Separating Creator and Creation

I wasn’t really sure what category this fit in but I wanted to see what everybody thought of the idea that a creator doing wrong negates their show/book and etc. One person that comes to mind in particular is Nobuhiro Watsuki, who made the Rurouni Kenshin manga. In 2017, police found child p*** (is that word allowed on here?) in his apartment. Since then, a lot of other manga artists have come out and defended the guy which I don’t know the full story but the fact that they found that still remains. He might be a different person, he might not still be doing that but he’s still making Rurouni Kenshin, he’s still an icon/figure. There are action figures of people like that, do we just burn those?

Where is the line drawn though? Watsuki might’ve made the manga but what about the adaptations? He wasn’t necessarily involved with the anime (as far as I know) he just provided the source material. There are a lot of people that work on these things, does that negate their work on the project too?

I feel like we can be more lenient towards actors, look at Kevin Spacey. I don’t like him or what he did obviously but I still like Baby Driver, I still like a Bug’s Life, there were a lot more people in those than him. But something as influential as a creator is a bit more frowned upon. Dan Schneider for instance, I can’t really look at iCarly the same way anymore, it just feels like some of that fetish bled into it. It’s uncomfortable with this newfound context but something like Rurouni Kenshin didn’t seem that way, in fact, it felt quite the opposite.

I mean if we just got rid of all the stuff made by quote on quote “criminals”, we’d be excluding half, if not, almost all of Hollywood. They can be punished, sure, but their previous work will more than likely remain. I know this is kind of a “just take what you will of it” thing, definitely depending on the severity of the crime but I’m not seeking any sort of approval on anything just curious how other people treat these types of situations.

I remember wondering if I should boycott In-n-Out Burgers for putting religious text on their napkins, and then decided that it all depended how hungry I was…

Personally, I can enjoy the product of someone who has been identified as being at odds with society and my values, but I do find myself scrutinizing it more, and in some cases, pushing it away as I realize what disturbing elements I had been subconsciously enjoying.

I consider the work entirely separate from the creator. Whatever the creator might do no matter how terrible it has no impact on my purchase or judgement of their work.

You’re not going to find “a line” that everybody agrees on, that’s just going to be a personal call that everyone makes for themselves. I don’t doubt for a moment that Roman Polanski raped an underage girl in the 70s, I don’t think even he contests the basic facts of what happened. But I still consider Chinatown an amazing movie. William Burroughs shot his wife (though he always maintained that was an accident) and I still think his works are interesting, and worth reading. And I think we all know what a bastard Lovecraft was, and I can’t imagine never reading one of his stories or enjoying a movie based on his works again.

But if someone told me they couldn’t do it, they just couldn’t enjoy the work based on the actions of its creator, I’d understand that. Someone who has been personally affected by murder or rape or racism is going to more sensitive to such things, understandably so. I don’t think there’s a wrong or right answer here, no bright and shining line.

For me there are two primary relevant factors:

  1. Does the work clearly reflect the thing that I find problematic about the creator? E.g., racism, misogyny, homophobia, sexual predilection for children, etc. If so I’m not only not going to want to support the creator, but I will probably struggle to value the work. This can be very work-to-work - I’m not going to read Lovecraft’s letters, or some of his poetry (well, any of it, not really into poetry), and there are arguably certain stories that are egregious…but a lot of them I’d never have noticed if people weren’t calling it out. And in that lens, sure, I can see where he’s coming from. But they’re still mostly stories about fishmen or whatever and they’re still a fertile source of ideas and monsters.
  2. Is the creator alive today and deriving direct royalties or similar financial benefit, especially if they are using their money and influence to actively work to steer the world in the wrong direction? Then I might still enjoy some of their stuff…but I’m muuuuch less comfortable paying them for it. That is a line I really can’t say I consistently apply, but e.g. I’m not okay with giving Orson Scott Card to actively campaign against LGBT rights.

There are certainly a number of writers for whom this is a significant question: Piers Anthony, Orson Scott Card. J.K. Rowling. Hemingway to some extent. Lots of others I could name, as well as in other art forms.

It is a question I’ve always struggled with, but in general I try to separate the art from the artist, and then just try to not give the artist any of my money.

Piracy of the answer in this case.

Sorry if you thought I was suggesting that, I was not. But it is possible to buy books at used book stores.

Yeah, there is no hard and fast rule for sure. Sometimes separation is possible, sometimes not. It all depends on how intrinsic the creator, and their issues, are to the work.

To pick a specific recent example, John Schaffer. Guitarist and writer for the band Iced Earth. They have a few really incredible albums, including one that was a top 25 all time album for me, The Glorious Burden. But since January 6th, I simply can not listen to it any more. I previously really enjoyed it, but simply can not take any enjoyment. And that’s because the creator is so tied to the album, and the themes are too close to his own involvement in the events at the capitol, that it ruined the work for me.

On the other hand Rowling’s nonsense is both a) really hard to follow in a specific British fashion and b) not thematically inherent to her problems. I am sitting here looking at the Lego Hogwarts castle my son got for Christmas. I can understand that some disagree, but there is a remove there as well. And the work does not have the same close thematic ties, in fact kinda runs opposite to it in many ways.

But as others said there is certainly some lack of consistency in my position, as would anyone who is being honest. We don’t all look deeply into every work we buy and their creators. Sometimes we accept things because ‘its one person on a team of hundreds’ or ‘the issues are separate from the work’. How many people boycotted Cyberpunk 2077 due to the work conditions? Some, but did everyone who took issue with the crunch environment? Certainly not.

The problem with Rowling IMO is that she is actively working against trans rights and giving her money supports that. Now, she already has astronomical sums, so it is up to the individual to determine whether they feel like another drop in that bucket is meaningful to them or not.

For me it depends on how the knowledge changes the statements of the art, how much it costs, how much people will notice me using or enjoying it, and how good is the next best alternative. No hard rule.

I forgot about this. How for every good art, there will be one trying to copy it. Just look at how many games are taking inspiration from Breath of the Wild, may not be exact but you can get a similar experience.

I think creative works are fundamentally nonfungible. You cannot exactly replicate every quality of a musical performance, a movie, a book, a comic, etc without literally just passing the original off as yours. And sure, derivative works might be better, but ultimately that’s subjective.

I actually prefer a lot of Lovecraft’s successors, but that doesn’t mean they’ve replaced his work in a way that obsoletes it. And I’ve seen a lot of remade movies that hit most of the same beats but they don’t have what made the original sing.

edit 123

The other thing is that the message of the Harry Potter books is pretty much the exact opposite of what she has been spouting, so I have no problem recommending them whatsoever.

Similarly, the first few sequels to Ender’s Game practically beat you over the head with their message about tolerance, empathy, and learning to accept ways of life that initially seem disturbing or offputting. So there was some real whiplash from absorbing that message as a teenager and then seeing Card advocate the exact opposite in real life.

For me, time plays a role. I can listen to Wagner’s operas, because they’re friggin’ amazing, even though Wagner was a loathsome toad. But the dude’s been dead for a long time, and AFAIK no one is channeling profits from ticket sales to Das Rheingold at the Met to some neo-Nazi group. But Ted Nugent? Loved a lot of his work when I was much younger, but over the last few years I just can’t take his public communications and political stances. So I don’t play Cat Scratch Fever any more, even though objectively it’s a kick-ass rock album.

I will plead ignorance of all most all creators and thus for me the answer is yes.

I suppose one would have to ignore the US based on the ethics and morality of many of its creators.

I recently purchased The Best Military Science Fiction of the 20th Century. I skipped reading the Ender’s Game excerpt because fuck Orson Scott Card. Did I stop him from getting paid? No. But fuck him anyway.

I pick and choose as my mood moves me.