Shake my hand. Come on, I dare ya.
For some reason this old quote about Portnoy's Complaint keeps popping into my head: Philip Roth is a great writer, but I wouldn't want to shake his hand.
I just can't remember who said it, except I'm fairly sure it was a woman.
If you haven't read the novel (published in 1969) you wouldn't realize why that quote is funny. You can read a pretty good overview at Wikipedia, but in brief: the whole story is structured like this: Portnoy is talking to his psychiatrist, recounting episodes from his life. His problem is primarily about sexual longing of an extreme (and to use his word) perverse nature. Masturbation is a major theme.
So you see why somebody might not want to shake Roth's hand, depending on to what degree the novel was autobiographical. It's supposed to be fiction, of course, but this is one of those cloudy areas where it's hard to separate the author from the work.
There are lots of stories out there about writers who were (or are) terrible people. Mean, small minded, jealous, vindictive. Reading the work of such people, you would not necessarily get any sense of their personal failings. One example I can provide, because the person in question is dead: Robert Frost, he of the snowy woods. He was pathologically spiteful and envious of any writerly success that wasn't his own. The story goes (and right at this moment I can't find the citation, so this is heresay until I do) that once when another poet was giving a reading, Frost started a fire in the back of the auditorium to bring things to a quick end.
Now, I can't say I would have wanted to spend any time with Frost, but this kind of story makes me think about him more, and look at his poetry in a different light. Was he deeply unhappy, scarred by childhood trauma, or simply a bastard? Or maybe all three. And look, he created some beautiful poetry anyway.
There are other authors whose work I really adore, but whose personal politics are anathema to me. Just as I know I have readers who are religiously and politically conservative, and who are unsettled by the occasional post in which my liberal view of the world is unmasked. Do they keep reading my books? I hope so, but maybe not. Sometimes a reader just can't get past something they know about the writer's real life.
So what's the upshot of all this? I suppose I'm just reminding myself that curiosity is a two edged sword. If a new author (or screenwriter, or actor, or musician) catches my attention I may find myself wondering about him or her. The real question though is, do I want to take the chance of being disillusioned, or should I remain content with whatever my own imagination comes up with?
This same question applies to reviewers. If you get a review written by another author, one you don't know, you're going to be curious about that person and his or her work. If they praise your novel to the sky or stomp it into the mud, either way, you're curious.
This past summer there was a really awful review of Tied to the Tracks in the main newspaper of a large city. The kind of extreme review that is so over the top that you almost have to laugh at it. Words like puerile and caricature were prominent. And here's the thing: I didn't know anything about the writer of that review except that s/he was an author. And that s/he really, really hated Tied to the Tracks, with a near breathless passion.
The question before me was, did I want to know more about the reviewer? If it turned out that s/he wrote fantastic, universally loved novels, then the review would be even more devastating. If, on the other hand, the reviewer's own publication history was not so stellar, that might give me room to rationalize away the sting. Or at least, tell myself a story about how the reviewer came to write such an extremely nasty review. Eventually I gave into curiosity and I did some searching. In this case I found that balm I was hoping for. Let me just say this: an author who names a primary character Venus Diamond has a lot of nerve using a word like puerile in a review.
All of this applies equally to film makers and actors, of course. It's something I can't quite sort out for myself and maybe I'll never come to a conclusion on how I want to handle such conflicts. Tom Crusie has made some excellent movies (and a lot of awful ones); do I pass up one that is well done and interesting because I cannot abide the man's prostelytizing and public persona? Do I hesitate buying that movie ticket because I just can't make myself put money in his pocket?
I wish I had an answer.
Interesting timing, I was just thinking about Bing Crosby and how yet another generation was appreciating his christmas music, even though, from what I hear, he was a real bastard. Tom Cruise, great actor, lil out there. Just watched Collateral again, man can that guy act, always get choked up on the coyote and subway scene. Of course Mel Gibson, my idol since Mad Max allegedly racist. I just try and seperate the artist's work from the artist. I can usaully manage it but it makes me feel old, the innocence is gone.
I look at it this way, the reason they are so good at what they do(acting,writing) is because they think differently than the average person..Most of the people I would consider great actors tend to be, for lack of a better word, weird. I would still watch Tom Cruise's movies because I think he is a descent person. If he were just any John Q. on the streets his behavior wouldn't be considered quite as crazy. As for Mel Gibson, my opinion has always been that drinking only loosens your lips it doesnt make you say things that aren't in your brain in some form when you're not drunk. Just my thoughts.
I wasn't defending Mel, in my mind he's racist period. Which for me is not acceptable. I won't endorse anything even remotely Mel Gibson in the future. Sadly his explanation of the incident left lil doubt in my mind that he has racial issues. So I suppose the upshot of it is, for me, if an artist's views are conflicting with mine to the point where I feel they are detrimental to the well being of the human race as a whole...where i feel the need ta take it one step further and say" hey, thats not cool" to talk to my friends about it and pursade them not to endorse said artist..forgot where I was going with this, Oh yeah, if your a hater, don't count on my patronage.
I will start with Tom Cruise who has made a few movies that I've enjoyed but his public persona annoys me to no end, I wouldn't stop seeing his movies because a story is a story. Yet! I do not have that feeling for Mel Gibson I am so disappointed in the man disgustingly so that I will not support him in any shape or form hate is hate and that is unacceptable.
Now take for instance an actor like Nick Nolte a favorite of mine, he was arrested for drunk driving, he's so imperfect and it doesn't change my mind about him one bit, quite the contrary I'm impressed when such a flawed individual brings out such great work on film, writing etc...
I think as long as my personal values aren’t tested too far, I can still read a book or watch a movie written by or starring the flawed imperfect individual. Nevertheless, it really depends on your crime.
Wolf,
If it sounded like I was aiming my comments at you, it wasnt my intention at all. I was just puttin in my 2 cents. I have always liked Mel too, it makes me sad to see him like he is now. I was just trying to say that I would think he would have to actually feel that way at least to a certain degree or he wouldn't have said it at all even though he was drunk.
Mels actions was a bitter pill ta swallow for me :D
I think I could still see his movies, but will always have that in the back of my mind.
I have always admired Mel Gibson. Now, obviously I was disapointed when I heard of his drunk driving/racist comments. But do we know the whole story for a fact? I don't read many gossip magazines, so I haven't followed the whole thing. Since he did The Passion of the Christ, people have been calling him anti-semite (spelling?). It seems people had it out for him way before the incident happened. I don't know. I still think he's a great director/actor. The Passion had me in tears. I want to see Apocalypto, although I heard it is extremely bloody, which I'm not sure if I find necessary. Anyways, it's only my opinion. Personally, I don't think it's necessary to stop "endorsing" him, but again, only my opinion. I respect everyone's views.
Let me just say this: an author who names a primary character Venus Diamond has a lot of nerve using a word like puerile in a review.
Oh Rosina. Giant jellyfish, child porn, and weapons-grade biotoxins?
Puerile. Uh, ok.
Give me a break, Mel was drunk. The only thing that says is drinking can and most often is BAD. No one here said anything about that comic that said terrible things but wasn't drunk because he's not a big name.
But the point is acting, making music, and yes writing books is a job. I don't have to like the person to admire the job. In fact when it comes to actors I very often don't like the things they do in real life but still I do enjoy their talent on screen, big or little. Authors are a little harder because they don't often live in the public eye. But even if they did, I try to live the icon from Star Trek's Spock, Infinate diversity in infinate combinations. While I doubt that many of these talented people and I could be best buds, I still enjoy their talent.
Jeanne: I agree with you 100%. I don't think I would go and have tea with Mel or Tom, but that's not the point. We know (or think we know) so many details about these starts' lives that it ruins their work. I'll admit that sometimes it's a good thing. I love that Rosina has a family and has funny stories about the Mathematician, I'll admit that it makes me appreciate her books even more, knowing that she's an actual person like you and me. In Tom Cruise's case, when I watch a movie he's in, I try real hard to forget his name, and try to get to know the character instead, 'cause he's really getting on my nerves with his whole "I know psychiatry" thing and his cure for depression: vitamins and exercise. So unless a star or author or whatever has committed a crime against humanity, like rape or murder, I'd rather not know. But then again, I think I'm probably contradicting myself, and rambling at the same time. I guess it's on a case by case basis.
My point is I wouldn't put MY money in some artists pockets no matter how talented they are, based on MY principles. Be like saying"Wow, that was a great speech! who was that guy? Hitler, ya I'd PAY ta hear that guy talk, he's so charismatic!"
hehehe that was a lil over the top.
I have a hard time separating out the person from their art, but I remember the times my Mom has tried to influence my behaviour (for good or for ill, her whims are a moving target) and I realize I have to give the benefit of the doubt to other adults that just maybe they are acting on other peoples' advice from time to time. One thing I find hard to excuse is ignorance. Bias born of experience, I can respect, but bias born of hearsay is something I find hard to forgive.
While I like to be responsible for my actions, I recognize that "under the influence" isn't just about drugs or alcohol - for me, it's often another person or a peer group or an experience.