I totally get why you wanted to asterisk Louis CK, but one day in the near future I hope we can just assume that all artists are people. Humans do bad things and good things. Hopefully, we all do more good than bad and that asterisks are no longer necessary for some. I mean, I still love the song "Man in the Mirror" and yet I'm horrified by what I saw on HBO's "Leaving Neverland." I've never seen an asterisk by Michael Jackson's name. I think Louis CK did far less damage than MJ. Separately, I love reading your Substack and learning about wine, comics and culture! :-)
Thanks, Krista! This topic of course requires its own full-length post, but in broad strokes: I think it's important to hold public figures/powerful figures accountable, and that requires *some* sort of consequence that's significant enough to deter that behavior in the future. While there should be a path to redemption, the way the individual handles their "cancelling" is its own consideration, too. When they fight it, when they do very little to earn a way back, and then actively fight against the very idea of "cancelling" (even calling it that vs. calling out authentically terrible behavior) then that doubles down on their terribleness. Louis CK isn't just terrible for the revelation of a long pattern of past behavior, but now *also* for vocally using the very nature of his comeuppance as something to crusade against. That's someone who isn't owning their bad behavior, and now has become an active enemy against this only action available to most of us that has proven effective in curbing such behavior at all.
Regarding MJ, personally, I no longer listen to any of his music. That doesn't negate how much I like it and/or talented I thought he was, but I no longer wish to give numbers / hits / money to the estate or the label who all partook in covering up the behavior. So for that reason, I doubt I'd ever write about or talk up an MJ album, as an asterisk/footnote wouldn't be enough in that instance. I just have to let him and his work go - for me, personally, I can't see any other way around it. We all have to make our own moral/ethical judgment calls on these things, but I think it's always important that we do vs. have a one-size-fits-all approach. The bad behavior in question matters, as does the person's repsonse to the outcray and actual consequence.
It’s definitely worth a long post! I had this conversation pre-#metoo about Woody Allen. It requires so much nuance too. Thx for writing so much back.
I totally get why you wanted to asterisk Louis CK, but one day in the near future I hope we can just assume that all artists are people. Humans do bad things and good things. Hopefully, we all do more good than bad and that asterisks are no longer necessary for some. I mean, I still love the song "Man in the Mirror" and yet I'm horrified by what I saw on HBO's "Leaving Neverland." I've never seen an asterisk by Michael Jackson's name. I think Louis CK did far less damage than MJ. Separately, I love reading your Substack and learning about wine, comics and culture! :-)
Thanks, Krista! This topic of course requires its own full-length post, but in broad strokes: I think it's important to hold public figures/powerful figures accountable, and that requires *some* sort of consequence that's significant enough to deter that behavior in the future. While there should be a path to redemption, the way the individual handles their "cancelling" is its own consideration, too. When they fight it, when they do very little to earn a way back, and then actively fight against the very idea of "cancelling" (even calling it that vs. calling out authentically terrible behavior) then that doubles down on their terribleness. Louis CK isn't just terrible for the revelation of a long pattern of past behavior, but now *also* for vocally using the very nature of his comeuppance as something to crusade against. That's someone who isn't owning their bad behavior, and now has become an active enemy against this only action available to most of us that has proven effective in curbing such behavior at all.
Regarding MJ, personally, I no longer listen to any of his music. That doesn't negate how much I like it and/or talented I thought he was, but I no longer wish to give numbers / hits / money to the estate or the label who all partook in covering up the behavior. So for that reason, I doubt I'd ever write about or talk up an MJ album, as an asterisk/footnote wouldn't be enough in that instance. I just have to let him and his work go - for me, personally, I can't see any other way around it. We all have to make our own moral/ethical judgment calls on these things, but I think it's always important that we do vs. have a one-size-fits-all approach. The bad behavior in question matters, as does the person's repsonse to the outcray and actual consequence.