Published 2026-02-02
tag(s): #yell-at-cloud #link-post #random-thoughts
I've thought about this a few times here and there, so I suspect this will be a long one.
A while ago, I bookmarked this post by Christian
Heilmann: Time
to separate the art from the artist, intending to add some comments on the topic. And to
make a broader point about how unhelpful it is to make general statements in these things.
It is funny that I got reminded of it by a recent exchange between two other bloggers:
The first post by Manu, I think is a must read, and it is short. I will quote it below.
I will also quote the other posts. I only know about the last one because Manu
was mature enough to
share it despite being, as he says, a misrepresentation of the point he was trying to
make.[1]
And the reason he shared it is, I believe, exactly the point he was making the first
place...
But first, let's address:
Manu has a knack for extreme examples[2] that remind me of certain type of
science fiction stories. The type where there's some wild "solution" to a
"problem" (irresponsible cloning, abuse of robots, organ replacement, whatever). Some
authors might do a better job than others to address the how things got to that
point, but the interesting part is the exploration of human issues when taken to wild
extremes.
What would would be the effect of X thing happening? How would it shape society? How
would individuals adjust?
And from those explorations, we (readers) pare down layers and extrapolate what the story (or
Manu post) says about some current state of affairs. Or the human condition. Etc.
In this case, Manu's example is:
Now, some preferences can raise eyebrows: if I tell you my favorite book is the Mein Kampf, you have every reason to be perplexed and ask follow-up questions. But if you just assumed, based on that, that I'm a Nazi sympathizer, that would be wrong. Because you don't actually know what. This is obviously Godwin's law in action, and I'm using an extreme example to make the point clear, but it applies to all sorts of more nuanced scenarios.
It is a wild example. I get the initial reaction.
He says right there that it is an extreme example though. Which I honestly
appreciate, because:
Seriously done. The cursing is warranted. I am fucking done with her being an
example every time this topic comes up.
Christian Heilmann:
JK Rowling created an amazing world with Harry Potter [...] built a magical world where love is the strongest power, even protecting yourself against non-blockable death spells. A world full of magical creatures, some of them half human, and a pivotal gay character. A world where the good people stand up for the rights of merpeople, centaurs and elves and the bad people bang on about blood purity. [...]
How a person responsible for a world like that can not mount the mental curb that some people aren’t the gender they were born as baffles me. That a person that did the great thing of paying her taxes and giving back to a social system that once supported her now spends her money on lobbying to get laws in place that limit the freedom of people baffles me even more.
I wonder in what kind of world Christian lives, where it is so baffling that people can see
love in one place and not in others. Because (sad as it is) I consider that the norm.
A simple example: the father and mother of a family that doesn't support gay rights for sure
love their kids. Yet they cannot conceive that people of the same gender can have romantic
love.
A CEO can care a great deal about their closed ones, yet engage in practices that could
indirectly harm them. From destroying the planet to distributing terrible drugs.
The point is, the world, people, are complicated. We all rationalize things when we need to.
Some people do it as a survival mechanism, others to justify short sighted decisions, or to
not deal with the weight of their choices.
And this applies to whether you enjoy Harry Potter or not after the "Rowling
controversy". Context matters. Speaking of which:
I read the first Harry Potter book when the books were already famous, for a simple reason: it
was a novel for kids, and I needed to practice reading English. I had just finished Robinson
Crusoe, and needed something with a simpler vocabulary.[3]
While I was happy about the release of the last few books, I read them a few years after they
were published. I could never touch the series again, and not mind it one bit.
Contrast this with my son. Because my wife is a big fan of the movies, he loves the franchise.
He also loves to read, and constantly re-reads the entire series. It is obvious even now that
for him Harry Potter will be a huge part of his childhood memories.
I don't think he ever cared about anything that JK Rowling said, for the simple reason he's
been never exposed to it.
Baldur Bjarnason (spelling from the original text):
You can still talk about these books without driving people away. You just can't pretend they exist without context. Everybody today knows about Rowling or Woody Allen. Pretending that context doesn't exist is insulting.
If you keep referencing Harry Potter or quoting Woody Allen (even that McLuhan scene) without acknowleding the context, you are doing so kowning their reputation. You simply can't have missed it by now. Pretending that context doesn't exist just isn't plausible.
There are big assumptions there, starting from everyone having access to the same context.
That say, 5 years from now, whatever bullshit Rowling spouted about trans people will still be
a headline or information that "everyone knows about". For example, my wife never
cared for "celebrity news" that aren't from Argentina, so she had no idea about
Rowling until I pointed it out.
And what happens if I keep my kid outside of social media (which we are trying), and then he
simply never happens to look up if there's any controversy about the author of the books?
What happens if someone grows up in a house where their parents never talk about
trans people, at all. Not negatively and not positively either. And now their kid has a deep
love for Harry Potter books, and no clue that they need a disclaimer every time they touch on
the topic, because they never even considered trans rights and what Rowling might have said
about it.
And that is (in my interpretation) one part of the point Manu is trying to make.
If a person in such circumstances would run into Baldur at a literary group, what I get from
his post is that they would be pointed at and shamed for not adding all the "required
warnings and caveats#34; to the conversation.
Whereas if they were in the same scenario with Manu, they would start a dialogue to understand
each other circumstances regarding these books. And most likely they would both have some
growth because of that.
If some day in the future, my then teenage son has to have a conversation about Harry Potter
with someone, I'd rather he does it with Manu. He understands that:
The bigger point, the one that I originally started ruminating when I read Christian's post,
is the flawed idea that we have to generalize the place where society as a whole should draw a
line regarding any topic. And whoever disagrees should be condemned.
Whether it is supporting or banning artists, or enjoying something controversial, or putting
up with ideas we don't agree with.
I have an unbound love for Tex Avery cartoons. Many of those shorts have, to put it mildly,
outdated depictions of race and gender. When I was a kid, I didn't know they were offensive.
And these days, I don't care to point out that they are offensive for the simple reason that I
find it obvious: they are works from almost 100 years ago. Of course they are outdated.
Now, if tomorrow "the people" decided to "cancel" those shorts, I wouldn't
care. I would still watch them. Why? Because they were a huge part of my childhood, so I will
gladly make an exception. I won't feel this diminishes Avery's genius in any way. But other
people might feel so...and that is OK.
I was reading American Gods right when the Neil Gaiman news broke. Since then, I have felt
apathy towards reading more of his works. However, I have a childhood friend
who loves his writing. I haven't asked him about it, but I wouldn't be surprised if
he still regularly goes over his Sandman collection, or revisits Gaiman novels.
Am I supposed to admonish and finger point at my friend? These books were his companions
during a very difficult period of his life. His relationship with the material goes deep
enough that he might never let go of it. And I find it is his choice. As it is mine to accept
it or not.[4]
A made up example: In three separate family reunions, a grandfather uses reprehensible
rhetoric to talk about immigrants.
In one case, their grandkid decides to speak up, and leaves the gathering.
In another case, their grandkid changes the subject. Because they don't like hearing those
words from their beloved grandpa, but they also feel he won't change by now. And they accept
him with his flaws.
In the third case, everyone celebrates such comments.
These meetings are very different. But I would only feel unwelcomed at the last one. It would
be clear to me that grandkid number 2 is not exactly in agreement. And maybe talking to them
about it would uncover something like "I wouldn't accept that from anyone. But I lived
with my grandparents while my dad recovered from a long illness, and they made a world of
difference to me in a very dark time of my life". This is another example of Manu's point
about trying to find out details before judging, because it can make big difference in
understanding.
Bjarnason says: The example Many used means he made a very different argument from the one
he thought he was making. He sleepwalked into the paradox of tolerance.
But if you ask me,
Manu knew exactly what example he was making. By focusing only on the book title,
even after it was called out specifically as being an extreme, Bjarnason is the one missing
the point. This is, of course, just my opinion.
I could also be totally misunderstanding Manu's point. 🤷
We have all seen this, in movies and books and whatnot. Our main character said he/she would
never kill. But then if they don't kill the bad guy, their family or spouse dies.
These kind of conundrums happen again and again in storytelling because, just like with
science fiction, it is interesting to stretch "the rules", and see what would it take
for us to change or reshape our moral principles. What are the exceptions.
And no one is immune to doing that. I can't separate art from artist in the
case of Gaiman. Yet I don't feel particularly betrayed by a writer lady in her sixties having
outdated, harmful ideas about gender identity.[5] If someone wants to
assume that this means I agree or support her ideas, they are in the right. But I am done with
the idea that I need to start every conversation about her works making a disclaimer. It is
exhausting. Even dumb.
I started re-reading Cosmos a while ago. A lot of scientific figures mentioned in the book are
petty, childish and entitled. I am sure there are tons of examples (yet I can't think of any
know =P) of historical artists that we all know were terrible people, yet no one is crucified
for not making their apologies before mentioning them.
Whatever "the conversation" is about what we all should feel about art, artists, and how the artists behave, we all will be open to exceptions. You will be disappointed in music band X for selling out for a quick dime. But turn a blind eye to band Y doing the same because you like them that much more. Or their songs mean more to you. Or you have a connection to them through your father, or first girlfriend, or whatever.
Let people enjoy things. Enjoy them yourself. This constant need to put rules and fences and
caveats to everything is annoying. Embrace the fact that all "rules" are
imperfect.
Instead of blindly imposing your made up rules, have a conversation.
Having a conversation doesn't mean that you then need to agree later. And disagreeing also
doesn't mean the conversation needs to stop. Unless you want it to stop - use that power
wisely, or you will never leave your echo chamber.