• Life Advice & Visual Arts Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    🌌 Share Your Dreams! 🌌
    📸 15 Years of Photo Contests 📸
  • LAVA Moderator: Shinji Ikari

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

^ Fair enough, and as for the actual topic at hand (as I stated a few days ago) no matter what the artist may of thought it's still important to study their contributions. Noone says you have to 'love' Fitzgerald, he's dead im sure he isn't worried about it, but it's still important to study them from a literary standpoint.

I honestly can't think of 1 good Irish author who hasn't had personality flaws. Hell, I can't think of 1 Irish person who doesn't have personality flaws, my own family included. All that aside though I will defend Fitzgerald on 1 point: Noone likes the French =D
 
In my younger and more vulnerable years my father gave me some advice that I've been turning over in my mind ever since.

"Whenever you feel like criticizing any one," he told me, "just remember that all the people in this world haven't had the advantages that you've had."

He didn't say any more, but we've always been unusually communicative in a reserved way, and I understood that he meant a great deal more than that. In consequence, I'm inclined to reserve all judgments, a habit that has opened up many curious natures to me and also made me the victim of not a few veteran bores. The abnormal mind is quick to detect and attach itself to this quality when it appears in a normal person, and so it came about that in college I was unjustly accused of being a politician, because I was privy to the secret griefs of wild, unknown men. Most of the confidences were unsought-frequently I have feigned sleep, preoccupation, or a hostile levity when I realized by some unmistakable sign that an intimate revelation was quivering on the horizon; for the intimate revelations of young men, or at least the terms in which they express them, are usually plagiaristic and marred by obvious suppressions. Reserving judgments is a matter of infinite hope.
Click to expand...

Holy shit, why don't people talk like this anymore? Putting the racism point aside for a second, it feels as though the internet has made ppl 2 lzy.
 
I tried to believe my entire life I was not a racist, that blacks and whites were the same.

Until I aquired a middle age and single menopausal Jamaican woman as my boss.

And by that point my entire base of knowledge about the subject was crumbling by the mountain side by day.
 
man, that aint got nothin to do with her bein black. you can hate somebody of a different race than you and not be racist, yo, if their personality bothers you or watever...but if you are hatin her for reasons of her "blackness" or attributing the things you dont like about her to her race then thats a different story.

Annnyyywaays, in case you didnt read the thread stardust, thats completely not wat this thread is about. If you wanna talk about racism in f scott fitzgerald or other authors, and your reaction to it in their work, fine....but this really, truly aint the spot to just discuss whether you a racist or not.

Man some of yall easily distracted;)
 
I can't stand Lauryn Hill...there's a reason Eminem had the lines "I'm dumb enough to ask for a date from Lauryn Hill" and "bought Lauryn Hill's tape so her kids could starve." Too bad she hasn't done anything relevant since that "If I ruled the World" song with Nas. Pssh...if she ruled the world black people would be a superior race by-law. I can't even listen to "Killin Me Softly" on the radio anymore, and that shit is great. I used to be a fan of her and the Fugees. This is what it sounds like...when we ride on our enemies.
 
I lost a lot of respect for Nas when he decided to name one of his albums 'Nigger' and wore an outfit that had that sprawled across the back. I used to love Nas and thought his work was very heartfelt and deep, however after seeing that I just shook my head in disbelief and haven't bothered with any of his work since.
 
spaceyourbass said:
I can't stand Lauryn Hill...there's a reason Eminem had the lines "I'm dumb enough to ask for a date from Lauryn Hill" and "bought Lauryn Hill's tape so her kids could starve." Too bad she hasn't done anything relevant since that "If I ruled the World" song with Nas. Pssh...if she ruled the world black people would be a superior race by-law. I can't even listen to "Killin Me Softly" on the radio anymore, and that shit is great. I used to be a fan of her and the Fugees. This is what it sounds like...when we ride on our enemies.
Click to expand...

ok, but why? wat values or opinions of hers do you disagree with? this aint just a ''who dont you like'' thread. unless you dislike her cuz her words etc go against some of your personal beliefs it dont really fit in here so do u care to elaborate?
 
Yea, i figured that was it, but i didnt wanna be assuming and jump the gun on him. Man, i think it says something about people that they are sooo willing to believe some shit like that without even wondering if it might be fake.

I remember the first time somebody repeated that shit to me and I was like yo...No way she would say that, especially since in "if i ruled the world" part of the lyrics is "id free all my sons, black diamonds and pearls" which at least I always took to mean black people, and the white people who livin in the same conditions and is down with the ''black cause'' , the so called 'gray panthers' and etc. She never struck me as a racist and hearin that shit my first reaction was man that gotta be some bullshit, and then later i found out it was and my thoughts on it was confirmed.

Its a pretty funny thing actually, if you look at it--

I say a much respected and loved white guy is racist, and despite all the examples from his writing, people deny and deny until they get it spelled out for them directly.

Somebody else says a black artist is racist, with no signs that its true, and people are fallin all over themselves to believe it, even tho her lyrics and songs seem to suggest otherwise. It seems like folks so quick to believe that a black artist is a "anti white militant" or some bullshit like that, without no proof or nothing to suggest it other than a "quote" that "somebody" tells them.

I feel like sometimes people use that type of thing, the "lauryn hill hates white people" etc type statements, to kind of make themselves feel better about their own prejudices, to justify to themselves their own racism. "Well "they" hate us too!" etc.

Man, spaceyourbass, lauryn hill never said that shit in case you aint got it by now. So you still hate her? come back and let us know.
 
I was actually being sarcastic because of all the intellectual discussion on authors. Thought I'd throw in some rap beef-type stuff, but thanks for playing.

I've caught more shit for anit-racism on this board than the next three contestants combined, yo.
 
Mora Fiend said:
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.
Click to expand...
The reason for this is even more slippery than the reason why you can't find any TRULY deliberately-racist literature before the 19th century.

"Homophobia" could not have existed without the object of said phobia (homosexuality). And homosexuality as a category did not exist before the 19th century. People did not think of "same sex vs oppose-sex". Depending on time period, they would have thought "marital vs extramarital sex," or "faithful vs adulterous", etc.

Thus when one reads, say, a Norse saga, and one finds references to male characters feeling shame because they were forcefully made into bottoms (essentially raped, though with their consent if they were honourable. Yeah, I know...). I forget what this was called but there is a specific word for it. Anyway, the proper way to read this is NOT to cry homophobia (nor is it appropriate to think of it as an instance of homosexuality). This is because throughout history, and even today, being bumfucked is a disgraceful event, even though you may scream "fuck me harder!" when you're doing the exact same thing with a lover. The vikings probably did not see the big deal if two manly-men hugged as the big deal we make out of that. What appears to have irked them is a man acting effeminate.

The moral of the story? You will have a hard time finding truly-homophobic literature pre-19th century (that's when the idea of "homosexuality" was invented, and subsequently the idea of "homophobia", and have since then been used as a mechanism of power-assertion).
 
I don't know. I love Norman Mailer. I adore Norman Mailer. And he told one of my favourite female authors [in a lecture to her college Writing course] that she should 'go back to giving men like me blowjobs and save your money and get out of here, none of you will become authors.' (i'm paraphrasing). Of course, Erica Jong went on to be a fucking badass and confidant of Henry Miller (who is also questionable.) I have a bit more trouble with people who were alive when my parents were alive, ya know? I don't care too much if Shakespeare hated Catholics. I do have serious conflicting feelings when I know that the author of this book I love so much was a right fucking wanker and looked at women with hatred and distaste. It doesn't stop me from loving the book though, so I guess, no, it doesn't affect my view of art, even though I am constantly aware of it, even more aware than I should be. As for men like Hemingway, I don't even bother reading that fucking hogwash. I can get drunk and fuck a whore and write a post here on bluelight that will be 10 times better than anything that idiot ever wrote.
 
Jamshyd said:
The reason for this is even more slippery than the reason why you can't find any TRULY deliberately-racist literature before the 19th century.

"Homophobia" could not have existed without the object of said phobia (homosexuality). And homosexuality as a category did not exist before the 19th century. People did not think of "same sex vs oppose-sex". Depending on time period, they would have thought "marital vs extramarital sex," or "faithful vs adulterous", etc.

Thus when one reads, say, a Norse saga, and one finds references to male characters feeling shame because they were forcefully made into bottoms (essentially raped, though with their consent if they were honourable. Yeah, I know...). I forget what this was called but there is a specific word for it. Anyway, the proper way to read this is NOT to cry homophobia (nor is it appropriate to think of it as an instance of homosexuality). This is because throughout history, and even today, being bumfucked is a disgraceful event, even though you may scream "fuck me harder!" when you're doing the exact same thing with a lover. The vikings probably did not see the big deal if two manly-men hugged as the big deal we make out of that. What appears to have irked them is a man acting effeminate.

The moral of the story? You will have a hard time finding truly-homophobic literature pre-19th century (that's when the idea of "homosexuality" was invented, and subsequently the idea of "homophobia", and have since then been used as a mechanism of power-assertion).
Click to expand...


Good post man. When you refer to the Norse literature do you mean 'Beowulf'? I don't recall any rape in that saga but I could of just missed it when I read it. Hit me back and let me know because I would like to find the reference to the rape in the saga.

Also yeah the Vikings didn't much care about what their men did as long as they were reliable in battle. According to Norse Paganism you would essentially go to 'Hell' if you didn't die in battle or due to wounds caused by battle.

Damn Jamshyd now I gotta go re-read Beowulf =D
 
^ That is correct about Hell ("Hel") to the extent of my knowledge on the subject - that is to say not much as I have very little patience for Norse literature.

I was, however, thinking of actual* Viking sagas such as Grettir's Saga or (IIRC) Ynglinga Saga, amongst others (bumfucking was apparently very common!). I do not think Beowulf had any of it though, but I could be mistaken here as well (I ought to re-read it, too :)). Incidentally, Beowulf is the only one of those that I actually enjoyed reading of all the sagas (I spent one of my university years studying this (IMO) crap (compared to other Mythological traditions, e.g. Persian or Indian)... goes so far to show just how influential a good professor can be).

* I say "actual" because I believe Beowulf was Anglo-Saxon rather than Norse, but was set in Scandinavia.
 
Last edited:
I'd say if your judging the work in itself, then it should not matter. But if you judging the man for who he is then it does, but now your not judging the work anymore. Should starry night be taken out of the museum and be torched if we found some taboo evidence on Van Gogh? Should we regard him less of and artist because of this?
I think it's best to separate the work from the man , Otherwise, it can adulterate or refine the work based on your judgement of the author. As a fatuous and direct example: if Justin Beiber wrote a book and 14 year adolescent women were the critics they would constitute him a Canon. I understand getting turned off by the overt racism of the literature, particularly from that part of century/decade . And I sometimes, find it difficult to defend it or, even, recover the feeling I once had prior to learning this about the author. Nevertheless it doesn't change the quality of the work. The only thing that has changed it your feelings and emotional connection to the work because of the racial filter. It hard to recover your appeal for the author once that has happened. With that being said the work is still the same and when comes to good writing , or good anything, it is there or it isn't-- It's black and white (no pun intend).

Regardless, men have many more vices then they do virtues. So, i say honor their virtues.

Lastly, since I have not even read The Great Gatsby I can't exactly comment on this but some authors who have used overt racism, that I have read, have used it to explain how offensive it is by specifically conjuring these feeling into the reader by making bold racist statement, so , as to not dilute them and allow the reader to see them vis-a-vis.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely. I can respect and recognize the artistic merit of an artist whose values I don't agree with. But I can't really love or get into an artist who just doesn't speak to my values.

Although I recognize that he's an amazingly talented musician, I can't bring myself to like David Byrne. The first time I payed attention to the lyrics of "No Compassion", I was like "Wow, fuck him. What a douche." David Byrne's movies are visually stunning and unique in their content, and I see what people see in them. I respect his internationalism and willingness to borrow eclectically from musical traditions around the world. But I just don't like the cut of his jib, because in many ways he's everything I'm not -- hip, detached, irreverent, shamelessly selfish, and believes in absolutely nothing.
 
I just checked out that David Byrne song. I thought it was pretty cool. I may not agree with what he's saying but Its always interesting to get different peoples perspective on the world, perspectives that challenge your own.

I think that is different from finding out/realising that an artist you admire has really repugnant views on an issue or was a complete scum bag in real life.

I agree with the OP to an extent. It really fucks me off when I find out that an artsist I admire was a massive racist or something.

Like a few years ago I read Darkness at Noon by Arthur Koestler, at the time I thought it was amazing and consequently really admired the guy as it seemed to show he was a brave dude, willing to stand up to totalitarianism.

then a few years later I read an article about him that reckoned he was a serial rapist, a misogynist and he may have bullied his wife into killing herself.

It was (and still) is hard to square that original conception of an artist you get from experiencing and being moved by their work, with the reality that they may be a thoroughly unpleasant individual and may hold views that you find disgusting.

It is still possible to view a piece of art (if untainted by these views) positively, but when you know shit like that about the creator its hard not to let that creep into your judgement of it.

cool thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top