Two thoughts: If a work is not a polemic, if there is no taint in the work, then read on; children can learn to deal with the challenge when they're old enough to think critically about it.
You write "people are neither wholly good, nor wholly bad" -- just so. It would serve for us all to remember that. Would that G.K. Chesterton was here to comment. But as Frederick Beuchner says, "We have all cut ourselves shaving." That's a critical starting point to avoiding a self-righteousness, of which there's an awful lot these days. That is not an endorsement of or excuse for any of the rogues mentioned here, but an important starting point nevertheless.
Thank you so much for this. I’ve been thinking about this conflict a lot (more related to music / bands) and I didn’t know there’s an actual book about it. Can’t wait to get me a copy!
Sep 23, 2023·edited Sep 24, 2023Liked by Joel J Miller
When I was an ideologically awakening but cautious, very devout evangelical literature major at a rigorous evangelical college (I'm still a lot of those things, but maybe less cautious and definitely no longer a college student), I was frequently troubled to learn about the shenanigans of some of the authors and poets whose works we studied. Coleridge was an addict. Dostoevsky had alcohol and relationship issues. Byron was, well...byronic. I found myself very conflicted when I discovered these realities but also found myself moved or delighted or otherwise impacted by the literary works...even when the works themselves sometimes reflected the lifestyle or the belief system I found objectionable.
But wrestling through that knowledge and those impressions and the way the art and I interacted with each other was an important part of my intellectual, emotional, psychological, and even spiritual growth. I still find some of the things objectionable now that I did then, but I'm not afraid to read and engage the works anymore. I think ultimately it makes me better.
Jun 6, 2023·edited Jun 6, 2023Liked by Joel J Miller
"What goes into a book is the author’s" - we assume here that a work of art is a form of self-expression, and the artist/author puts nothing but themselves in the piece of art in question - which is highly debatable, and most certainly is not always the case. I think Pasolini is an interesting case here - he lived his entire life completely in opposition to how the Catholic church believes one should live his life, and yet, for example, his Gospel According to St. Matthew made it to the Vatican list of "Some Important Films".
I’m also Jewish, but I fall more in line with Matthes on this one. I once heard someone say that if we got rid of all the antisemitic books/authors, there’d be nothing left to read. It’s an exaggeration, of course, but the point stands. If we eliminate every problematic artist, we get rid of a lot of great art.
Very interesting, accessible treatment of a difficult question here. I could never decide what to do with the music of Richard Wagner, asking 'How can I separate the music from the man?' and having no good answer. You have helped me think more clearly on this issue. Thank you
An excellent review of this problem. I like that line about the difference between aesthetics and ethics. What do you think if the book is a book of theology? Does that make a difference?
Sigh. Another academic trying to assert their control over the artistic world by trying to destroy the long-accepted concept that art stands apart from its maker. This review shows that the artist's side is losing the art vs. academy Cold War: and how could it not, if someone - whatever their argument - could use a degree to convince themselves that grouping Roald Dahl with Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby makes any sense whatsoever? It's absolutely absurd.
In normal times, this is a complete non-issue. Answering Matthes' question on the cover is very easy: we do absolutely nothing. Let artists be artists. Let the art speak for itself. And do not let academics dictate what your relationship to art has to be. And if you really are confused, start by asking...hmm, I don't know...artists? And if you think the best are all dead and gone, like the mighty Roald Dahl, the Art of Fiction interviews by the Paris Review are a good place to start.
Two thoughts: If a work is not a polemic, if there is no taint in the work, then read on; children can learn to deal with the challenge when they're old enough to think critically about it.
You write "people are neither wholly good, nor wholly bad" -- just so. It would serve for us all to remember that. Would that G.K. Chesterton was here to comment. But as Frederick Beuchner says, "We have all cut ourselves shaving." That's a critical starting point to avoiding a self-righteousness, of which there's an awful lot these days. That is not an endorsement of or excuse for any of the rogues mentioned here, but an important starting point nevertheless.
Thank you so much for this. I’ve been thinking about this conflict a lot (more related to music / bands) and I didn’t know there’s an actual book about it. Can’t wait to get me a copy!
When I was an ideologically awakening but cautious, very devout evangelical literature major at a rigorous evangelical college (I'm still a lot of those things, but maybe less cautious and definitely no longer a college student), I was frequently troubled to learn about the shenanigans of some of the authors and poets whose works we studied. Coleridge was an addict. Dostoevsky had alcohol and relationship issues. Byron was, well...byronic. I found myself very conflicted when I discovered these realities but also found myself moved or delighted or otherwise impacted by the literary works...even when the works themselves sometimes reflected the lifestyle or the belief system I found objectionable.
But wrestling through that knowledge and those impressions and the way the art and I interacted with each other was an important part of my intellectual, emotional, psychological, and even spiritual growth. I still find some of the things objectionable now that I did then, but I'm not afraid to read and engage the works anymore. I think ultimately it makes me better.
Excellent reflection and helpful principles for considering this question.
"What goes into a book is the author’s" - we assume here that a work of art is a form of self-expression, and the artist/author puts nothing but themselves in the piece of art in question - which is highly debatable, and most certainly is not always the case. I think Pasolini is an interesting case here - he lived his entire life completely in opposition to how the Catholic church believes one should live his life, and yet, for example, his Gospel According to St. Matthew made it to the Vatican list of "Some Important Films".
I’m also Jewish, but I fall more in line with Matthes on this one. I once heard someone say that if we got rid of all the antisemitic books/authors, there’d be nothing left to read. It’s an exaggeration, of course, but the point stands. If we eliminate every problematic artist, we get rid of a lot of great art.
Very interesting, accessible treatment of a difficult question here. I could never decide what to do with the music of Richard Wagner, asking 'How can I separate the music from the man?' and having no good answer. You have helped me think more clearly on this issue. Thank you
An excellent review of this problem. I like that line about the difference between aesthetics and ethics. What do you think if the book is a book of theology? Does that make a difference?
Sigh. Another academic trying to assert their control over the artistic world by trying to destroy the long-accepted concept that art stands apart from its maker. This review shows that the artist's side is losing the art vs. academy Cold War: and how could it not, if someone - whatever their argument - could use a degree to convince themselves that grouping Roald Dahl with Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby makes any sense whatsoever? It's absolutely absurd.
In normal times, this is a complete non-issue. Answering Matthes' question on the cover is very easy: we do absolutely nothing. Let artists be artists. Let the art speak for itself. And do not let academics dictate what your relationship to art has to be. And if you really are confused, start by asking...hmm, I don't know...artists? And if you think the best are all dead and gone, like the mighty Roald Dahl, the Art of Fiction interviews by the Paris Review are a good place to start.