I sought advice about this after learning that the rumors about Michael Jackson had been confirmed. Because the associations of his music haven't changed for me.

My friend/spiritual adviser's take on it was that engaging with the work of a dead artist who's scum is OK. As you said.. if your engagement isn't benefiting them. And borrowing their work or stealing it is also ethical.

I'm having a much harder time with Neil Gaiman; he's used his wealth in ways that harm individuals for his own gratification, and also for ways that benefit the world at large (fighting censorship). I wasn't able to finish a book of his I borrowed from the library just before the news dropped, but did still rewatch the first season of "Sandman." I'm honestly torn about him. He's more complicated than Rowling in this, too.

Part of the issue is that, unusually for me, I had parasocial fondness for him. I admired him as a person, so finding out he's morally repulsive hurt. And the artists who contracted to work on the show before they knew didn't do anything wrong. Part of me wants to watch the second season.

The thing I find most offputting is the fact that a lot of Harry Potter fans seem to put way more effort into getting defensive about their enjoyment of the problematic wizard books than they do pushing back against JKR’s shitfuckery.

This is excellent. I would also like to shout out this excellent post by trans author Meryl Wilsner about how supporting transphobia is a choice in light of the several books that began as Harry Potter fanfic being published recently: merylwilsner.kit.com/posts/upd…

the only sure way to separate the art from the artist is a bankruptcy court ruling...

Note.

Great article! I love that you dug into the nuance of why we might choose to enjoy a work despite the artist, and why we might not be able to bring ourselves to do it in some cases. I feel that in JKR's case it also illustrates another facet, where a lot of folks simply don't see her views (especially early on, before she went completely mask off as a literal Holocaust-denying fascist) as explicitly transphobic, because to a cis/het who has never examined the ingrained transphobic biases that society has been impressing on the for their whole lives, the things she says just don't read as objectionable. Case in point, you're not wrong that there's no overt transphobia in the HP books, but her views still worm their way in with the treatment of trans-coded characters like Tonks, and the general undertone of bioessentialism about how men are Just Like That which sits at the heart of her transmisogynist views is woven into the structure of the universe she writes. Most folks won't notice that, but it's virtually impossible for those of us in her crosshairs to ignore that her whole "some people are simple Born Worse" schtick very clearly includes people like us.

not being able to enjoy music because we found out the artist is a rapist is what happened to us with Jeremy Soule. if someone comes at us with "separating the art from the artist" the message we get is that rape isn't something to be upset about and we shouldn't care. whether it's cause they are scared of being judged, because they genuinely think rape isn't a big deal, or because they think we're simply too irrational and emotional for being unable to compartmentalize this away, that's an awful thing to say to someone.

how about we separate some artists from their keyboard?