I really appreciate that you’ve taken on this complicated idea. Dad often talked about the difficulty of reading the work of theologians who were later found to be morally reprehensible. What do we do with their theologies —particularly after we’ve been sifting through their ideas for fifty or a hundred years? I’m very excited about all of the accolades that have come your way for your work! Congratulations!
I’ve been going back and forth over what to do with my copy of THE WOLVES IN THE WALLS, a children’s picture book by Gaiman and illustrated by Dave McKean. My 5-year-old niece has asked for back-to-back readings and I totally understand why: the narrative is giving her space to examine her real-life fears, and there’s a message of self-determination, with a point (not made nearly often enough) that the grown-ups aren’t always the most sensible people in the room. Someday, when my niece is old enough, I will tell her some pertinent facts about the author. So thanks, John…I think you’ve just convinced me not to burn it. 😬
It's tough. It's especially hard with the authors whose work appeals to young people who are too young for the whole story. Can a bad person make something good? I think so.
I think it's imperative to continue to evaluate artists on their work first, their own actions second. As you write about Highsmith, it's likely her attitudes and beliefs were fed by her terrible childhood and by being lesbian at a time when she could be jailed for it, and alcoholism, and all kinds of things.
I might be mistaken here, but Munro didn't know about the abuse as it was happening, but years later. It was then, when told the history, that she chose her husband, the abuser, over her daughter. So while that in itself is horrible, she did not enable the abuse itself as it was happening.
I don’t agree about neatly setting their work up for evaluation first and then their lives second. That seems to too easily straighten out a complex issue. And about Munro, that she found out afterward, but then rejected her daughter for her husband, in my mind, counts as abuse. Sexual abuse isn’t just about the act but the shame created by the abuser; as far as I’m concerned, Munro is complicit if not an abuser herself. Again, I urge to avoid simplifying.
I guess I think it's anything but oversimplifying to recognize that Munro didn't enable the abuse as it happened (unlike her ex-husband, who knew about it as it happened). Yes, I absolutely agree that Munro's rejection of her daughter was abuse, but I believe it's important to acknowledge specifics and be precise. Enabling child sexual abuse is different from rejecting the child after the abuse. I'm not grading them as to which is worse, but the details are important. Complexity, not simplification.
I really appreciate that you’ve taken on this complicated idea. Dad often talked about the difficulty of reading the work of theologians who were later found to be morally reprehensible. What do we do with their theologies —particularly after we’ve been sifting through their ideas for fifty or a hundred years? I’m very excited about all of the accolades that have come your way for your work! Congratulations!
Thank you, Jeni! I miss conversations with your father—always the best!
I’ve been going back and forth over what to do with my copy of THE WOLVES IN THE WALLS, a children’s picture book by Gaiman and illustrated by Dave McKean. My 5-year-old niece has asked for back-to-back readings and I totally understand why: the narrative is giving her space to examine her real-life fears, and there’s a message of self-determination, with a point (not made nearly often enough) that the grown-ups aren’t always the most sensible people in the room. Someday, when my niece is old enough, I will tell her some pertinent facts about the author. So thanks, John…I think you’ve just convinced me not to burn it. 😬
It's tough. It's especially hard with the authors whose work appeals to young people who are too young for the whole story. Can a bad person make something good? I think so.
(Also, I am SO STOKED for the audiobook!!!)
I think it's imperative to continue to evaluate artists on their work first, their own actions second. As you write about Highsmith, it's likely her attitudes and beliefs were fed by her terrible childhood and by being lesbian at a time when she could be jailed for it, and alcoholism, and all kinds of things.
I might be mistaken here, but Munro didn't know about the abuse as it was happening, but years later. It was then, when told the history, that she chose her husband, the abuser, over her daughter. So while that in itself is horrible, she did not enable the abuse itself as it was happening.
I don’t agree about neatly setting their work up for evaluation first and then their lives second. That seems to too easily straighten out a complex issue. And about Munro, that she found out afterward, but then rejected her daughter for her husband, in my mind, counts as abuse. Sexual abuse isn’t just about the act but the shame created by the abuser; as far as I’m concerned, Munro is complicit if not an abuser herself. Again, I urge to avoid simplifying.
I guess I think it's anything but oversimplifying to recognize that Munro didn't enable the abuse as it happened (unlike her ex-husband, who knew about it as it happened). Yes, I absolutely agree that Munro's rejection of her daughter was abuse, but I believe it's important to acknowledge specifics and be precise. Enabling child sexual abuse is different from rejecting the child after the abuse. I'm not grading them as to which is worse, but the details are important. Complexity, not simplification.