I cant love Fscott fitzgerald cuz he was a racist-do ur values affect ur view of art?

[Khadijah]

hey yall, i was just wonderin how everybody else feels about this.

When you read a book, or listen to music, and you read or hear somethin you aint cool with, does it change your opinion of the author/artist, etc?

My sister is mad into f scott fitzgerald, so i been readin some of his books lately. And i guess hes a good writer and all, i really like the way he writes and I cant deny hes skilled.

but i just cant get past the fact of how damn racist he is. He always talkin about fuckin, "darkies" and shit like that...In at least one story he talked about a group of black guys singin "nigger songs" , and shit like that. In the same story, he talked about how those guys could sleep even in a dangerous situation, becuz of their "endless African appetite for sleeping" or some shit like that-- "black people are lazy" much? 8) Sometimes he goes farther than just using racist words for black folks and specifically talks negative shit, like in one story about a rich guy, (the diamond as big as the ritz) the one character says he built bathtubs in his slavev quarters and another character says "I suppose they used them to store (something, i forget exactly wat it was, farm tools or some shit like that) in?" Like ha ha those dumb 'darkies' dont even know wat a bath tub is for! In the same story he makes references to how "black skin" aint suited well to taking baths or washing...So, if you want to dismiss his use of 'negroes' and 'darkies' and all that as just a product of the times and not his feelings, you definately get the idea of his feelings when he talks about black folks being inferior and all the other shit in his work that clearly talks about black ppl in a negative way.

Now dont give me that shit about how "it was just the times" and all that. Not everybody then was racist even tho it seems that much more white people were severely racist then than they are now. Still. Im gettin off the point which is this:

I know that "great" writers are recognized as bein great, and when there is certian wording (like "gay") and shit, people just look over it and say 'well thats how they talked then, i wont hold it against the author." But I dont know. I just cant seem to have all that much love for him. Everytime I read a story and start to think its really good, some glaring bullshit reference to dumb black folks pops up. I cant tell you how many times , while i been reading a collection of his short stories I stopped and just "facepalm'd" the book against my forehead and shook my head sighing.

so, theres one example for yall, to explain my question.

When you read/listen to/watch a movie or book or music or watever, if the creator of it says or promotes values or principles that go against the shit you believe, does it take away from the quality of the work? For many people they would say, Fitzgerald is a great writer of our time and any racism in his work is just anachronisms and hes still great.

For me tho, I just cant appreciate it as much knowing the author was a racist.

So how bout yall? Do you appreciate a work less when the creator got certain values that you disagree with?

Wat yall think? How do you personally feel about that?

 

[thujone]

Being able to identify with a narrator is crucial in the enjoyment of a written work. If you don't like it then you don't like it. Frankly, I prefer Hemingway and I know the reason I do is because I can identify with his narration and feel connected enough to truly "get" some of the things he is describing that another reader who can't connect so deeply is missing out on altogether. The little details that engage me more are the same details that would sour another reader's experience.

That being said, let's not just brush the "product of his times" argument under the rug. A good place to start would be with Charlie Sheen and Michael Richards. Why are we so quick to excuse the former's behavior after casting the latter under a bus for a botched joke? When did racism become so obscenely abhorrent that people boycott and riot and demand public apologies for every mindless slip of the tongue? We hate people for a myriad of other illogical, offensive reasons, so getting all up in arms about racism the way we've been trending seems a lot like falling over the other side of the horse.

I think the worst part of this is that stereotyping was always the root of the problem but instead of overcoming that problem we now stereotype just like we always did but we all have black/brown/yellow/blue friends now so "it's cool i'm obviously not a racist" and that enables us to push the envelope and lead to the situation where Michael Richards pushed a little too hard and ended up really heating shit up.

Where I'm going with this is that we share as a baseline a very topsy-turvy view of humanity these days and the modern paradigms through which our point of view gets filtered has the tendency to polarize so severely that we aren't willing to even believe that we can look past a disagreeable part of a narrator's personality and see if there's anything else in there that we can actually identify with.

 

[Max Power]

Whilst reading the OP, I kept feeling as though they were the words of another Drug Culture mod that has since 'disappeared.'

anachronisms

But then I read this, and it made me doubt my assumption.

Wat yall think?

But then the 'wat' totally gave it away. Sup girl!

I totally got a boner when you said you were perusing a collection of Fitzgerald's short stories. That's hot.

Anyways, I've encountered similar issues not just with other writers (e.g. Hemingway) but with people outside of the realm of literature. Martin Heidegger was an influential philosopher that I resonate with, but in his personal life he was a member of the Nazi Party. Heil the Dirty Jerz?

It's harder with writers to put these kind of things out of mind since it arises while reading their work. While it would be easy to dismiss their work entirely, that would be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

But if it keeps you from truly enjoying and engrossing yourself in the story, then just toss it.

 

[Belisarius]

For me: rarely, and dependent on the art and its context. Wagner was virulently anti-Semitic, and a right jerk-off to boot, but--God help me--"Siegfried's Funeral March" gives me chills every time. Wallace Stevens was racist, Henry Miller was a misogynist, and William Burroughs did a lot of crazy shit, but they could write. Probably a great many people who built Salisbury Cathedral were anti-Semitic, but that'd never keep me from walking inside and enjoying the architecture...

There are also times when it's hard to tell exactly what the author feels about his subject. Faulkner, for example, is writing from the pre-Civil Rights Deep South, when open racism was a matter of course from birth to death, and from what I've read of his work his black characters are no more flawed than his white ones. Hemingway's "The Killers" uses nigger several times, but in such a flat, vaguely ironic that you're never sure if he's being honest, or subtly insulting the buffoonish killers.

Of course, the authors I mentioned all have the advantage of being dead. Chances are I'll be a little more discerning of a current author, but their views really have to be openly repellent to convince me that they have no redeeming value, and usually authors at that point are working less in fiction or nonfiction than in mere propaganda, something I'd stay away from regardless.

 

[kultron]

<We ask that you be respectful of others in SO, if you can not do so, don't post in the thread. Thanks. O>

 

[Jamshyd]

Lacey, don't forget that Fitzgerald died long before racism was known as a bad thing, and long before "nigger" became a bad word.

Was he ACTUALLY a racist (ie. did he mistreat black people because they're black), or was he simply using the language of his time? Actions speak louder than words.

After all, if I were to stop admiring artists for being orientalists, I might as well stop reading all western literature if Edward Said is to be believed. Ironically, I have a gut feeling that Edward is a homophobe .

 

[Myshkin]

It's harder with writers to put these kind of things out of mind since it arises while reading their work. While it would be easy to dismiss their work entirely, that would be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Dostoyevsky's one of my favourite authors. The anti-Semitism makes me wrinkle my nose more than a little, but doesn't stop me liking the work.

Don't get me started on Axl Rose...

 

[Busty St Clare]

It is a little unfair to judge an artist from another time because as people have already mentioned society has a different measure of prejudice today. For example you may be horrified with parents who less than perfect by today's standards but in the future it may be just accepted that these parents have been given no guidance or education on how to raise a child and in the future we may be more forgiving or try to help these parents.

Persecution of Catholics in 17th century England was no less terrible than anti-Semitism of today, yet that doesn't blunt Shakespeare works. Artists only hold a mirror to the world they see. I feel it is more sad that political correctness has forced artists to become too sanitised and fear prevents boundaries being pushed. After all art does not only have to be happy and colourful, it should reflect the whole gamete of human emotion, good or bad.

 

[Noodle]

Choosing to separate yourself from the piece will give you a distance that will make the work that much more informative and enjoyable in my experience. It might even broaden your perspectives on life, which will increase your knowledge and understanding of a great many things.

It is true that knowledge is power.

 

[Khadijah]

I dont think that "Everyone was racist then, so for those times, he wasnt racist, he was just normal!" means that somebody aint racist.

And I aint talkin about simply the words used Im talkin about the views come up every time a black character is involved in one of his stories.

Its always that they are inferior in some way or another, that they aint "suited" to bathing, that they are dumb, that they sleep too much cuz they lazy, etc. I dont remember any one of the characters in none of these stories to ever have a positive thing to say about any of the "Negro" characters, which of course are always maids etc.

I understand that it was a picture of the time and that just how shit was. I totally get that. And I aint saying that I would want a writer to make a unaccurate picture of the times for the sake of bein fair.

Im just sayin that becuz its such a steady constant thing in his stories, it seems like its more than just him holding up a mirror to the times and portraying it, and a lil more personal.

Especially becuz almost all his stories were very, very personal and had a TON of his self in them, he put alot of himself and his personality and his views about things into his work. Chuck palanuik might write about some horrible twisted fucked up shit (and BTW, i think hes a hack, but thats for another thread), but I dont think that HE is that way, becuz hes obviously just using his imagination to come out with this wild shit to shock people etc. Certain writers write shit that aint got nothin to do with themself and just want to create some fantastic imaginary world or watever. But fitzgerald was an author who just about everything he wrote had some part of himself, his life in it...his experiences, personality, and beliefs are wove into every story he wrote pretty much. He wasnt detached from his writing, many of his characters were pieces of himself and he used them to do things that he wanted to do in his life or couldnt do, etc.

Becuz of that, I do believe that the shit he says aint just a reflection of the times simply but does reflect his personal feelings at least a little.

Of course, hes dead, I didnt know him, none of us did but Im just sayin that I think its a fair conclusion to come to.

Somebody who writes about a racist aint a racist. I aint that dumb to think that. Im just saying that if you constantly write characters that are bigoted, you are either some kind of person whose personal interest is racism, or you prolly got a lil bit of it in yourself too.


I dont believe that just becuz everybody at that time would call black folks darkies and niggers and believed that they were inferior means that those people werent racist. Just becuz that shit wasnt recognized as racism, and was seen as the normal way to be, dont make it less bad. Becuz even in those times, there was still people who didnt believe that shit, didnt stand for it and didnt talk that way or believe that shit. So it aint fair to just dismiss it as nothing, at least thats how I feel.




So anyways...Im sorry and I really dont want the point of this thread to be 'racism in writing' becuz that aint the topic i was goin for. I just used this example becuz its the shit Im readin right now.

And Im sayin that while I can still enjoy the stories , becuz its somethin so foreign to me, I cant really think of Fitzgerald as a person and be like wow, wat a great amazing person, like people usually do about great authors or artists they like. I might read his stories and think they are interesting and shit but I cant feel that love that I feel for other writers whose work I read and just totally love it and feel like wow, i love so n so. You feel me?

I DO seperate myself from it and just read it from a detached point of view otherwise Id just throw the book down and say fuck it when id get to a certain sentence that said somethin that offended me....so I do read it for the sake of gettin myself educated on some 'literature' and all that...but i just cant love F. Scott fitzgerald becuz i really suspect he was a racist. Not more racist than anybody else of that time. he definatey would not been considered a racist by his own generation, he woulda just ben seen as normal....But to me, that kind of prejudice takes away from how much i can respect the person, i guess.


Plus, I do get sick of just readin about these fuckn bougie-ass rich people all the time but i guess its also interesting in a way becuz I dont know that world at all so im learning somethin about how people lived and acted in those times.


So....Anyways....Lets not just talk about my example here...is there anybody else who might feel the same way....like "So and so wrote some great books, but the fact that he really thought women were useless , stupid pieces of property kinda takes away from it for me and I cant say I love his books becuz of that."

Or are you just like na fuck it, anything goes?

Its interesting to me to see where art and values meet up, you feel me? Would you want to read about a character who is a child rapist and describes it in detail, or would you say no thanks thats disgusting....Or would it be like, i might think thats horrible but it aint gonna stop me from reading becuz its just a book?

i think that values and people puttin them onto artwork can be a horrible thing, causing censorship and destructive shit like that.

But Im more talkin about when its just a personal thing. When it aint like you are gonna say that some "classic'' literature is horrible just becuz theres somethin you disagree with in there and burn the book, but its more like it just kinda takes away from the goodness of it for you.

I hope this shit aint too unclear. I know i got a habit of talkin about some kinda abstract shit when it comes to stuff like this so I did my best to explain and i hope it dont just sound like some nonsense. Anyways....

 

[AmorRoark]

I JUST had this conversation yesterday in my law & litature class. We just read Heart of Darkness and I mentioned how much the racism offended me.

I *get* that this was a part of their time but like you, lacey, it doesn't mean it's not fucking racist as hell. Just because 'everybody was racist back then' (which isn't true) doesn't mean I don't dislike it. I mean, I have a history degree, I get the historical contextualization but that doesn't mean I can't critique it and question the relevancy and value of such work in modern times.

The attitude I got back from students on this issue bothered me too. We're so ready to forgive old white men for being blatently racist because "well they're a product of their time." NEAT. Sounds like their time sucked and it did. I agree lacey, it's just as valuable to see the flaws of someone's biases as trying to understand their reality in the realm of their works.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to stop reading books that have racist or sexist or homophobic undertones. I enjoyed reading Heart of Darkness. It's incredibly well-written and a cornerstone of Western literature but at the same time I just call it as it is.

 

[bagochina]

at the same time I just call it what it is.

a book.

 

[Mora Fiend]

I think if we excluded the importance of certian works of art and literature based on the fact the creator had personality flaws we would have a very boring world.


Edit: What I am trying to say is that you don't have to like the person, espically with an issue as ugly as racism, but don't allow yourself to let your personal feelings towards the artist or author or whatever take away from the importance of their contributions.

 

[AmorRoark]

a book.

Revelation right here.

 

[Khadijah]

Hey AR, glad you feel me. So many people seem to think that an attitude like mine is just a lame-ass "politically correct" pussy waah-waaah crybaby point of view, like "hey, people called black folks 'darkies' back in the day, deal with it, thats just how it was and all the writers doin is bein accurate for his time." And I dont want to 'sanitize' books or say we should change them to be more 'appropriate' or watever. But im just sayin that even if its said in a historical context , racism still does offend me and its still fuckedup and shitty no matter if its now, or back when people "didnt know it was wrong."

I mean, shit, smoking still gave people cancer in the 50s even tho they thought it was OK and "everybody smoked" back then you know?

Im happy you can see my point and see that I aint some type of racism nazi but just somebody who dont stand for no excuses for it, "old days" or not. The shit is still racism and its still terrible regardless of how innocent it was seen at the time.

I for one, when I see an old lady call brazil nutz "nigger toes", i DO think its fucked up. even tho she may not be a hateful person, and may really say it as "innocently' as she can, she may not think that she hates black folks, but the fact that she talks like that does show ignorance and most likely if she still talks like its 70 years ago, she got some ingrained racism still in her too. It might not make her a hatin-ass KKK member, but the people who have that subtle version of so-called "harmless" racism, you know the people who will say "Oh, shes such a nice little pickanniny girl! How cute! Usually negroe babies are never cute like this!" thinking shes being nice, thats still racism and its still fucked up. So the arguments people make for the whole 'its just a product of the times thing, it aint racism' is totally off base if you ask me.

People think 'racist' just means a raving hater who is against races that aint their own, that it means somebody is actively hateful. But it dont. It can also just be somebody whose ignorant in their views and "dont know no better." Even if those prejudiced views aint hateful views, and are just the product of a person who dont understand, its still racism. So, thats my point here, people think that just becuz F. S. Fitzgerald said this and that and used this and that term, dont mean he was racist, but I think he was just like so many other people in his generation that didnt say "black people suck" but just had a ingrained feeling that he was NATURALLY superior, without the hating edge, just the "this is just the way things naturally are" type of thing. "Hey, nothing personal, the negroes are just of a different breed than us." that type of thing.

People call that kind of ignorance 'innocence', like they just dont know no better so theres no harm to their actions or words. but let me tell you one fuckin thing, it mighta been "innocent'' to the racists, but that shit was every bit as hurtful to the people it targeted then as it is now. real talk. and thats why I cant whole heartedly love F scott Fitzgerald. Good writer, plenty of talent, and I enjoy some of his stories but they are flawed to me--there aint one single black character that has any weight or purpose in none of his stories that ive read. So why even include them at all, if all you are gonna do is make ignorant comments about them, you feel me? I feel like if there was some major black character that he had for a reason in the plot, and then said that shit, it might be less annoying, but that he constantly talks about servants and slaves and maids and all this and that and then says nothing at all about them except some negative shit, it does annoy me, like why even bother to do that? Why bring a background character into the story and then say nothing about them except that theyre lazy and stupid? I dont know. Im done on that topic tho, I think i got my point across, and id like to see other people postin in here too.

Nevermind racism, lets say homophobia, or extreme sexism. When the author seems to have those feelings does it distract you from the story and make you be like "good writer, BUT....." ....?

 

[Mora Fiend]

People call that kind of ignorance 'innocence', like they just dont know no better so theres no harm to their actions or words. but let me tell you one fuckin thing, it mighta been "innocent'' to the racists, but that shit was every bit as hurtful to the people it targeted then as it is now. real talk. and thats why I cant whole heartedly love F scott Fitzgerald. Good writer, plenty of talent, and I enjoy some of his stories but they are flawed to me--there aint one single black character that has any weight or purpose in none of his stories that ive read. So why even include them at all, if all you are gonna do is make ignorant comments about them, you feel me? I feel like if there was some major black character that he had for a reason in the plot, and then said that shit, it might be less annoying, but that he constantly talks about servants and slaves and maids and all this and that and then says nothing at all about them except some negative shit, it does annoy me, like why even bother to do that? Why bring a background character into the story and then say nothing about them except that theyre lazy and stupid? I dont know. Im done on that topic tho, I think i got my point across, and id like to see other people postin in here too.

I think that he just did it to appeal to the people that would be reading his book. If he created a bunch of progressive negro characters that changed the world they lived in society would of more or less blacklisted his works and he would of probably been a social pariah instead of a celebrated author. Society 100 years ago was a lot less open-minded than we are today.

 

[Khadijah]

I dont know about that yo. (only saying it to please the readers.) That really dont seem as likely as the fact that he was a product of his time and had the ideas and words that they had in that time. Does it seem more likely that he was a secret anti-racist who was against all forms of bigotry and prejudice but was hiding behind a screen of make believe 'good old boys' talk to sell more books? Or that he simply was talkin the way that he naturally talked and sayin the things he naturally believed?

Wats that old saying that says "the most likely thing to be true is the simplest clearest explanation" or somethin along those lines? Im thinkin that applies here.

Anyways, I had a LOL moment today as I was gettin to one of the last stories in the book and reading...and they mentioned the 'colored butler' and skimming to the next sentence i saw it went on to talk about somethin else...and i was like , OMG, wait--is there gonna be ONE instance where he DONT say some racial related shit after mentioning a black character? But na, i thought too soon. Right after i thought that, i saw that he was talkin about how the butler had never met the character he was bein introduced to before , but he pretended to remember his name and know him, "with racial guile". Yea, those black folks always tryina please the white folks, even if they gotta lie to do it! Hahah, those simpletons. Silly butler, pretending to know me--guess wat--You never met me before! you might be slick, but Im slicker! 8) Derp.



I would like to see other people talkin about some other subjects like this they could think of too tho, like i said in my last post. Think of an author with a lot of homophobia, or super sexism in his/her work....how does that affect your view of them? anybody?

 

[Mora Fiend]

I can't really think of any specific works that stink of homophobia, the only thing that comes to mind is what happened to Oscar Wilde when he was found to be homosexual. There's also men sharing beds together in Moby Dick but that was just a common practice during the time of the novel so that doesn't really count.

I still have to say that I disagree with you Lacey on Fitzgerald altering his works to make it appealing to the masses. I understand your perspective and yes he was probably racist by today's standards but this we can only speculate at. However artists alter their work all the time to make more money, look at say recording artists. I know that they are two totally seperate entities but how many say, rap artists, do you know that would exaggerate the things they rap about to make them more appealing to the people buying their records?

"I got blood on my hands and there's no remorse, I got blood on my dick cuz I fucked your corpse..." Really DMX? You're confessing to murder?

Sure works of fiction are meant to be that, fiction, but you make a good point that they do reflect society at the time. In 1919 a black swimmer was killed by a white man in Chicago for letting his raft drift into the white area of the water, the white man threw a rock and hit the black swimmer in the head killing him. He did this in front of a beach full of witnesses including several friends to the black man. The cops showed up and told the white man to go home after hearing what happened. The black men got angry, argued with the cops and got arrested instead. What does that tell you about 1920's society?

 

[AmorRoark]

Uh, yeah. I'm pretty sure he was racist even by standards at that time... espcially in the North.

In a letter he wrote to a friend:

God damn the continent of Europe. It is of merely antiquarian interest. Rome is only a few years behind Tyre and Babylon. The negroid streak creeps northward to defile the Nordic race. Already the Italians have the souls of blackamoors. Raise the bars of immigration and permit only Scandinavians, Teutons, Anglo-Saxons and Celts to enter. France made me sick. Its silly pose as the thing the world has to save. I think it's a shame that England and America didn't let Germany conquer Europe. It's the only thing that would have saved the fleet of tottering old wrecks. (Letters 326)

Dear LORD!*

That said, I still LOVE The Great Gatsby.

Just read the rest of the article: http://racehist.blogspot.com/2010/03/racial-worldview-of-f-scott-fitzgerald.html

 

[Khadijah]

Yea Mora , sorry homie but you dead wrong.

Heres some more of his non racist opinions ""I believe at last in the white man's burden. We are as far above the modern Frenchman as he is above the Negro. Even in art!" And so on...."



Lots more where that came from...i think the issue of whether or not he was a racist is def. settled. now we can more on to the actual topic!