What is it that makes people think the author is the work? The artist is the art?
There was a commenter here who basically said that, because I was rude to her, she wouldn’t recommend The Way of Four anymore. Did The Way of Four get worse overnight?
I see this all the time, especially (but not exclusively) among Pagans. People who pan Oberon’s book because it markets towards Hogwarts types. “Oh,” they say, “He’s so caught up in fantasy.” And y’know, Oberon is caught up in fantasy. He loves it, it enriches him. But does that say anything about the book? I mean, shouldn’t you at least flip through it before deciding whether or not it’s good?
Authors are human. Oberon loves fantasy, to the point where sometimes it’s silly. Isaac loves polemics, to the point where sometimes it’s really gorram annoying. I am opinionated and sometimes bitchy.
So what?
So the first thing, I guess, is why does that have anything to do with our writing? But the other thing is, why should writing be perfect for it to be commendable? Maybe Oberon’s book has too much fantasy for your taste, and has some excellent magical stuff. I think if you sit home and wait for the perfect book, you won’t read much.
I think a smart person, a good reader, a discerning adult, knows how to separate author from work or singer from song, and also knows how to separate wheat from chaff.
I wrote to one of my favorite authors about one of her books. I was such a huge fan. I’d seen her lecture a couple of times. And the answer I got back was, well, snotty. Knocked the stars right out of my eyes, poor me. But I still recommend her book because it’s still a great book. I won’t invite her to my birthday party, but heck, she won’t invite me to hers.
The burden is on the reader, really, to make those distinctions, and to allow the writer to be a human being. Because we will be, regardless.
I had a similar exchange the other day with someone who claimed that Robert Heinlein was a fascist because he wrote a number of stories/books in which the future U.S. has a fascist government… I tried to explain that he was writing a story, that he personally was a Libertarian of the ‘every man for himself’ breed, but the other person was never quite able to grasp that the story doesn’t necessarily reflect the attitudes of the author……..
Songs are particularly subject to being viewed as non-fiction. Mark Knopfler was furious at the reception “Money for Nothing” got in some quarters.
People often treat definitions, people, places, statements and books much as one would do if one were creating flashcards (I call it the index card mentality). That can be good (if they use this to go further into things, as appropriate), that can be bad.
Of course, over-simplification frequently gets unnecessarily and detrimentally complex and … people use it.
It’s often about the “is” (such as discussed in E-Prime) factor, which cyclically plays on conditioning/dogma/brainwashing/belief, which increases their chances of profit/cooperation/support/validation if shared with others of like mind (95% of the population)?
The index card mentality is handy for drama queen tactics, character assassination, herding/manipulation, dragging up old stuff, denigration, dumping on people, power trips, snootiness, marketing, politics, the wounded animal response, and witch/culture wars.
Well, there is always the matter of personal ethos. If you don’t respect the person who is the author it may engender some skepticism that the work the author produced is worthwhile. I suppose a diminishment in respect could even result in a reconsideration of a previous good opinion, depending on how big a tumble the author has taken in the recommender’s eyes.
Now, I don’t think it’s automatic. As you rightfully point out, a work *can* (and often does) stand on its own apart from the ethos of the author.
On the other hand, I sometimes like a work more – or even make the decision whether to enjoy it in the first place or not – based on my opinion of the author or artist behind it. Especially if I have some sort of relationship with the author. People I know, people I respect, I go out of my way to enjoy their works. (And then gladly tout their accomplishments to others out of a sense of personal loyalty.)
Of the works I enjoy that were created by complete strangers, my appreciation is often deepened when I get to know more about the author. Conversely, it’s often lessened when I find out more about the author behind it and decide I can’t admire him or her. This is why I’m not a bigger movie fan, as I often find some of the most celebrated leading actors way too vacuous in their real life to be able to enjoy their craft as an exercise of their intellect, which is something I really need to be able to do in order to feel good about admiring a creative work.
But maybe that’s just me…
Hi Cathy! 🙂
I will reject an artist if his or her personal life is heinous enough. Convicted rapists don’t get my money, so I didn’t see The Pianist. But I won’t say that Polanski is a bad director, just that I don’t want to give him my money.
But I’m amused and puzzled by people who will reject my work because I’m bitchy. That’s a pretty far distance on the scale from Polanski, and I wonder if the people who do that (a) know so many perfect people that they can afford to reject people just for having an imperfect personality (which! mine! is!) and (b) realize that such an out-of-hand rejection is, itself, bitchy.
Sari, what’s E-Prime?
Good book or not (I’ll leave that up to others to decide), I was troubled by a community elder somewhat crassly cashing in on the “Harry Potter” juggernaut. I am a big believer that marketing and presentation matters a lot when it comes to books like this.
It isn’t that he is caught up in fantasy, (I almost expect that from a good number of Pagan writers) it is that this book cheapens (in my opinion) his reputation as a visionary in our community. It could be the best book ever, but somewhere along the line he decided to piggy-back onto popular children’s novels to sell his magical training. Pagans who are newer to things will now know him as the “Pagan who thinks he’s Dumbledore” instead of the “Pagan who invented the Gaia hypothesis and founded CAW”. In our capitalist and market-driven culture how you sell yourself matters a great deal. We should always be cautious of how our religion and our work is presented to a larger world.
Beyond all that, Pagans exploiting the Potter trend are feeding into the very strong conservative Christian meme that these innocent books are really training manuals for our “dark” arts. A great way to have one more child’s Harry Potter books taken away from him is to essentially publish proof that they are a tool of the “occult”.
Now having said all that. Oberon has the freedom (thank goodness) to publish in any manner he chooses. I respect Oberon, and barring something truly horrendous I would never steer people away from wisdom he has taught. BUT (isn’t there always a big but?) we can no longer assume that our marketing choices don’t have consequences, intended or not.
Your point about marketing and image is well-taken. These are real issues and are not what I was really talking about.
Pagans who are newer to things will now know him as the “Pagan who thinks he’s Dumbledore??? instead of the “Pagan who invented the Gaia hypothesis and founded CAW???.
Pagans who knew him when knew he thought he was Gandalf long before he thought he was Dumbledore. We know that CAW was based on a science fiction novel. We know he invented the modern unicorn that traveled with Ringling Brothers, and we know he published his hunt for real mermaids.
Oberon digs fantasy, and fiction, and uses it to enrich his magic, which anyone who has followed his work knows. It’s part of who Oberon is (and why I trust that the new Grimoire books are sincere, and not just some marketing ploy).
My objection is not towards people who distrust the marketing behind the books, but towards those who are dismissive of O. because “he’s all wrapped up in fantasy.” That’s his personality, and has nothing to do with the value of his work, just as the value of CAW cannot be determined by its origins in science fiction. (And I’ve heard newer Pagans be dismissive of CAW for exactly that reason!)
E-prime, short for “English Prime,??? involves excluding use all forms of the word “to be” from the English language – it is controversial (ha ha), in part, because some (such as I) prefer judicious delicious moderation rather than total abstinence of “to be.??? (For more on the latter, if interested, you might check out “The Top Ten Arguments Against E-Prime,??? by James D. French, at http://learn-gs.org/library/etc/49-2-french.pdf.)
1. Eliminating forms of “to be” supposedly eliminates the passive voice and progressive aspect seen in sloppy/poor writing/thinking.
2. E-Prime also means to move away from a more **dogmatic style** purposefully or unwittingly used in various oversimplifications, misunderstandings, and conflicts (this first brought E-prime to my attention).
Some other languages already distinguish between **existence and identity**, which is something you brought up (“the author is the work? The artist is the art???).
Interesting!