Every time this kinda discourse comes up, I think of this quote by Carlee Gomes.
"The desire to exclusively engage with media and art made by “unproblematic” artists is a direct result of Americans viewing media consumption as an inherently political act... consuming is activism, it’s love, it’s thinking, it’s sex, it’s fill in the blank. When the act of consuming is all you have left and indeed the only thing society tells you is valuable and meaningful, the act must necessarily be a moral one, which is why people send themselves down manic spirals deciding what, who is “problematic” or not..."
some truth but doesn’t make sense to imply media consumption isn’t an inherently political act when it unequivocally is. certainly not the only or most immediately impactful but idk. quote misses the mark
IMO the issue isn’t that we view our media choices as political, it’s that we (especially many younger Americans) seem to view every protagonist as something the author is personally endorsing. They don’t seem to grasp that some characters are created purely to be dislikable or immoral. When they read Humbert’s POV, they don’t read him as an unreliable narrator who’s using his own twisted logic to excuse his crimes; they see him as an extension of what Nabokov believes is right. More and more, it seems like people don’t realize that just because a character is a protagonist (or heck, may even have some redeeming qualities) doesn’t mean he/she is just or good.
Yup. It's a combination of a lack of literacy overall, and a lack of political literacy in particular. American capitalism makes your individuality about what you buy, how you style yourself and your life. Where and how you get your things is a statement. It's easy to swap that over to media - what you watch or read reflects you, and what you write or create must be your self expression. Consumption as politics has always been a thing, this is just about how we act when stripped of other methods of expression.
The quote is part of a larger essay on the politics of consumption.
Edit: Hit enter too soon. It's called The Puritanical Eye and it's about sex in film. The quote itself is more about how we have been stripped of political agency, and so place hyper emphasis on media in order to compensate.
with the rest of the context your comment makes a lot more sense but in your edit seems to imply a criticism of moralizing about authors rather than a criticism of a socioeconomic system that makes moralizing about authors the only way for people to feel like they have any agency…to exclude especially “the stakes are that high now” makes the quote seem more of a critique of those who moralize about authors rather than a society that makes it necessary to moralize about authors. I understand your comment more now, but probably the same reason others are responding negatively as well because it’s pretty ambiguous in your edit, ffr.
Consumption isn't inherently political....to think that it is is to abdicate responsibility. To some degree you vote with your dollar, but not when it comes to creative work IMO. Buying kanye records doesn't equal a vote for nazism, being a fan of miles Davis doesn't mean you want to throw women down the stairs, etc. if you waste time on that shit or bitching about nabakov when you could be doing actual political action while claiming said complaining inherently political is hilarious
I would amend your argument slightly. Listening to Kanye is engaging in the art in a potentially apolitical way. Choosing to support him by buying an album or going to the concert may not make you a Nazi, but it does mean that you’re directly monetarily supporting one. In the grand scheme of things, each album and ticket means very little. But they add up quickly. If no one buys them, it sends a message. Choosing to buy or not to buy has political ramifications, even if you’re not making that choice with political intentions. The act of engagement can be political or not. The act of spending money to support a public figure, in the current cultural climate, is inherently a political act. Your money buys them influence.
this is silly. consumption is inherently political and to think otherwise is to abdicate personal responsibility. the personal is ALWAYS political as no choice exists in a vacuum. buying a kanye record doesn’t necessarily equate to supporting naziism but it does mean you are willing to monetarily support nazism which is perhaps just as bad. i think we should engage with nabokov but not because he is advocating for pedophilia but because writing or creating a troubled character or narrative is not the same as an author explicitly endorsing a certain set of views and in fact is often an exploration of the immorality of behaving in a certain way. merely writing about or discussing something isn’t an endorsement which is why people that make these arguments come across as virtually illiterate because they cannot understand nuance or separate the author from the text enough to understand that every text is not autobiographical and every character does not represent the authors views. doing more explicit political action is important and avoiding monetarily supporting people like kanye and rowling who have made it clear that every dollar that goes to them will eventually be used to further their hateful agenda is also important and neither one means much without the other. i agree with you though that it does get frustrating when the extent of people’s activism is canceling artists for a mere hint of their being problematic
Yeah cause supporting something is directly giving money to aaid awful person. It's just rhe nature of capitalism not necessary american culture. Where money flows controls the zeitgeist and thus spreads influence.
Wait, are we seriously considering Lolita as pro-pedo? It's an extremely anti-pedo book. The main character, the child rapist, is a laughing stock and spends the whole story trying and failing to (1) justify raping kids; and (2) getting styled on by a child who is way more savvy and mature than he is. The MC is a complete loser. You are meant to see him as delusional and in denial about how much of a monster he is.
The MC is also trying so very hard to look cool to the reader.
Even if the author were still alive, supporting him by buying Lolita wouldn't be supporting pedophilia at all.
Yeah. But that argument completely falls apart when talking about an artist that has been dead for 50 years. Which means it’s a bad argument. Good intent and good idea. But you need to work on forming it into a good argument.
An argument doesn't hate to be applicable to every situation to be a good argument. People are complicated and inconsistent. Somebody who wants to avoid things to not support them financially can also not want to support something morally. Also somebody who doesn't care about supporting artists can also just not want to read it if they think it goes against their morals.
Wow that misses the point. The point of not supporting a problematic artist is to stop funding and thus allowing their continued problematic behavior. Case in point, I decide I will no longer pay to see Louis CK perform, he no longer has the platform to sexually assault up and coming performers. Intellectualizing that and making it somehow a critique of American culture is neckbeard af
And that’s what a lot of people tend to forget when you mention your an activist but you’re poor. They side eye the great value this and great value that. Don’t just until you experience it yourself dude. (Gen)
For some reason, a potentially valid argument is completely undercut by ending it with “neckbeard af”. Also, if we’re talking about Lolita, Nabokov died nearly 50 years ago. No profit being made.
To be clear, I’m a huge supporter of “vote with your wallet”. But you are kind of missing the entirety of the point of their argument. They aren’t talking about who is profiting. They’re talking about a person’s individual motivation for experiencing art. If you engage it performatively or politically, that is different than experiencing it for what it is and determining its value for yourself. And it is separate from your choice not to support artists you disagree with.
And you shouldn’t try to force your moral judgement onto someone else that may have different values. Your values aren’t universally correct. They’re just a collection of rules you set for yourself based on your experience and feelings. It’s perfectly ok for different people with different experiences to make different choices about what they consider to be morally correct.
Paedophiles are going to paedophile. Just because there is a book looking at the world from that lens does not mean you're enabling paedophilia. If we stop any and all mentions of murder and killing from the media around us, is that going to stop people killing and murdering?
No. The media reflects reality, sadly. But that's what makes stories so compelling: we can identify with, at the very least, the humanity of the characters involved and see why they act the way they do (from their perspective).
Looks like you've gotten a little big for your britches and decided you were better than everyone else here. Allow me to remind you, at r/BadReads, we are all scum. Rule 2 Reads:
"It goes without saying that no one should be verbally assaulting or bullying anyone else who subscribes here.
Do not bully, berate, or attack other people in the subreddit. Do not be meanspirited and do not be an asshole. This is literally asking the bare minimum of common decency.
Violations will be removed and in some cases immediately banned. Less severe violations will be removed and receive a warning. Repeat violators will be banned."
Consider this your warning and/or notice of impending ban, nerd.
The issue is, define "problematic". This works when you define someone being "problematic" by them actively engaging in illegal behaviour you'd be financing. It doesn't work anymore when the only problematic thing the artist does is writing about a "problematic" subject matter in a "problematic" way, which to my understanding is what people mostly refer to in these kinds of discussions.
46
u/blackfox24 11d ago
Every time this kinda discourse comes up, I think of this quote by Carlee Gomes.
"The desire to exclusively engage with media and art made by “unproblematic” artists is a direct result of Americans viewing media consumption as an inherently political act... consuming is activism, it’s love, it’s thinking, it’s sex, it’s fill in the blank. When the act of consuming is all you have left and indeed the only thing society tells you is valuable and meaningful, the act must necessarily be a moral one, which is why people send themselves down manic spirals deciding what, who is “problematic” or not..."