(Caution: spoilers for Sandman season two!)

I ask this today because, currently, my husband and I are watching, and really enjoying, season two of The Sandman. But this is not the first time I’ve had the occasion to worry about this particular question.

As you may know, I’m a huge fan of David Foster Wallace, whom some people out there claim ought to be “canceled” because of certain shitty things that he did to people during his life. I’m also a fan of certain songs by Chris Brown, as well as makeup products and tutorials by Jeffree Star, both of whom have also done shitty things in the past. I’m sure that plenty more of my favorite writers/celebrities have done problematic, cancel-worthy things, but these are just the few that come to mind at the moment.

Am I a bad person for continuing to allow myself to enjoy The Sandman? (The show specifically, not the books; I did read the first book or two, back in like 2015, because my boyfriend at the time (who’s now my husband) was a huge fan of the series; I thought they were pretty cool, but they didn’t captivate me enough to want to read the rest; plus, the bf admitted to me that he’d long had a crush on the character Death, which obviously pissed me off and turned me off from the whole series, lol.) Am I a bad person for continuing to enjoy DFW, Chris Brown, and Jeffree Star, even though I know they’ve done inexcusable things? Can we separate the artist from the art? Or, more importantly, should we?

.

I have a lot of things I could say about The Sandman from a Catholic POV – how sometimes it completely misses (it presents an inaccurate picture of God and religion in general, and also, it unfortunately gets pretty woke), but other times gets it beautifully right (like with the character of Fiddler’s Green, who’s inspired by the brilliant Catholic writer G.K. Chesterton; or like with some of the ideas about heaven and hell and who goes to hell and why; or like that scene in season two where the Pope “approves female priests” (I was starting to throw up a little in my mouth) and then we see that the “Pope” is actually Loki in disguise and the real Pope is locked up in a faerie-dust-induced coma somewhere, lol; that was actually not too far from accurate, I mean obviously Loki is fictional, but it is true that evil, the smoke of satan, has corrupted the heart of the Church!). But, I won’t go into all of that here, because the question at hand is not whether the show is good, but whether it’s okay to like this show at all, knowing that its author is probably guilty of sexually assaulting multiple women. (I say “probably” because I don’t know if it was ever definitively “proven” that he did, and I like to always give people the benefit of the doubt; but I did read that the evidence against him is really strong, and that he apparently even paid large sums of money to multiple people to get them to keep quiet about him, which really doesn’t look good for him, unfortunately.)

Can we separate the artist from the art? Well, whether one can or not is subjective, isn’t it?

For me, in the case of The Sandman, I both can and cannot. I’m still able to enjoy the show. I’m enjoying it very much! But, at the same time, I can’t really forget, even while watching the show, about the allegations. Like, the whole plot thread about the Lady Nuala being “gifted” to Morpheus to do with whatever he liked… knowing that that was written by a dude who SAs women, kinda gave me the ick. Pretty much all of the sexual scenes gave me an extra bit of ick, honestly. I already dislike sex scenes, but they’re even more repulsive when you know that they originated in the mind of a rapist.

So, my enjoyment of the art is definitely colored by what I know about the artist. But, for me personally, it’s not to the point where I can’t enjoy the art. Because it’s also a really compelling story, and I have to know what happens! I guess if the story were less good, it wouldn’t be worth sitting through the moments where I remember and get the ick; but for me, in this case, it balances out.

However, I imagine if I were a family member of one of his victims, I’m sure I wouldn’t be able to tolerate it at all. If I were the mother of one of those victims, there’s no way I could stand to watch even a single second of this show, or to read a single word of anything NG ever wrote! Or if I were myself a survivor of SA, I might have a stronger reaction.

But, shouldn’t I – as a Christian especially! – be so empathetic as to be unable to tolerate anything NG ever wrote? Isn’t it a moral failing that I’m not disgusted enough to boycott The Sandman? I ought to love my fellow humans so much that their suffering is personal to me, even if they’re not my daughter or myself. Right?

.

Another example people like to bring up w/r/t the whole artist/art separation issue is Hitler’s paintings. We all know that Hitler painted pictures, and that he applied to art school and was rejected. If you’ve ever seen his pictures, you know that they’re really not bad. They’re technically very good. They’re kind of soulless, lacking a certain vitality or warmth or emotion or something, but as architectural drawings, they’re very nice!

Is it okay to look at, for example, Hitler’s painting of Neuschwanstein Castle, and enjoy it? It’s a pretty picture. I wouldn’t hang it on my wall or anything, but, what if someone else wanted to? What if someone else just really likes a nice technically-proficient but heartless painting of a building? Would it be a moral failing for that person, knowing who the artist was and what he did, to purchase a print of that painting, frame it, and hang it on the wall in their house? There was an episode about this in season one of Justified, actually!: there was a character who was an avid collector of Hitler paintings, and yes, the guy was a scumbag! But, in theory, could you enjoy Hitler’s artwork without being a scumbag yourself? I’m not sure; I kind of think not. His crimes were so horrific that I really can’t see how anyone with an iota of knowledge of history could possibly separate the artist from the art, in that case.

But shouldn’t I feel the same way about NG as I do about Hitler? – Is the former as bad as the latter? I think not. Hitler is like the go-to example when talking about moral problems, but perhaps it’s not fair to always compare people to him. Even if so, does that make it okay to enjoy The Sandman, just because raping several people isn’t as objectively bad as murdering zillions of them?

Should we permit ourselves to separate artist from art, even if we can? Shouldn’t we boycott content from bad people on principle, even if we’re tempted to enjoy it because it’s fun?

On this same note, let’s think about Chris Brown. Super talented artist! I’m pretty obsessed with some of his songs. I still listen to them, even knowing what he did to Rihanna. Is that a moral failing on my part? Shouldn’t I be so horrified by his actions that I just can’t stomach the sound of his voice? I imagine, if I were Rihanna’s mom, I’d feel that way; but shouldn’t I, as a mom of girls – as a Christian – as a human being!! – have that reaction anyway?! I probably should.

But, even if I’m not repulsed by the sound of his voice, shouldn’t I boycott his music on principle, because I know it’s the right thing to do?

This one, I’m not so sure about. Chris Brown, DFW, and Jeffree Star: these are all people who, as I personally see it, made mistakes in their past which they regretted. They have dark pasts, they were deeply troubled – which is not an excuse for hurting others, not at all, because you can be a troubled person without hurting others; but it does explain why they behaved the way they did, because people who are hurt do tend to hurt others. It’s not right, but it’s a common symptom. But, such people can grow and change and see where they messed up and work on themselves and be better. Which I know Jeffree and Chris both did. (DFW, I’m not sure about the details, but I know that he was in a committed monogamous relationship at the time of his death, which I’ve read was healthy and unproblematic; and from what I’ve read about him, he didn’t exactly feel great about the way he’d handled his earlier relationships.) People like this, repentant sinners, I find it easier to empathize with and forgive than someone like Hitler. So, I’m not sure if I agree that these people deserve to be canceled. NG doesn’t seem like a repentant sinner, though. To the best of my knowledge, he’s basically admitted to being an asshole, but not to committing any crimes. He probably does deserve to be canceled.

So why am I not participating in the canceling? Why am I still loving this show so much?

.

What are my motivations here, anyway?

There are certain celebrities that I cannot stomach because of their nasty behavior. Mr. Maroon 5, for example, and Marilyn Manson. However, this may be more of a personal distaste issue than a moral issue.

Yes, it was gross that Mr. Maroon 5 cheated on his pregnant wife; but, I still like to listen to Gavin Rossdale, who also cheated on his wife, which makes me think maybe it’s not that I’m so repulsed by cheaters, but rather that Mr. Maroon 5 as a performer has this weaselish and squirmy persona, and sounds like a goose when he sings, while Gavin Rossdale has literally the best singing voice of any male out there, and seems like a cool person otherwise. Similarly, Marilyn Manson: he’s done some disgusting stuff, yes, but that only augments my pre-existing dislike of his music. It’s just not my cup of tea.

And meanwhile, I’m a big fan of Ronnie Radke, who obviously has done some bad shit in the past, for which everyone still wants to cancel him. I will defend him to the death though! He seems like a really smart and good-hearted person who keeps things real (yes, his roast reels are kind of unhinged, but come on, as a rock star it’s his job to be unhinged and entertaining; plus, people shouldn’t start shit online if they don’t want to get roasted, lol, Ronnie never comes for people without being provoked). I’d put him in the “repentant sinners” category mentioned above, because he did his time for the mistakes of his youth, and nowadays he does a lot of good for people and for the music industry at large.

However: this makes me wonder: am I biased here because Gavin Rossdale and Ronnie Radke are both very beautiful people, while Marilyn Manson and Adam Levine are not? I wonder if I’m letting aesthetics color my perception. I know it’s been proven that people tend to perceive attractive people as smarter, better, and more capable, and to perceive ugly people as dumber and worse all-around. I’m pretty sure I’m being fair here, but I have to wonder. It’s like how, if you kill an earthworm, it’s fine, no one cares, but if you kill a butterfly you’re a sick and nasty person and why would you do that. But is the worm really any worse than the butterfly?

.

Anyway.

Long story short, I do not know if it’s a moral failing that I’m watching, and really enjoying, The Sandman season two.

Maybe some might argue that it’s actually a good thing, to be able to appreciate the good products of someone who’s otherwise bad. Isn’t that how God sees us, after all? God sees both the bad and the good in us, and loves us regardless of our behavior. And a good, virtuous action always glorifies God, even if the person who did it has also done a lot of bad actions. And producing a beautiful work of art is a good action. Good inspirations don’t come from our corrupt humanity; they come from God, and they teach us about God. So, maybe it’s not bad to be able to enjoy a work of good art created by a bad person.

There are things Good and True and Beautiful in The Sandman, as also in Infinite Jest and other stories by DFW. It would be sad and misguided to just chuck all of these stories in the trash because they came from sources that are corrupted – which we all are, to a certain extent, after all.

So if I had to attempt to make a conclusion here, which I’m not sure I can, I’d say that, well, maybe it’s a matter of balance?: if it’s a really good piece of art, and the artist who made it has any redeeming qualities or humanity left in them – then, perhaps, there’s nothing necessarily morally wrong with being able to enjoy their work (although it’s certainly understandable that some people would prefer not to). But in the case of someone like Hitler, where the artwork is just okay and the evil he committed is so incomprehensibly staggering and cold-blooded and large-scale, then you’d probably have to be a pretty messed-up person to really enjoy his art.

I don’t think you can really call someone a bad person for enjoying the works of Neil Gaiman or Chris Brown – as long as the fan in question isn’t making excuses for the bad behavior of those artists. We can recognize that they did something evil and that the art they made is good. Such is life. Sinful people can still do good things and create good things.