million less than the one begore that. Studio was smart and could see where it was goi g.

 

[Saintjay]

Don't know but not as successful as Potter. It's a bit like the Hobbit was to Lord of the Rings

Steady i mention Lewis Carroll and got moaned at. Best keep JRR out of the debate. (Not the fly fishing one)

 

[Which Tyler]

I'd like to know where it all went wrong. From advocating for domestic violence victims and the hardship of single mothers to being the extremist of today.

She could have been more like a Jess Philips but that ship long sailed away.

From what I can gather (I haven't looked into it, as I was disinterested at the time) - wasn't it using "bloke in a dress" in one of their Galbraith books (as in, actually under the name Galbraith, not just me being an arse to her them).

Linehan was similar in that respect - used "bloke in a dress" in the IT Crowd - but a far more egregious version.

 

[dirty harry]

Reform will be more than just single issue voters though. If it's single issue voters only, they will never get in. It's the disenfranchised voters who have somehow convinced themselves reform are a viable alternative that he'd to be won over. Pointing out racist reform policies will do nothing to swing it, they already have that badge. They need to be shown up as having no actual answers.

I think thisn is key, they are single issue, but that issue seems to be a major factor in all the perceived major issues:

The economy is bad - stop spending millions on 5 star hotels

Foreign policy regarding Gaza - well stop importing all those people who protesting on behalf of their homeland, its not our problem.

NHS - overwhelmed by 1 million people extra per year, and health tourism

Housing - market is over saturated with demand for housing because of an extra 1 million people per year.

Crime - those pesky immigrants are sexually assaulting our women and stealing and eating the swans.

Corruption - the labour and Tories have all let a million people per year in to get rich.

Any aspect of politics has been cooped to put the blame on a collusion against the British population...

And it will work if Starmers best defence is to label them far right racists going forward.

 

[McTallshort]

Steady i mention Lewis Carroll and got moaned at. Best keep JRR out of the debate. (Not the fly fishing one)

Sod that. Nothing wrong with Tolkien