The Singer or the Song?

[vagantes]

Do the personal virtues or vices of writers and thinkers affect our historical evaluation of their intellectual or literary achievements?

[Alexander III]

Doubtfull, a victor hugo or tolstoy are held in just as much regards as a Rimbaud or baudelaire even though from an ethical standpoint they are near diametrical opposites.

Has not history been equally fair for the great sinner and inconstant and tempestous being that was carravagio as the wise and hardworking and peacefull da vinchi ?

Character and genius seem rather separate.

[vagantes]

It does appear to be reasonably straightforward, but does not someone's moral character have an influence on the way they think? So why would you value the thoughts of a child abuser?who plainly has no regards for the rights of other people.

What is special about writing a book or painting a picture that says we need take no notice of how someone lived their life? After all we wouldn't employ a burglar in a position of trust, so why value the thoughts of a murderer or a thief?

[hawthorns]

It does appear to be reasonably straightforward, but does not someone's moral character have an influence on the way they think? So why would you value the thoughts of a child abuser?who plainly has no regards for the rights of other people.

What is special about writing a book or painting a picture that says we need take no notice of how someone lived their life? After all we wouldn't employ a burglar in a position of trust, so why value the thoughts of a murderer or a thief?

As I see it, you're asking two very different questions here: 1. Do their vices affect their product? 2. Should they affect our perception of them. Historically, I think there's an established public track record of not knowing, forgetting, or not caring about an artist's personal life/behavior. Why? Because most often there's no relationship; it's nearly impossible to educe anything conclusively about a creator's character from a work of art. Sure is the case for me. Waugh is one of my favorite writers and Wagner my favorite composer. One writes beautiful prose and the other can take your soul apart with notes. That sure makes it easy to forgive personal vice. How many of us stare at the Carravagio's in Rome and think, "gee, what a jerk." But hey, maybe I'm wrong. I'll admit I'm in no hurry to read O.J. Simpson's autobiography.

[Alexander III]

So why would you value the thoughts of a child abuser?who plainly has no regards for the rights of other people.

That mentality seems limited to me, an individual is so incredibly omplex and diverse and full of contradictions that to labe a man with one quality reaveals nothing about him in fact it only obscrues us from the truth. There is no such thing as a child buser, there is suh as a man who abuses children. By your logic why would we value the literary critique of a Banker, yt using tht labling system of individuals you could defie t.s eliots ntire being as simply A Banker. Carravagio could jut be a murderer, but he was not just a murderer he was carravagio. I could sum up your entire existance as A Online Forum Member, yet does this defenition reveal the nature of your being or the ignorance and close mindedness of my being?

After all we wouldn't employ a burglar in a position of trust, so why value the thoughts of a murderer or a thief?

Do you live in an isolated mountain? Or have you never seen a goverment or bank before? And no this is not sarcasm I am serious. In italy if you steal 100 euros from a shop you will go to jail for a year. If you are in the goverment nd steal 20 million all you get is a nation telling you that they are disapointed in you.

[Charles Darnay]

Heidegger was a terrible person, a high-ranking Nazi, but his philosophies on Being, Time, and Language are amazing and have influenced so many throughout the 20th-21st century.

So no, I think when all is said and done, it is possible to ignore the writer and take what is written as it is.

[dysfunctional-h]

I'd say absolutely [not]. Conrad's Heart of Darkness is now often viewed as a disturbing look into the heart of a racist, but still a classic nonetheless. And insight into the lives of James Joyce, William Faulkner, and Thomas Mann adds another layer of meaning that would have otherwise been missing from their works of genius, however flawed.

[vagantes]

At the back of these replies is a point of view summed up by Auden:

Time that is intolerant
Of the brave and the innocent,
And indifferent in a week
To a beautiful physique,

Worships language and forgives
Everyone by whom it lives;
Pardons cowardice, conceit,
Lays its honours at their feet.

Time that with this strange excuse
Pardoned Kipling and his views,
And will pardon Paul Claudel,
Pardons him for writing well.

I can see the reasoning behind such views but had in mind something like the connection between morality and Literature.

J S Mill cured his nervous breakdown for instance by reading Wordsworth.

Ruskin was much in demand as speaker especially by the manufacturing class. He was usually fawned on after his speech to which he would rejoin: "But, did it do you good"?

At the moment I am engaged in a project of reading the whole of Trollope's novels in the order they were written, mainly because I want to experience what it felt like to be a Victorian reader. I am greatly surprised by the moral truths I constantly find as I read.

If it does not matter about morality then we may as well say goodbye to the idea of Society. And if it does matter then why should writers be exempt. If literature is a source of moral truths then it should matter about the moral worth of a writer.

[Pierre Menard]

What is special about writing a book or painting a picture that says we need take no notice of how someone lived their life? After all we wouldn't employ a burglar in a position of trust, so why value the thoughts of a murderer or a thief?

You're making the mistake that I read to hear ALL the thoughts of a murderer or a thief. Is it not possible to read for their artistic thoughts? I mean, read for the quality of writing, their ability to draw and create memorable characters or situations and so on? That can have very little to do with them being a murderer and a thief. An authors personality influences a work, but not ALL of the personality necessarily goes in there.

If it does not matter about morality then we may as well say goodbye to the idea of Society. And if it does matter then why should writers be exempt. If literature is a source of moral truths then it should matter about the moral worth of a writer.

Who on earth said literature was a source of moral truths? I mean, if you want literature to be viewed so narrowly, go ahead. I view literature as a whole bunch of words on a page constructed in a particular way and I believe some construct those words on the page more brilliantly then others. 'Moral truths' (whatever the hell they are) don't come into for it me.

Furthermore, if I start judging the moral character of every writer I like or want to read throughout history, then I may as well not bother reading anything before the 20th century because a great many of the classic writers certainly wouldn't conform to what I view as 'ethical' by today's standards.

[hawthorns]

At the back of these replies is a point of view summed up by Auden:

Time that is intolerant
Of the brave and the innocent,
And indifferent in a week
To a beautiful physique,

Worships language and forgives
Everyone by whom it lives;
Pardons cowardice, conceit,
Lays its honours at their feet.

Time that with this strange excuse
Pardoned Kipling and his views,
And will pardon Paul Claudel,
Pardons him for writing well.

I can see the reasoning behind such views but had in mind something like the connection between morality and Literature.

J S Mill cured his nervous breakdown for instance by reading Wordsworth.

Ruskin was much in demand as speaker especially by the manufacturing class. He was usually fawned on after his speech to which he would rejoin: "But, did it do you good"?

At the moment I am engaged in a project of reading the whole of Trollope's novels in the order they were written, mainly because I want to experience what it felt like to be a Victorian reader. I am greatly surprised by the moral truths I constantly find as I read.

If it does not matter about morality then we may as well say goodbye to the idea of Society. And if it does matter then why should writers be exempt. If literature is a source of moral truths then it should matter about the moral worth of a writer.

And how, exactly, do we go about enforcing that? A creator's guide to "acceptable" vs "unacceptable" vices? I'd bet a healthy percentage of the greatest writers, composers, artists were nuttier than fruitcakes. Yet, look what they gave us. It would seem the realities of history controvert your argument. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for morals and virtue--I graduated from a religious college. The idea that the brilliant among us are Mother Theresa and Moses in their personal lives is warm and fuzzy. Unfortunately it isn't consistent with reality. In my experience, genius is more often than not associated with extreme oddities/quirkiness/eccentricities, so it makes sense that they'd often include "vices" in some form or another.

I am greatly surprised by the moral truths I constantly find as I read.]

Again, by what standard do we hold moral truth for the purposes of accepting or rejecting a creator's work? Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your statement here. Personally, I find censorship of ideas/viewpoints a very scary thing. This has caused quite a ruffle in our extended family's political discussions. One side thinks they have the moral imperative and all the "correct" facts; the other side is labelled as "dangerous" when they counter with opposing viewpoints founded on equally substantiated facts.

[dysfunctional-h]

Again, by what standard do we hold moral truth for the purposes of accepting or rejecting a creator's work? Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your statement here. Personally, I find censorship of ideas/viewpoints a very scary thing. This has caused quite a ruffle in our extended family's political discussions. One side thinks they have the moral imperative and all the "correct" facts; the other side is labelled as "dangerous" when they counter with opposing viewpoints founded on equally substantiated facts.

LOL by my standard, as that is often what moves me most about a work. XD And that in the end is what matters most about a work, how moving it was? Idk. Maybe it depends on what you mean by "moral truth." If you mean identification with particular character's situation and the way they react to it (such as i found in Faulkner and Joyce with Quentin and Stephen), then absolutely

Anyways, I can't believe I didn't mention Lolita~ That work just shows you how powerful good prose is in a work EVEN IF YOU LOATHE THE NARRATOR. So sometimes the moral scruples of a work do little to explain why it is so powerful. But then again, it has a more subtle moral meaning, regarding why people do crazy things, which cannot be ignored.

[stlukesguild]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVW8GCnr9-I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md4HB96MY-U

These two examples of music... quite appropriate to the season... rank among the greatest musical achievements of the Renaissance. Gesualdo pushed the limits of traditional tonality to the breaking point... and then pulled back... achieving an unsettling sense of harmony.

Gesualdo the man, on the other hand, was a violent and brutal individual:

In 1586 Gesualdo married his first cousin, Donna Maria d'Avalos, the daughter of the Marquis of Pescara. Two years later she began a love affair with Fabrizio Carafa, the Duke of Andria. Evidently, she was able to keep it secret from her husband for almost two years, even though the existence of the affair was well-known elsewhere. Finally, on October 16, 1590, at the Palazzo San Severo in Naples, when Gesualdo had allegedly gone away on a hunting trip, the two lovers took insufficient precaution at last (Gesualdo had arranged with his servants to have keys to the locks of his palace copied in wood so that he could gain entrance if it were locked). Gesualdo returned to the palace, caught them in flagrante delicto and murdered them both in their bed. Afterward, he left their mutilated bodies in front of the palace for all to see. Being a nobleman he was immune to prosecution, but not to revenge, so he fled to his castle at Venosa where he would be safe from any of the relatives of either his wife or her lover.
Details on the murders are not lacking, as the depositions of witnesses to the magistrates have survived in full. While they disagree on some details, they agree on the principal points, and it is apparent that Gesualdo had help from his servants, who may have done most of the killing; however, Gesualdo certainly stabbed Maria multiple times, shouting as he did, "she's not dead yet!" The Duke of Andria was found slaughtered by numerous deep sword wounds, as well as by a shot through the head. When he was found, he was dressed in women's clothing (specifically, Maria's night dress). His own clothing was found piled up by the bedside, unbloodied.

The murders were widely publicized, including in verse by poets such as Tasso and an entire flock of Neapolitan poets, eager to capitalize on the sensation. The salacious details of the murders were broadcast in print, but nothing was done to apprehend the Prince of Venosa. The police report from the scene makes for shocking reading even after more than four hundred years.

Accounts on events after the murders differ. According to some sources, Gesualdo also murdered his second son by Maria, who was an infant, after looking into his eyes and doubting his paternity (according to a 19th century source he "swung the infant around in his cradle until the breath left his body"); another source indicates that he murdered his father-in-law as well, after the man had come seeking revenge. Gesualdo had employed a company of men-at-arms to ward off just such an event. However, contemporary documentation from official sources for either of these alleged murders is lacking.

By 1594, Gesualdo had arranged for another marriage, this time to Leonora d'Este, the niece of Duke Alfonso II... The relationship between Gesualdo and his new wife was not good; she accused him of abuse, and the Este family attempted to obtain a divorce. She spent more and more time away from the isolated estate. Gesualdo wrote many angry letters to Modena where she often went to stay with her brother.

Late in life he suffered from depression. Whether or not it was related to the guilt over his multiple murders is difficult to prove, but the evidence is suggestive. According to Campanella, writing in Lyon in 1635, Gesualdo had himself beaten daily by his servants, keeping a special servant whose duty it was to beat him "at stool", and he engaged in a relentless, and fruitless, correspondence with Cardinal Borromeo to obtain relics, i.e., skeletal remains, of his uncle Carlo, with which he hoped to obtain healing for his mental disorder and possibly absolution for his crimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Gesualdo

Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio, known commonly as Caravaggio, was one of the greatest and most influential artists in the whole of Western art history. He can virtually be credited with giving birth to the Baroque era... rejecting the artifice and extreme stylization of Mannerism, and returning to the naturalism of the Renaissance, yet infusing this with an unheard-of drama:





Caravaggio began his career pandering homoerotic images of "pretty boys" to high-ranking clergy:



Caravaggio was involved in an endless string of street brawls, gambling, and excessive drinking. He had a long police record that included numerous fights, the battering down of a door of a private home, the wounding of a police officer, the serious wounding of a knight, and the killing of one Ranuccio Tomassoni... reportedly as part of a duel over a dispute at a tennis match. His violent behavior led to his been repeatedly banished from one city-state to the next and the repeated loss of influential patrons. Toward the end of his life, at least one assassination was made, leaving him disfigured, and the high lead content in the bones presumed to be of the artist suggest he may have been the victim of poisoning... although lead was a major component in oil paint and an artist who was not careful could certainly ingest toxic levels.

In both instances I am able to embrace the artist's achievements... the art... while condemning the artist as an individual. The reality is that many other artists in any field of artistic endeavor were less than ideal human beings. Beethoven and Michelangelo could be jerks. Picasso was a real a**hole. Rimbaud and Verlaine were both idiots. But this in no way affects my appreciation of their art.

[stlukesguild]

Anyways, I can't believe I didn't mention Lolita~ That work just shows you how powerful good prose is in a work EVEN IF YOU LOATHE THE NARRATOR.

Which Narrator? Nabokov? Or his fictional narrator, Humbert?

[dysfunctional-h]

LOL Humbert obviously. He's always rationalizing and fantasizing and lying and being generally shifty so yeah, I can't really say I like him... and yet throughout the book I find myself sort of cheering him on. O_oll lol I'm only halfway thru it tho so ehhh i can't really quite claim to know everything about it. XD

I guess then that doesn't really apply to the question in word, if it does in spirit. But I still think my comments on Joyce and Mann are applicable. I should have mentioned our Uncle Benjy Britten and Uncle Lenny, and Comrade Shostakovich and Comrade Prokofiev too. They were a moral enigma if I've ever known one. And don't even get me started on The Birth of a Nation...

[stlukesguild]

The Birth of a Nation...?

What about Triumph des Willens and Olympia?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6-0Cz73wwQ