Talking Cosby

I used to think that Bill Cosby was really funny. I remember when I first heard him. I was in high school. We played his albums and laughed our asses off.  There was that one routine about Noah building his Ark that sticks out in my mind. 

I couldn’t laugh at Bill Cosby now. As I listened to him, I wouldn’t be thinking about the humorist.  I would be thinking about the rapist. 

There is a docuseries about Cosby that is scheduled to begin tomorrow (as I write this). It is called, “We Need to Talk About Cosby.” I am curious to see how that film handles the issues raised by Dr. Huxtable. Until then, I find the title very provocative and offer these simple thoughts in response.

How is Bill Cosby viewed now? We all know that he was convicted of rape.  His conviction was vacated, but only because the Judge screwed up, not because he didn’t screw the victim. So, most everyone considers the man despicable. Any concert he may now try to put on would get less response than would a Charles Manson Birthday Go-Fund-Me page.  

But here’s the thing. His routines are no less funny. We just are no longer laughing at them because he is the one telling them.  What that means is, at least in this case and in so many others, we do not distinguish the person from their work. I have to wonder whether that’s the right thing to do.

Some great art has been produced by some great assholes. Picasso was a misogynist and sadist. He was a sexual exploiter of women. He called women, “machines for suffering.” His granddaughter once said of him, “He needed the blood of those who loved him.” 

Salvador Dali was a Nazi. He was obsessed with Hitler. He once said, “I often dreamed about Hitler as other men dreamed about women.” 

Roald Dahl, author of “Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory,” was an Anti-Semite and racist. He once said, “There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity.” 

And William Golding, the author of “Lord of the Flies,” admitted to the attempted rape of a twelve-year-old. Apparently, he also lorded over his own fly. There are many other examples, but you get the point.

So, if it is right to reject a person’s work because we dislike the person, then should we reject Picasso’s genius and Dali’s art and never again watch Willie Wonka or read Lord of the Flies? 

And there is another problem with equating a person with their work. It’s the problem in reverse. Often, because we think a person’s work is good, we attribute that goodness to the person. This is true of celebrities. Look at the slate of celebrities who because they gained popularity as actors or television personalities, or athletes have used that popularity to become politicians. The most obvious comes to mind most obviously. I think his last name rhymes with “Chump.” The list of others is long – Reagan, Schwarzenegger, Bill Bradley, et al.  Today we are faced with, among others, Herschel Walker and Dr. Oz.

We listen to the political stylings of Lady GaGa at the same time that we refuse to laugh at Bill Cosby’s jokes. In both cases we are equating the work with the person. We don’t laugh at Cosby’s jokes because he’s an asshole. We do listen to Lady GaGa’s opinions because she is a brilliant singer. Neither perspective makes any sense.

Celebrity, I suppose, has always given boost to political candidates.  The past list of Presidents includes many Generals. They were the celebrities of their day.  But at least Generals have experience in leading large organizations and doing it in the midst of great crises.  Schwarzenegger led people through a lot of crises, but they were all on a sound stage.

We can dislike a person and still appreciate their work. I detest Aaron Rodgers. He’s an egomaniacal anti-vaxer. I was thrilled when he lost his playoff game last week. Yet, I can also appreciate with awe how magnificent a quarterback he is, and I enjoy watching him do it.

Why does that kind of thinking not apply to Bill Cosby? For sure, what Cosby did was egregious, but was it so much more egregious than the things done by the artists I mentioned earlier whose works we still extoll? Maybe. 

There is another possible reason that should be proposed. Bill Cosby is black. Now, I can hear some readers saying, “Oh, come on, his race never even occurred to me.” I’m sure you’re right. It could be that that’s because Bill Cosby is a very white, black man. So, I think there may be good reason to dismiss the racial reasons. But still, maybe.

And maybe it is because Bill Cosby is just not good enough at what he does to deserve the rejection of his character in the appreciation of his talent. Think about Tiger Woods. He was not exactly the model husband. His life was not the picture of a hero.  But he is so good, so extraordinarily good at what he does, that his talent overwhelms the disrespect that might otherwise have been laid upon him. And he’s even black.

I don’t pretend to know the answer to all this.  I am just responding to the title of the docuseries that starts tomorrow – “We Need to Talk About Cosby”. It’s a very interesting suggestion. And it goes well beyond Bill Cosby.