It's all just a matter of where you draw the line

[vovat]

I bought some carpet cleaner at the drugstore on my way to work yesterday (why must cats vomit so often?), and it somehow became unscrewed, getting all over the rest of my stuff. I ended up throwing out a half-eaten bag of Goldfish crackers, even though I don't think any of the cleaner actually got into it. So, yeah, that sucked, but it didn't do as much damage as I might have feared.

As an extension of the idea of rivalries that I mentioned in a previous post, I know I've talked before about the idea of separating the artist from the art, which typically strikes me as a good idea. If someone whose religious or political views aren't in accordance with mine has created something I like, why should I let those personal beliefs get in the way of my enjoyment? It only really becomes an issue if their beliefs so permeate their work as to get annoying. But I have to wonder where the cut-off is, and I can't say I have a good answer. I can argue that L. Frank Baum's call for genocide of Native Americans has to be seen in the context of the time, and weighed against his then-progressive beliefs in other areas. But would I make the same excuses for a modern author with such a skeleton in his or her closet? I tend to think I wouldn't, but who knows? Even today, calls for genocide are not uncommon, but have any of the people making them produced anything entertaining (in a non-ironic manner, that is)? And what if an artist I like ends up committing murder, or some other heinous crime? It's an interesting question, and I'd welcome any input anyone reading this (assuming there is anyone) might have.

Also, I'll mention that I watched a little bit of Fox's latest stupid idea for a game show, where the contestants have to answer questions while hooked up to a lie detector (I forget what it's called; I keep thinking To Tell the Truth, but I know that's a totally different game show). While bashing this sort of a show is kind of like pointing out how wet the ocean is, I'll go ahead and make these three points:

1. Lie detectors are not known for being very reliable. Whether or not the contestants win anything is totally at the discretion of a faulty instrument.
2. Some of the questions asked include some gray areas. One of the ones I saw was, "Would you trust your best friend with your savings account?" Couldn't the answer to this vary depending on a person's mood at the time, and hence not really have a true answer?
3. There are so many long pauses. Whatever executive came up with that idea probably would insist that this is to build up suspense, but I think it's really just to fill up time. I think it's all leading to a day when game shows have only one question each, but are somehow drawn out to fit hour-long time slots.

Thank you, and good night. Wait, it's actually morning, isn't it? Thank you, and good morning.

Comments

[kristenjarrod.livejournal.com]

We were just talking about lie dectors in Psycholgy class today.

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

This (your author vs. works question) came up in discussion recently among the kid lit (actually YA) blogs recently, too, though not as extreme as encouraging genocide; regarding Orson Scott Card being given a Lifetime Achievement award for YA lit when he's an outspoken homophobe-- here's a link to the Horn Book blog on it, which has a link to the article outlining the controversy and a long series of comments on the subject. (I also link to that particular blog because it's one of my favorite kid lit blogs). (Also, an ironic aspect that is not immediately evident from the blog entry and linked article is that the author of this blog is openly gay, and he was also on the committee that gave Orson Scott Card the award anyway).

[yosef.livejournal.com]

With the Baum thing, I think I just try to forget about it and if it comes up, I try to think of it as a weird one-off thing in 1891. I guess I could just separate Baum the person from the Oz books I so love, but the connection between him, his life, the books, the films, later authors, illustrators, etc. have all become so ingrained in my mind that it'd be hard to just take him out of the whole "Oz equation" even after I found out about this call for genocide later. So much else about him seemed so positive and admirable, especially in regards to gender equality and the way "different is good" in the Oz books. Now that I'm writing this, I'm realizing I'm more like the "Bewitched" TV fans who idolize the show's star Elizabeth Montgomery as being some perfect, wonderful human being. I usually think of them as ignoring some of her negative facets and as unable to separate character from actor... but I'm probably guilty of the same thing with Baum. I've sometimes wonder what my perception of him (or what the public perception of him) would be if he were somehow alive and a successful author today (like, not as a 151-year-old, but the same age as during Oz)... of course, Oz being made today wouldn't be the same either, and I wonder if I'd even like it.

And then there's Ruth Plumly Thompson and her use of black slaves...

[vovat.livejournal.com]

What did you say about them? That they don't work?

[vovat.livejournal.com]

That's an interesting discussion. Offhand (and I'm speaking as someone who's never read anything by Card, and didn't know about his homophobia until now), I'd say that his fiction (which is, from what I understand, is what he's being honored for) should be kept separate from his personal views, and hence there isn't a problem with his receiving the award. I can see both sides of the argument, though.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

I'd been a fan of Baum's for several years before I saw the infamous editorial mentioned offhand in a college textbook. I do think it seems somewhat out of place in light of the many other tolerant and progressive views that I've heard of Baum holding. I have to wonder if he would have come to regret writing it later in life, but my gut feeling would be that he probably didn't even think of it. Really, I think the very fact that it DIDN'T come up again during his lifetime is a sign of how accepting American society at the time was of such hateful remarks. If a children's author wrote anything like that nowadays, even if it WAS just in a small-town paper, I'm sure it would be all over the media.

And then there's Ruth Plumly Thompson and her use of black slaves...

Baum certainly wasn't above using racist stereotypes in his own work either, although there weren't very many in his Oz books. Thompson, however, seems to have been less progressive overall for her time than Baum was for his.

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

That was my opinion, too. I can see people taking umbrage with the title "LIFETIME Achievement," because maybe that DOES imply All Writing Ever, even though it wasn't what the award was ACTUALLY determined for. But it also bugs me that librarians, who as a whole are such vehement supporters of free speech and such, would suddenly be hypocritical when they DON'T agree with someone's views.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

I have to admit that I found the description of the award confusing. It's a lifetime achievement award, but doesn't actually have to do with, like, everything a person has achieved in his or her lifetime?