Cancelled art?

SomeRandom · Oct 25, 2021

I was always encouraged to read anything and everything. Screw whatever controversy behind it and come to my own conclusions. As a result I’ve read some of the most controversial titles almost by accident. Lolita by Nabokov or Flowers of Evil by Baudelaire.

And I think such an experience has caused me to view art as something that is inherently challenging. Something that is supposed to cause discomfort and push you to engage in something repulsive even. Growing up on shows such as South Park, the Simpsons and Family Guy (earlier seasons) reinforced this notion on me.
Now people are free to boycott or simply not read/watch/play whatever. That’s their choice.

But I’m wondering if you guys have ever had a bone chilling moment in your forays into entertainment. In particular literature but I’ll accept other modes of story telling. And what do you think makes a great story and art?
And indeed what do you think of when the topic of “cancelled art” comes into play? Book burning? Protests? “Won’t somebody please think of the children?”

I mean one of my teachers just randomly handed us Harry Potter books in like grade 5. Simply because she saw this freak out over it on the news and found it amusing.

Lolita for me was that gut punch. I felt sick to my stomach reading the novel and I still can’t decide if I love or loathe it. But damn did it put me to the test. And I can geek out over it. The word games and nerd references to the Canon. And indeed the prose is intoxicating for a “Decadent fan.”

Also sorry for the somewhat clickbait-y title. But I think it’s relevant tangentially to this discussion. As lamentations of this phenomenon seemingly echo the need for such challenging material. Now whether or not I think that’s it’s true intention. Ehhhhh. But still. In principle I can agree with the notion. I think that’s for another thread though

exchemist · Oct 25, 2021

SomeRandom said:
I was always encouraged to read anything and everything. Screw whatever controversy behind it and come to my own conclusions. As a result I’ve read some of the most controversial titles almost by accident. Lolita by Nabokov or Flowers of Evil by Baudelaire.

And I think such an experience has caused me to view art as something that is inherently challenging. Something that is supposed to cause discomfort and push you to engage in something repulsive even. Growing up on shows such as South Park, the Simpsons and Family Guy (earlier seasons) reinforced this notion on me.
Now people are free to boycott or simply not read/watch/play whatever. That’s their choice.

But I’m wondering if you guys have ever had a bone chilling moment in your forays into entertainment. In particular literature but I’ll accept other modes of story telling. And what do you think makes a great story and art?
And indeed what do you think of when the topic of “cancelled art” comes into play? Book burning? Protests? “Won’t somebody please think of the children?”

I mean one of my teachers just randomly handed us Harry Potter books in like grade 5. Simply because she saw this freak out over it on the news and found it amusing.

Lolita for me was that gut punch. I felt sick to my stomach reading the novel and I still can’t decide if I love or loathe it. But damn did it put me to the test. And I can geek out over it. The word games and nerd references to the Canon. And indeed the prose is intoxicating for a “Decadent fan.”

Also sorry for the somewhat clickbait-y title. But I think it’s relevant tangentially to this discussion. As lamentations of this phenomenon seemingly echo the need for such challenging material. Now whether or not I think that’s it’s true intention. Ehhhhh. But still. In principle I can agree with the notion. I think that’s for another thread though

Lolita was interesting. I did not find it repulsive, actually. I found it uncomfortable, challenging and thought-provoking, certainly. I remember discussing it with my mother, a teacher of English at a 6th form college. There is, after all, an element of the arbitrary in today's laws about the minimum age for sexual activity. For instance, in Romeo and Juliet we have, "Younger than she are happy mothers made", about Juliet, who is coming up to 14 years old. Though her father's rather good riposte is, "And too soon marred are those so early made", arguing they should wait until she is 16 before marrying her off. The age of sexual consent is 16 in the UK and 15 in France (though at that age sexual activity with anyone over 18 is forbidden, I think). My mother was well aware of some of the impulses among teachers she had known, which she argued were not wholly reprehensible in themselves - and we got into a discussion about Lewis Carroll and Alice.

So yes, I think contact with art that is challenging is important. We should be taught to avoid knee-jerk responses and to think instead: to develop the intellectual equipment to tackle uncomfortable ideas analytically, without getting swept away by emotional reactions.

Rival · Oct 25, 2021

If it isn't challenging in some way I wonder at the point of it. And what is challenging in one era may not be in another. Wuthering Heights was panned for being savage and backwards, and now it's a classic. Jane Eyre was considered feminist in its day - now it looks just as patriachal as any Victorian novel tends to be.

RestlessSoul · Oct 25, 2021

Joseph Conrad, who I consider to have been one of the finest writers in the English language, seems to have had some views on race which would be shocking in a modern novel. Similar charges could be levelled at Herman Melville and Rudyard Kipling. I don’t think any of these writers were racist, indeed by the standards of their time they were the anything but; but they all shared to some extent the perspective that European civilisation represented the apotheosis of human achievement. Not that the white European was innately superior to other races, but that his culture was.

Both Conrad and Melville saw this culture as a thin veneer that was easily punctured; and Kipling had great reverence for India’s rich history and traditions. But it’s fair to say they were all guilty in different ways, of racial stereotyping.

Anyway, it would be a great shame if these writers were excluded from school curricula for example, because they were products of a different era.

exchemist · Oct 25, 2021

RestlessSoul said:
Joseph Conrad, who I consider to have been one of the finest writers in the English language, seems to have had some views on race which would be shocking in a modern novel. Similar charges could be levelled at Herman Melville and Rudyard Kipling. I don’t think any of these writers were racist, indeed by the standards of their time they were the anything but; but they all shared to some extent the perspective that European civilisation represented the apotheosis of human achievement. Not that the white European was innately superior to other races, but that his culture was.

Both Conrad and Melville saw this culture as a thin veneer that was easily punctured; and Kipling had great reverence for India’s rich history and traditions. But it’s fair to say they were all guilty in different ways, of racial stereotyping.

Anyway, it would be a great shame if these writers were excluded from school curricula for example, because they were products of a different era.

All true. Kipling was also a great supporter of the working man*.

I remember reading in an article once that Kipling and Conrad, in fact, are about the only writers in the English canon who write about the world of work. An interesting observation, I thought.

These writers, while products of their time and society, as we all are, are penetrating thinkers about humanity.

*One of my favourite Kipling poems is this, about what lies behind the lovely garden people admire so much - and a metaphor for England itself: Poems - The Glory of the Garden

SomeRandom · Oct 25, 2021

RestlessSoul said:
Joseph Conrad, who I consider to have been one of the finest writers in the English language, seems to have had some views on race which would be shocking in a modern novel. Similar charges could be levelled at Herman Melville and Rudyard Kipling. I don’t think any of these writers were racist, indeed by the standards of their time they were the anything but; but they all shared to some extent the perspective that European civilisation represented the apotheosis of human achievement. Not that the white European was innately superior to other races, but that his culture was.

Both Conrad and Melville saw this culture as a thin veneer that was easily punctured; and Kipling had great reverence for India’s rich history and traditions. But it’s fair to say they were all guilty in different ways, of racial stereotyping.

Anyway, it would be a great shame if these writers were excluded from school curricula for example, because they were products of a different era.

I think it’s important to remember that older generations had “different standards” when it comes to issues such as race and sexism. I also think it’s good to, in the same breath, promote modern authors who have a more contemporary view of such issues. I mean today’s contemporaries are tomorrow’s classics after all. Balance as with all things

Mock Turtle · Oct 25, 2021

exchemist said:
All true. Kipling was also a great supporter of the working man*.

I remember reading in an article once that Kipling and Conrad, in fact, are about the only writers in the English canon who write about the world of work. An interesting observation, I thought.

These writers, while products of their time and society, as we all are, are penetrating thinkers about humanity.

*One of my favourite Kipling poems is this, about what lies behind the lovely garden people admire so much - and a metaphor for England itself: Poems - The Glory of the Garden

A beautiful garden is the perfect example of God and Man working together in harmony. Mind you, you should have seen the state of my garden when God was doing it by himself.

SomeRandom · Oct 25, 2021

exchemist said:
Lolita was interesting. I did not find it repulsive, actually. I found it uncomfortable, challenging and thought-provoking, certainly. I remember discussing it with my mother, a teacher of English at a 6th form college. There is, after all, an element of the arbitrary in today's laws about the minimum age for sexual activity. For instance, in Romeo and Juliet we have, "Younger than she are happy mothers made", about Juliet, who is coming up to 14 years old. Though her father's rather good riposte is, "And too soon marred are those so early made", arguing they should wait until she is 16 before marrying her off. The age of sexual consent is 16 in the UK and 15 in France (though at that age sexual activity with anyone over 18 is forbidden, I think). My mother was well aware of some of the impulses among teachers she had known, which she argued were not wholly reprehensible in themselves - and we got into a discussion about Lewis Carroll and Alice.

So yes, I think contact with art that is challenging is important. We should be taught to avoid knee-jerk responses and to think instead: to develop the intellectual equipment to tackle uncomfortable ideas analytically, without getting swept away by emotional reactions.

Whilst I do largely agree with your assessment. If I recall the narrative correctly not only does HH largely dismiss Delores’ opinions and even her own personhood. He pretends she’s this other fantasy person whilst ignoring her interests and personhood because it’s foreign to him. And sure at the end you could make a slim argument that he does genuinely care for her, he also acknowledges the pain he’s brought upon her. So whether or not she could consent is irrelevant. He doesn’t care about her as a person and the few times he’s reminded of her interests, he either acts with disgust or rebukes them as unreal. And given that he’s an unreliable narrator, that doesn’t speak well of his own version of events to begin with
Also in Australia the legal age of consent is also 16.
But a middle aged man having sex with a 16 year old (like HH does in the novel) is also illegal because of the recognised power difference. Just because you have a lower age of consent doesn’t mean you pretend that it’s okay for an adult to take advantage of a teenager. Wtf?
But two 16 year olds having sex is meh. Teens being teens. That’s actually the reason for a lower age of consent. To allow for teen hormones not for predators to take advantage of young kids

exchemist · Oct 25, 2021

SomeRandom said:
Whilst I do largely agree with your assessment. If I recall the narrative correctly not only does HH largely dismiss Delores’ opinions and even her own personhood. He pretends she’s this other fantasy person whilst ignoring her interests and personhood because it’s foreign to him. And sure at the end you could make a slim argument that he does genuinely care for her, he also acknowledges the pain he’s brought upon her. So whether or not she could consent is irrelevant. He doesn’t care about her as a person and the few times he’s reminded of her interests, he either acts with disgust or rebukes them as unreal. And given that he’s an unreliable narrator, that doesn’t speak well of his own version of events to begin with
Also in Australia the legal age of consent is also 16.
But a middle aged man having sex with a 16 year old (like HH does in the novel) is also illegal because of the recognised power difference. Just because you have a lower age of consent doesn’t mean you pretend that it’s okay for an adult to take advantage of a teenager. Wtf?
But two 16 year olds having sex is meh. Teens being teens. That’s actually the reason for a lower age of consent. To allow for teen hormones not for predators to take advantage of young kids

Sure, the power imbalance is the real problem, obviously. Apart from a vague sense that "it bain't naatchral" to have such a disparity in age between sexual partners. The point I was aiming at was the multifaceted nature of the issues thrown up by this book, which makes it a stimulating if uncomfortable read.

exchemist · Oct 25, 2021

Mock Turtle said:
A beautiful garden is the perfect example of God and Man working together in harmony. Mind you, you should have seen the state of my garden when God was doing it by himself.

Well then it's called something else, rather than a garden.

Yerda · Oct 25, 2021

I read for pleasure. If being challenged pleases you, have at it. If not, you're missing out on a better experience.

Mock Turtle · Oct 25, 2021

exchemist said:
Well then it's called something else, rather than a garden.

Complaint forwarded on to Tim Vine.

SomeRandom · Oct 27, 2021

exchemist said:
Sure, the power imbalance is the real problem, obviously. Apart from a vague sense that "it bain't naatchral" to have such a disparity in age between sexual partners. The point I was aiming at was the multifaceted nature of the issues thrown up by this book, which makes it a stimulating if uncomfortable read.

Fair point. I did find the reactions to Lolita rather fascinating and a tiny bit disturbing. Mostly from fans, believe or not.
Like I remember years ago I had a discussion about Lolita on GoodReads because I had just read it. And the responses were rather varied. But a lot of responses I got were from folks who defended HH wholeheartedly, describing his agony and anguish. Praising him as a lovelorn hero. And gushed about the prose. And sure the writing is intoxicating for a book nerd. But I mean it’s like some folks couldn’t process the fact that the narrative was apparently siding with a pedophile
(I know the narrative overall doesn’t. I’m saying because you’re in his head throughout, some people interpret it that way.)
So they absolved him or even outright ignored that aspect. Which honestly was more disturbing to me than the actual book lol
Though I won’t pretend that it doesn’t elicit some rather interesting and complex debates.

exchemist · Oct 27, 2021

SomeRandom said:
Fair point. I did find the reactions to Lolita rather fascinating and a tiny bit disturbing. Mostly from fans, believe or not.
Like I remember years ago I had a discussion about Lolita on GoodReads because I had just read it. And the responses were rather varied. But a lot of responses I got were from folks who defended HH wholeheartedly, describing his agony and anguish. Praising him as a lovelorn hero. And gushed about the prose. And sure the writing is intoxicating for a book nerd. But I mean it’s like some folks couldn’t process the fact that the narrative was apparently siding with a pedophile
(I know the narrative overall doesn’t. I’m saying because you’re in his head throughout, some people interpret it that way.)
So they absolved him or even outright ignored that aspect. Which honestly was more disturbing to me than the actual book lol
Though I won’t pretend that it doesn’t elicit some rather interesting and complex debates.

It is hard to remember now but as recently as the 1970s, some in the "free love" movement seemed to be pushing for decriminalisation of sex involving those we now treat as under age. It seems very shocking now.

Quite a lot of that free love stuff was a self-serving philosophy, promoted by men, and I mean men, wanting to get their end away. One of my tutors at university tried to seduce my then girlfriend - and my wife told me she lost her virginity to a tutor at one of the Grandes Ecoles in Paris.

Since that time the new factor we nowadays increasingly recognise is the role of power in sexual relationships and the potential for imbalance, especially at the expense of women. That is the reason we have these constraints today on who goes to bed with whom, which are now not just about age disparity but power disparity as well - in the workplace and education especially.

In a sense we are now more puritanical than the Victorians, but it's largely due to women finding their voice and being listened to, I guess.

Mock Turtle · Oct 27, 2021

exchemist said:
It is hard to remember now but as recently as the 1970s, some in the "free love" movement seemed to be pushing for decriminalisation of sex involving those we now treat as under age. It seems very shocking now.

Quite a lot of that free love stuff was a self-serving philosophy, promoted by men, and I mean men, wanting to get their end away. One of my tutors at university tried to seduce my then girlfriend - and my wife told me she lost her virginity to a tutor at one of the Grandes Ecoles in Paris.

Since that time the new factor we nowadays increasingly recognise is the role of power in sexual relationships and the potential for imbalance, especially at the expense of women. That is the reason we have these constraints today on who goes to bed with whom, which are now not just about age disparity but power disparity as well - in the workplace and education especially.

In a sense we are now more puritanical than the Victorians, but it's largely due to women finding their voice and being listened to, I guess.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of setting ages for sexual consent, it's not just one side that has reasons for differing as to AOC, for example - and for which she was no doubt soundly beaten:

Sex is not just for grown-ups | Schools | The Guardian

PS Not sure we should let fiction such as Lolita or Romeo and Juliet set the agenda, given that the latter was inspired by some tidbit from another, and where the age of the protagonist was actually 16, so Shakespeare did some crafty recreation in his version.

SomeRandom · Oct 27, 2021

exchemist said:
It is hard to remember now but as recently as the 1970s, some in the "free love" movement seemed to be pushing for decriminalisation of sex involving those we now treat as under age. It seems very shocking now.

Quite a lot of that free love stuff was a self-serving philosophy, promoted by men, and I mean men, wanting to get their end away. One of my tutors at university tried to seduce my then girlfriend - and my wife told me she lost her virginity to a tutor at one of the Grandes Ecoles in Paris.

Since that time the new factor we nowadays increasingly recognise is the role of power in sexual relationships and the potential for imbalance, especially at the expense of women. That is the reason we have these constraints today on who goes to bed with whom, which are now not just about age disparity but power disparity as well - in the workplace and education especially.

In a sense we are now more puritanical than the Victorians, but it's largely due to women finding their voice and being listened to, I guess.

Wow. Just…wow.
I never knew the sinister underlying of the free live movement

Cancelled art?

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise

exchemist

Veteran Member

Rival

se Dex me saut.

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member

exchemist

Veteran Member

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise

exchemist

Veteran Member

exchemist

Veteran Member

Yerda

Veteran Member

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise

exchemist

Veteran Member

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise