Great Things made by Horrible People

[korvys]

I would have been 13 or 14 the first time I read Ender's Game. It remains one of my favourite books of all time.
I remember playing Earthwork Jim at a friend's house when I was 9 or 10, and watching the animated series.
Jayne in Firefly was one of the best parts of an already fantastic show, which I still love.

What do these things have in common? The people behind these things turned out to be... not the greatest people.

These example are ones that have affected me personally, but history is full of them. Sexist, racist, homophobic people, making great things.
Wagner was an anti-semite.
H.P. Lovecraft was incredibly racist.
The list goes on and on (or it would if I could be bothered googling more).

Withing the gaming world, I know several people here have struggled with the actions of Mike Krahulik, and how that connects to Penny Arcade, and PAX.

Nobody is perfect, and I think most would agree that the things these people made are great things, looked out without context. But my questions to you are these:
Do you have any examples of art or things you enjoy created by people who are themselves not good people?
To what degree does the character of an artist affect your enjoyment of their art?
Does the fact that it might support a bad person stop you from buying a thing?

I'd love to hear people thoughts on this stuff.

[Fluffboll]

Mel Gibson has both acted in and directed several awesome movies but I think we all know what kind of person he turned out to be.

I can enjoy their work without being a fan of them as people. That said I often refrain from buying things that directly supports horrible people.

[Lord Hosk]

This has come up a great number of times on the streams, a big part of this is time, in his time HP lovecraft wasnt that racist, In Wagners day ultra nationalism mixed with anti-semitism was standard.

A lot of the thing that people say about people being "horrible people" is filtered through the lens of cometary. "this person said these 20 things over the past 10 years that is the worst horrible thing what a monster, let me tell you about it over the next 5 pages"

It seems today that everyone wants to separate everything into binary categories because its easier to think of things that way and the media in general finds A vrs B to be very easy to explain.

People are not evil, people are not BAD, people are people who make choices based on the inputs they have received.

When Mike went off on his rants he didn't start with a rant, it was a normal conversation where he kept getting pushed, he responded poorly there is NO way to even slightly condone many of his comments, but he isnt a bad person he is just a public figure that has his words posted publicly for analysis.

Again its easier to think of people as "good" or "bad" but its just not the case ever.

Even "evil" men like Hitler and Stalin were doing what they thought was best for their people. Abraham Lincoln ignored the rule of law, and imposed his vision for the future on half of the country who said they wanted to do things differently.

I can think of dozens of examples of people who have done things I find objectionable who still do their jobs well and history will call great Nelson Mandela was an abusive husband and father for example. Steve jobs was a tyrannical prick who people feared to be in the same room with.

in short, I think its less important the bad things a person has done and more important the good things they have contributed.

It is impossible to live a "perfect life" especially when your actions are judged out of context.

People say im a good person and im raising my kids right. while I try to be a good husband father and person, if anyone were to watch my life on tv they woulkd see that I have said and done some horrible things.

[Trevor]

Keven Sorbo is my most recent example.
The works he has been in were so long ago (perhaps "great" could be replaced with "nostalgic") that it doesn't really effect my response to them now so much though.

[Prospero101]

Without wishing to get into a Naturalist/Behaviorist cage match with you, Hosk, I feel I must disagree.

What people INTEND with their actions doesn't seem to matter against the sweep of culture and history. What matters is that what they did had an effect on the world. Does it matter that Hitler and Stalin both had visions for what was best for their people? I don't know. All I know is that they both killed millions of people, and that makes them evil.

Scaling the discussion back to artists and their art, there's been a debate raging in the literary criticism community since the 1920s regarding authorial intent. Does what the author intends really matter? For example, the writing of H. P. Lovecraft is dripping with racist symbolism. All of the cosmic oppression and unknowable horror all stems from his deep, pathological fear of people who had a different skin color than he did. How does that effect his writing? There's no real right or wrong answer to this, but I choose to believe that H. P. Lovecraft's deep-seated fears gave him insight into the deep-seated fears in all of us. While he believed those deep-seated fears were rooted in immigrants and Asians and Africans, he's not necessarily asking us to fear the same. He was a great writer because his fears gave him insight, not because of what those fears extended from.

...can you tell I'm a Lit major?

[korvys]

To be honest, I'm less interested in whether people who are considered bad or evil actually are, of if they are just a product of their time/environment/etc, and more interested in us, and our reactions.

Assuming that you, yourself have decided that yes, this person is a bad person, does that make you not want to consume their art? Do you feel differently about it if you have to pay for it? Are you indirectly supporting that person?

I know it's sort of been touched on on streams (I remember Alex or possibly Cam not wanting to play something made by Doug TenNapel), and in threads here. I personally, for example, don't have a problem with Mike. I think he made mistakes, in ignorance, but importantly is trying to fix that. But there were others who were trying to decide if they wanted to go to PAX or not.

[Lord Hosk]

I guess my point was that I dont consider anyone a "bad" person. I consider actions to be bad not people.

if a creative work is good, then a creative work is good.

[Prospero101]

Taking off my literary critic hat for a moment (for those curious it's a secondhand papal miter with self-spinning tassels), I'm personally conflicted on the subject. I do like to enjoy creative work no matter where it comes from, but by buying it and consuming it am I indirectly supporting the views of an Orson Scott Card or an Adam Baldwin? That's what I can't decide.

[Darkflame]

Its certainly a lot different thing when judging someone from the past. No one is any one thing, and certainly environment has to be taken into account.

That SAID, when your talking of folk still alive the ethics are a completely separate kettle of fish, as even if their work is good supporting them might mean your money goes to causes you don't want. You have to weigh your enjoyment of whatever it is against the chance your money is helping to support movements and causes counter to your ethics.
Fortunately though we live in a world were we are spoilt for choice across a wide range of media. We have access to humanity's creations near instantly and across the world. Excluding people for wanting to not support what they support just means we will probably instead give our money to other film/book/game/whatever creators.

[Elomin Sha]

Hitler. The television, film, book and game industry would be lost. I win.


Maybe a close second, the British Empire.

[Arclight_Dynamo]

I can separate the work from the author. I can enjoy Ender's Game while condemning Orson Scott Card. No issue for me... except there are wrinkles:

1) What if the creator is alive? Then I refuse to give money to her/him. If I want to read Ender's Game, I'll buy it used so no money goes to Card. Because I don't want whatever fraction of my purchase he sees being used to fund, for example, organizations opposed to same-sex marriage. It's not a question of having a problem with the work itself; it's a problem with where my cash goes. Easily solved, I think.

2) What if the work itself is loathsome? That makes it rather impossible to separate the work from the creator, doesn't it? Well, here, I again don't have a problem consuming it (so long as my money does not go to the creator, as above). I mean... why would I have a problem reading/watching/whatevering it? Since when does reading a book mean that you endorse it? There's no moral quandary here as far as I'm concerned. I've read Heinlein. I consider him and his works fascist. I've read Rand. I consider her and her works to be the same. Hell, I've read Mein Kampf (history minor, here). Doesn't mean I endorse those things; I roundly reject them, in fact. But I still read them, and I think there was value in doing so. Ideas are not toxic so long as you actually think about them rather than just accept them.

[Lord Hosk]

I can separate the work from the author. I can enjoy Ender's Game while condemning Orson Scott Card. No issue for me... except there are wrinkles:

1) What if the creator is alive? Then I refuse to give money to her/him. If I want to read Ender's Game, I'll buy it used so no money goes to Card. Because I don't want whatever fraction of my purchase he sees being used to fund, for example, organizations opposed to same-sex marriage. It's not a question of having a problem with the work itself; it's a problem with where my cash goes. Easily solved, I think.

I don't think its as easy as that. You bought a used copy of Ender, so when another person who didnt care about the ethics went looking for one less expensive used copy and couldnt find one they bought a new ender. Effectivly you gave the same amount of money to Card.

Here is a separate wrinkle for you, if you believe that people are good or evil, and you do things that support people you judge to be evil even if they are dead arent you evil?

The tricky slop. You choose who to support you choose who to ignore, you choose which suffering you consider to be caused by evil oppose and which suffering you consider to be simply existing and ignore.

It is impossible to live in a interconnected world and not support people who do bad things, so its a matter of epic vanity and self importance to decide who is or isnt "bad enough"

[MotorWaffle]

I go with the "love the work, not the creator" approach. I can only assume that with the things I buy in my daily life, some of my money is probably ending up in the pockets of someone I disagree with on some level. Hell, given how often money changes hands, it may have come to me from an organization or individual I disagree with in the first place.

[Bebop Man]

I remember playing Earthwork Jim at a friend's house when I was 9 or 10, and watching the animated series.

What's wrong with Earthworm Jim?

[ch3m1kal]

What's wrong with Earthworm Jim?

Nothing, it's a great series.

The "problem" is that its creator, Doug TenNapel, is a homophobe and a bigot.


I personally think that a great thing done by a not so great person doesn't diminish the value of the thing, but also doesn't make the person any better.
I personally, can judge those 2 things completely separately and be fine with it. Ofc that doesn't mean that it's not a perfectly reasonable position to boycott certain things simply because you don't want to support the people making them.

I also think it's incredibly subjective and that most people like to take political stances that don't affect them all that much. For example it's not very hard to get hold of a copy of Ender's Game, or Mein Kampf and for that matter your life won't be particularly affected if you never read either one of them.

However as a counter example, Steve Jobs was by all accounts a terrible human being and generally a gigantic asshole and yet I've heard very few people say they're boycotting Apple products because of him.

I'm very curious to see if the fact that Apple's current CEO, Tim Cook is openly gay will make homophobes
stop buying their products. My money is on no.

[Duckay]

I can't help but notice, though, that there have been some examples in media lately of celebrities allegedly doing far worse things than being racist, homophobic, or rude on twitter. You have not given those celebrities as an example.

Is there an upper limit to what you will accept from a creator before it taints their work too much? Did you not want to discuss things that controversial? Or do you think it's a different matter when it's something a court of law can prosecute?

ETA: Or is it different when it's objectively true (like you can see that they have said something) or when it is alleged by someone else?

[JackSlack]

I admit, for me the really difficult one is Max Temkin. Because while normally I can separate easily enough, his actual work here touches on his alleged crimes enough to make that very, very difficult.

[Duckay]

It is impossible to live in a interconnected world and not support people who do bad things, so its a matter of epic vanity and self importance to decide who is or isnt "bad enough"

Separately, I wanted to address this. It's something I like to go off on my little rants about periodically, so it is very possible that you have heard this before and can skip to the end.

If there are two places I can buy my morning coffee, and one has business practices I disapprove, or has historically given money to things that I disapprove of, or has higher prices, or has worse-tasting coffee, or has rude staff, I will buy my coffee from the other place. That's my right as a consumer to buy my coffee from whichever place I want to have my money.

Your suggestion that it's impossible to not support people you do not want to and therefore it's "epic vanity and self importance" to spend your own money the way you want to spend it feels like it rings false when I am certain that you make purchasing decisions for yourself and your family based on whatever criteria feels right to you.

No, you can never be 100% "good", or thrifty, or environmentally conscious, but I still hold that it is an individual's right to vote on consumer products "with their dollars" and boycott whatever they please. Even if it ultimately matters little.

Yes, I still buy my coffee from coffee shop #2 because I don't want to support coffee shop #1 and maybe you can find in my purchasing history something that you think is "worse" than coffee shop #1 (in fact, I am certain you can). I still don't believe that this means you shouldn't try. After all, if you followed me around for a day, you might catch me speeding, but that doesn't mean I'm going to throw my hands up in the air and commit other crimes too. Or substitute "being sarcastic" and "being violent", or whatever analogy moves you.

[My pseudonym is Ix]

And I think that what Hosk is trying to say is that your choice will frequently end up being between the place with lovely staff, cheap, good tasting coffee, or the place whose owner isn't a raging homophobe. Or the business with a homophobic record vs. the one with the poor environmental record. And so on

[Duckay]

And what I think I am trying to say is that it's up to you to make whatever decision that feels right for you. And if you would rather have cheap coffee, okay. And if you would rather not support the homophobe, okay. I'm not going to pretend that my purchasing dollars are making the ultimate difference, or that I'm not supporting something unsavory, but I'm also not going to pretend it isn't an individual's right to choose how they spend their money and where they want their money going.

[CrazyMax46]

I've learned in my time and probably pretty much everything I enjoy is probably made by something or someone who is not a very good person most likely.

[CrazyMax46]

...I mean...except for those Loading Ready Run folks. They seem like upstanding citizens.

[Lord Hosk]

My point wasn't that you cant make a single choice that you feel is supporting something "not bad" over something "bad" of course you can.

But that while you are making that "good" choice you are also making multiple bad choices that you dont even think about. Your cloths are most likely made in sweatshop conditions, your food is likely harvested by paid negligible amounts of money and worked in nearly unbearable conditions. Coffee workers are NOTORIOUSLY over worked and underpaid. Most of the worlds oil supply which facilitates the transportation of almost all goods and services is under the control of oppressive monarchies and oligarchies who brutally oppress all of their non-elite male citizens.

But we dont think about those things supporting "bad" people because you cant live your life not supporting "bad" people and still live in interconnected world.

Unless you are entirely self sufficient some of your choices are going to be in support of people who actively make bad/evil choices.

[Duckay]

Sure, I acknowledge that is true. I'm just confused about in what way that's relevant to this topic. The only way I can interpret it is as follows; if I have misread you, please correct me.

To use your expanded example, if I go with coffee shop #1 I am supporting underpaid, overworked employees, and coffee harvested in terrible conditions. At coffee shop #2, same goes, but also the owner supports things I disapprove of. I may well choose to go to coffee shop #1 based on that criteria, and I don't see how it's "vain and self-important" to do so. In fact, I find that idea sort of laughable. It's a terrible logical fallacy - you can never reduce your impact to 0, so why bother trying?

ETA: If you'll forgive my extensive ramble, it's also a matter of each person's ideals. Yes, some people care more about a business owner making donations to homophobic organizations in their own country than about the plight of people in developing countries because it's more tangible to them, more relevant to their life. Maybe that makes them bad people and we should shun and judge them, or maybe we should applaud them for taking actions to impact some part of the world even if there's "something worse" going on elsewhere that they "should" be caring about.

Not to mention, everyone has to pick their battles. I couldn't change everything in the world if I tried. I can't reduce my impact to 0, and while I could do more, I choose not to do so because I am selfish and draw the line too close to home.

However, I still take actions in my life that I believe are in the service of others. Now, you could very rightly say, "But duckay, your actions are still supporting sweatshops, filthy business practices, underpaid and exploited workers in other countries, and that's not even touching the financial support to bigots you don't even know about, so why fucking bother boycotting coffee shops, supporting charities or taking a lower-paid job so you can feel more emotionally fulfilled? You're still supporting more bad than good in the world."

Well, at the end of the day, that is very true and I acknowledge that. However, I feel like I would rather be the person who does "good" in addition to bad than be complacent and just heap bad on bad. Of course, I'm not saying the same isn't true of you; I know full well that it is. That's honestly why I'm confused that you have chosen to draw the line here.

[Lord Hosk]

MY point is that you can never reduce your impact to 0, so you are almost always doing evil for your own benefit but that doesn't make you a "bad" person it just means you perform a bad action and it doesnt negate a good action nor does a good action negate a bad.

My point is that people like to assign the term "bad" to people they disagree with often to make themselves feel superior.

I will point just to one example as he was in the original statement.

Orson Scott Card was called a Horrible person and later a bad person because of his views on homosexuality. This discounts his support of immigration reform, veterans health care reform, increased government regulation of the banking stock and corporate entities. This also discounts his advocacy for adoption, mental health services and elimination of racial oppression. He has donated millions of dollars to all of those causes. Now Im not saying that one of those cancels out the other but that they are all actions taken by the same person.

My point was and has remained that great things and horrible things done by a person do not make them great or horrible they make the actions taken great or horrible.

So while choosing not to buy a new copy of Enders game does take some of the financial support away from the anti-homosexuality movement the exact same action also takes financial support away from advocacy for expanded mental health care takes financial support away from advocacy for non-discriminatory immigration practices and takes financial support away from Pro-adoption campaigns that want to take thousands of children out of the endless cycle of Foster care group home foster care group home.

My point was that the original premise was flawed by saying that those people are horrible because they do X and X is bad.