Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Mike Miller's avatar

So, I had the opportunity to read earlier drafts of this while Simon was working it out. I don't think I gave any particularly useful notes or advice, but I've had time to mull over the topic, thus I walk in ready to drop...

THE INDIVIDUAL IS NOT THE TRIBE.

Humans have had ways of dealing with the disruptive, and the malcontent, ranging from shunning to expulsion, incarceration and beyond.

If there's a good thing going on and there's a cancer trying to take root, slice it out. Perhaps with regret, but with determination. Preserve the healthy tissue and grow stronger.

Otherwise, this essay once again brushes up on the "art vs artist" debate which hasn't quite (yet) been the main thesis for one of these newsletters. Others' opinions may vary, but I long ago reached my conclusion, which is I cab quite easily seperate both.

In the case of an artist still living and in copyright, once said artist's problematic ways come to light I can choose to no longer purchase new (or unowned) works by that creator, but I'm not going to throw away works I already own, or choose not to enjoy the creation.

Instead I merely mourn that Orson Scott Card, Larry Niven, JK Rowling, et.al. fail to live up to the standards set by their own protagonists. In the case of Card, Niven and Rowling I can hope they take the lessons of their own art and cease doing harm, while enjoying what I own and have read, while not purchasing more from them.

Sadly, in some cases, the creator's problems are what lead to the creation of the art. H.P. Lovecraft was a horrible racist. His fear of, and inability to come to terms with *the different* drives the entire Cthulhu mythos - a bleak, uncaring universe with soul shattering creatures who aren't evil or malevolent, but *indifferent.* Even Tolkien's sagas. Yeah, he built his dwarfs off stereotypes of Jews - but if one has read the creation myths in the Silmarrillion, it's pretty damn obvious he just wrapped Dante up in a new T-shirt and his own Catholicism is on every page. Yet these author's biases and fears are what inform their work and make them great. These biases may not even be immediately apparent to a modern reader (OK, Lovecraft's racism is obvious).

That's how I've reconciled things. Other's mileage may vary.

Although in the case of Rowling, well, I never bought the books. Guess she got a few cents from my movie tickets. Harry Potter was a book franchise I borrowed and was moderately entertained by, and a film series I saw as I dated (and later married one of) a string of women who were great fans.

But I digress.

Key points. If I'm around someone toxic, I'll try to see if I can educate and correct. If that fails, I don't need them in my life. If I appreciate a creative work and later discover the creator is slime, I still can enjoy the art, but will no longer do anything to reward the creator.

It took until my 40s to figure this out.

Expand full comment
Mike Sowden's avatar

Thank you for the shout-out!

Oh boy, yes, the "ethical purity" thing. Sigh. I guess the narrative that Substack equals Nazis is not going to go away, and it's probably only a matter of time before the next s**tstorm around it. I post versions of some of my stories on social media, so I get a fair bit of "ugh, SUBSTACK" when I do (and I've recently had a couple of paid subscriber cancellations over it).

The last comment I got was:

"This is a fantastic thread and I am very tempted to subscribe but - have you considered moving away from substack? The latest news has me very not interested in supporting that platform. I have no idea how difficult that would be for you"

This was my reply at the time:

>>"Thank you! Appreciate you saying this - I've had other folk "suggesting" the same thing, nowhere near as politely. 😄

>>It's tricky, yes: there are science comms I really admire on the platform, & others that have left because of past controversies & some truly awful people with publications there...

>>As for myself, I'm not yet ready to make the decision to make the leap elsewhere, which I'd hopefully do also for practical reasons (better functionality elsewhere) - but I respect the folk in science (some who are friends) who consider the whole platform a total no-no and act accordingly.

>>The other thing about sticking around on a platform with anti-science (and anti-democratic) voices so active on it is you can push back against them from within that system. There are folk on Substack with big followings doing that and I respect it very much. (I'm not really one - I'm small-scale.)

>>All this said - if anyone wanted to subscribe and read my newsletter totally for free, and never commit to giving me a single penny until I was elsewhere, I can respect that too. 😁"

I'm still not sure there is any "right answer" to all of this, and I don't have much patience with the extremely self-righteous yelling at Substack writers that they're endorsing Nazis by staying on Substack. Anyone claiming obviously complicated things are that simple and displaying such a lack of empathy has more problems than yelling at random strangers.

I appreciate how Mike Miller brought up Orson Scott Card in another comment, because that's such a great example of an author whose work I still respect even though I find his personal religious beliefs absolutely unpalatable. But generally, it's so hard to separate the creator from their work! I mean, I still love the first Avengers film on every level and I still love Firefly, and - they're both Joss Whedon. And for a more British example, I recently enjoyed watching the first few seasons of Coast, even though Neil Oliver has now turned into a conspiracy-trumpeting twit on GB News...

One example in fsf: I never really liked the work of David Eddings ("The Belgariad") despite multiple attempts at reading his fantasy trilogies - but I do wonder how it must affect his actual fans, which still number in the millions, when they learn he was a convicted child abuser. From Wikipedia:

"Eddings and his wife Leigh pled guilty to 11 counts of physical child abuse of their adopted children. They adopted one boy in 1966, Scott David, then two months old; subsequently, the couple adopted a girl between 1966 and 1969. In 1970, the couple lost custody of both children and were each sentenced to a year in jail in separate trials for extensive child abuse of both children. Though the trial and conviction of both David and Leigh Eddings was reported in the local press, the news was not widely disseminated, as Eddings was an obscure academic at the time. The conviction was consequently not remarked on after Eddings became a well-known author over a decade later; it was not widely publicly revealed until after his death."

Also, re Gaiman - did you see the allegations that he cribbed much of The Sandman from the hugely-underappreciated Tanith Lee? https://dmrbooks.com/test-blog/2025/3/2/neil-gaiman-vs-tanith-lee-when-the-sandman-robbed-the-empress-of-dreams In my case, I recently had a go at reading American Gods, after the allegations came out, and the story came across as so nasty and cruel that I couldn't continue. Maybe that was influenced of what I now know about its author?

So - I reckon it's a personal choice, and always a fiendishly complicated one. Chasing purity is foolish at best, malicious hypocrisy at worst.

Expand full comment
27 more comments...

No posts