Should a person be judged by what they do or by who they are?
This is a common question and it arises again in the situation of the recent biography of Philip Roth. This week, the publishers of that book have pulled it from sales because the author has been accused of being a sexual molester.
Now, I have not read the book. I did read an excerpt in Esquire Magazine. If that portion was singled-out as a highlight, then its unavailability is a blessing. isn’t missing. But, that’s not the point. I do not know whether the accusation against the author is credible, let alone true. I do not consider myself among the conservatives who complain about the “cancel culture.” At the same time, though, should we really turn our backs on whatever has been created by an artist just because that artist did something offensive unrelated to their work?
Politics is different. The private behavior of a government official is related to their work. We rely on their rationality and judgment when we vest them with the power to make the rules. So, if they have a history of irrational behavior, even in their private lives, that matters. That’s relevant. Does anybody remember the last four years?
Sports and entertainment, too, are somewhat like that. Horrible things done privately by those people have no impact on how well they perform in their games or their shows. Ty Cobb still hit .400 even though he was a spiteful, hateful person. I still laugh at O.J in the “Police Squad” movies. He was good. But, these folks, rightly or wrongly, have another job-related responsibility. They are idolized. That creates a duty to their idolaters, mostly kids, to be worth the idolizing. More so, those of them who advertise themselves as examplars of either what to buy or who to vote for carry with them an even greater burden. They can’t sell sneakers by saying, “Be Like Mike,” if Mike is an asshole.
Art, however, is a separate case. Only rarely are the private lives of authors and painters connected in any way with their creations. For every Hemmingway, there are countless writers and painters who wouldn’t be recognized if they stood next to their work. (Well, maybe you could pick out Van Gogh – he had a pretty different look).
So, let me ask you about these fellows:
Picasso was a misogynist and a sadist. He physically abused the women in is life, once saying that women “are machines for suffering.” So, next time someone offers to freely give you a Picasso, will you turn it down?
Charles Dickens was a horrible person. When he was tired of his wife, he started an affair with an 18-year-old and then published lies about his discarded spouse. Among those lies was that their children did not love their mother. When, as a result, he fraudulently received custody of those children, this author of “A Christmas Carol” refused to let his children see their mother on Christmas. Who was really the Scrooge? So, don’t let your children watch that bastard’s touching and meaningful movie this Christmas Eve, all right?
How about Raoald Dahl? He wrote one of the most wonderful children’s stories of all time – Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. Unfortunately, this “Candy Man” was also an anti-Semitic racist. Dahl was quoted as saying that the character of the Jewish people provokes animosity, and so it was understandable why Hitler had singled them out. Will his stuff get his works oompa-loompaed out the windw?
And, there are more. William Golding, author of Lord of the Flies, was tried for the rape of a twelve-year-old. I could go on.
The removal of the Philip Roth biography because of what the author may have done is both wrong-headed and dangerous. Wrong-headed because art stands on its own merit. There is the old Christian adage that you should “hate the sin but love the sinner.” This is the flip-side – “hate the artist but love the art.”
We are reinforcing the divisive mentality of the Trump Administration. If someone lives an offensive life then they are anathema – then anything they do is bad. We’ll never get along that way. Where is the objectivity? We cannot just stamp authors and painters as good or bad because of their personal conduct and deprive ourselves of their art.
Not sure how anyone else feels about this, but I can’t wait to watch “A Christmas Carol” with my grand-daughter.
We were right 
The list is endless. From artists, industrialists, philanthropists, authors, poets, philosophers, physicians, scientists, clergy, nation and world leaders, inventors, discoverers, and yes, human rights advocates, MANY have a dark side. And, it’s not just males. Pick any category and with little effort, you have a candidate.
Point being human nature is never black and white, just shades of gray. So how do we judge? This nation is in that very dilemma right now, from Christopher Columbus to Andrew Jackson and beyond. Rename schools, street signs, cities and businesses? We all want our heroes spotless and pristine, above all degradation and flaws. Ain’t gonna happen.
Can we laugh at a movie staring a murderer, enjoy music performed by a child molester, elect an official complicit in underage sex trafficking, or read a book by a known misogynist, homophobe, criminal or racist?
I have no clear cut answer. Sometimes ignorance is bliss. What we don’t know is better left unknown. Yet, when it comes to the here and now, our choices of leaders and heroes moving into the future deserves better evaluation. Let every person decide for themselves just how they wish to resolve their own dilemma and live with it with enough integrity to explain to their grandchildren.
LikeLiked by 1 person