32:00 completely agree. The art is an extension of the artist, yet that doesn’t mean we should cancel every artist who has done shitty things. Grooming was definitely wrong in the 70s, but it was still much more common in artistic circles - music industry, art scene, Hollywood etc. All that said, what McCarthy did is reprehensible, disgusting, indefensible. Thanks for having a nuanced conversation about this.
I’m not trying to ruin McCarthy for you or cancel McCarthy, but men having sex with young girls is kind of a theme. It is found in Outer Dark, Suttree, The Passenger/Stella Maris, Cities of the Plain, and No Country for Old Men. He even often paints the teen girls as the sexual aggressors. Really enjoyed your discussion
Every single person has done bad things in their life. Not legitimizing doing bad things--pointing out one of the fundamental facts of life. So then the multiple choice answers for each of us to choose from are: A. Do I cancel the person, and all the person has done, out of my life; or B. Do I not cancel the person, and all the person has done, out of my life; or C. Do I cancel some of the person, and some of what the person has done, out of my life. If A or B, then go forth and live your cut-&-dry life to your own satisfaction. If C, the question becomes to what degree do you do so. Where do you draw your lines? What are your thresholds, and why those? What are your demarcations, and why those? Do you remain consistent in your choice regarding all individuals, and if not why? Are these accumulated decisions to these clarifying questions logical, emotional, or both? If logical, you'll probably be more steadfast and static; if emotional, you'll be more fluid and changing--to which, a consequent question derives: How do you interact with someone who is more consistent in contrast to someone who is more erratic? By the way, a consequence to choosing A is that you narrow your life through your own self-imposition so much so that you necessarily deprive yourself of that which you'll never know would be good, enjoyable, and positive to you through interaction. Is ignorance, then, truly bliss?
Great honest discussion here. Thanks for going into the topic of individuals who appear older than their actual age. I think that was a big issue for generations in the past that some people failed to realize or choose to ignore when interacting with those individuals.
This was an excellent and much-needed discussion. I agree with a lot of what y'all have to say, and I appreciate the nuance and care you showed the subject matter.
The Merchant of Venice is strong evidence that Shakespeare may've been an anti-Semite. Yet we continue to be in awe of his mastery of our language. And that's okay. Artists owe us their work, not a model for living.
i was really hoping y'all would touch on this in an episode because it definitely deserved a more in-depth conversation than the extent of what was discussed in the club. by and large i agree with the sentiment that it comes down to a personal decision--i might enjoy XYZ's work while also acknowledging failings, faults, etc., but i understand why another person might refuse to interact with XYZ's work because of the faults, failings, etc. and i feel i have to respect that. obviously you can further into the weeds about it, but that's what i personally stick to as a general principle, otherwise i think i'd go insane. --signed a one-time women's studies student who shoulders the burden of many problematic faves across multiple forms of media (also i agree that it's got an anti-intellectual flavor to just outright dismiss the conversation)
Llewellyn Moss stays faithful to his wife in NCFOM, so if the woman from the article is telling the truth, it tells me McCarthy was 'processing' his decisions.
@BookishTexan legal with parental consent, for what that's worth. I wouldn't consent to my 16yo daughter getting married, but it's a far cry from the alleged statutory **** and trafficking presented in the article. Not trying to argue, as you and I are almost certainly in agreement on the right/wrong of this event (if totally true).
@@hillbillyjackwagon I wasn't suggesting that Carla Jean was a victim of statutory or trafficking. I was pointing out that she is one of not a few underage girls who end up in sexual relationships with older men. It seems to have become a minor theme in McCarthy's work.
@BookishTexan right, I'm just pointing out the difference between what's alleged in McCarthy's relationship with the underage girl and the NCFOM character marrying at the Texas legal age (with parental consent). I think the better comparison is the hitchhiker or girl at the pool in the film, where he seems to be dealing with his own actions, albeit turning the girl into the more aggressive party, like you mentioned above. Either way, it's gross. I haven't read Outer Dark, the Border Trilogy, or his final 2, so I'm sure I'll have some cringe moments with this information in mind.
@ I’m not arguing about consent. I’m simply pointing out that McCarthy sometimes described relationships between teen girls and much older men. The relationship described doesn’t have to be illegal for it to call to mind McCarthy’s own relationship with a teenage girl. Carla Jean is 16 Llewelyn is in his mid 30s when they marry. Augusta Britt was 16, McCarthy was in his 40s. The girl at the pool seems to be an almost direct reference to Britt. Notice on that case Llewelyn resists and the teen girl is the aggressor which is disturbing in a different way.
One thing I haven't fully looked into but heard on the GAN podcast, was how this one author William Gilmore Simms was considered at the forefront of American literature, but being from the south holding regressive views on slavery and then ultimately siding with the confederacy led to him being erased from American literary history compared to someone like a Hawthorne or a Melville or a Stowe. So while people may hem and haw about separating the art from the artist we already as a society have chosen that while some art is great some artists are not good people and don't deserve to represent what we are
20:00 her and Barney’s motivation in spinning the story to make her influence greater (and in some ways possibly make CM look better) seems to be selling the book that they are writing together.
That book always piqued my interest when I would see it in stores, but for one reason or another I never grabbed a copy. I'll have to get my hands on it.
@ I think it’d be up your alley. It doesn’t offer any pat or clean reassurances, and it can be really provocative but with a strong, thoughtful underpinning argument.
You know I have books from both of this authors and I didn't know the controversy around them. Thanks for pointing this out I will actually try to read the together now and see how I will feel 😊
Coincidental timing... I just finished McCarthy's _Child of God_ yesterday (the day before your video was posted). It is his third book, published in 1973, which puts McCarthy at 40 years of age. One of its many depraved themes is underage s3x. Thus, this topic was on his mind, regardless of whether any of it landed in his real world life. People often confuscate the details of a book and the real life of an author; tending to think that the author is always writing about himself. To this, I point to _Lolita_ ... which is the same topic in reverse (they don't like the book's content, so hate the author). And to relate it to music, I think of Michael Jackson. Regardless of whether he did what was claimed in his late career, how does that impact what he did in his first 30 years of his career? I understand not supporting his pocketbook when he was alive, but all his (alleged) transgressions now seem to be ignored posthumously. And in TV, the same with Bill Cosby. He wrote and produced "Fat Albert" (which oddly is now called racist). How does what he did in his personal life in his 50s affect what he did when he was in his 20s?
I had just finished the Border trilogy, had firmly decided that Cormac McCarthy was my favorite author, and was halfway through Blood Meridian when the news broke. 😭
@ don’t worry, I finished it and it’s phenomenal. One of the best things about that book is all the layers of meaning and the undending perspectives from which you can analyze it (especially in regards to Gnosticism). I have a short essay written about the use of the word “pale” in the novel.
Hi Tony/Andy, I wonder if either of you have read The Language of War by Olksandr Mykhed? I think it would be right up your alley and I'd love to hear your thoughts on it once you've finished it.
"ignoring the positivity" ... you are bringing up the philosophic discussions of Dostoevsky. Regardless of whether you like his writing style or not, his topics were/are timeless. If you had a time machine, would you go back in time and kill Hitler? It certainly would make many people happier...
I think separating the art from the artist is an oversimplification, a formula that doesn't quite work, but at the same time, it sometimes feels useful to think that way to avoid assuming every detail is literal. For example, Augusta Britt probably influenced certain characters, but that doesn't mean any character is a 1:1 stand-in for her. It can be helpful for interpreting work to acknowledge the idea behind that distinction, but that is just the literary theory part. What we as readers do with problematic writers and where we draw the line is an entirely different thing and also very personal.
You don't have to read the biography of the writer into the work at all. His novels should stand for themselves as art in their use of language and other writing qualities like themes and innovation. That's the separation of art from artist that's necessary to keep appreciating works from problematic people. Sometimes a bad person is a great prose stylist but his morals don't reduce the artistic qualities of his work.
@@NTNG13 That's a very theoretical view that may work for you to keep appreciating certain works, good for you, but which, again, I find a gross oversimplification in literary theory terms.
The woman's story doesn't pass the smell test for me. Also, McCarthy is not alive for a response. I also wonder why we automatically think a writer is more morally superior to "regular" people.
@@jackwalter5970 I would highly recommend watching Write Conscious's video on the subject. Apparently McCarthy's lust for young women was an open secret in the industry, and all of his wives were significantly younger than him. As far as thinking writers are morally superior, I've never heard anyone say that.
32:00 completely agree. The art is an extension of the artist, yet that doesn’t mean we should cancel every artist who has done shitty things.
Grooming was definitely wrong in the 70s, but it was still much more common in artistic circles - music industry, art scene, Hollywood etc.
All that said, what McCarthy did is reprehensible, disgusting, indefensible.
Thanks for having a nuanced conversation about this.
I’m not trying to ruin McCarthy for you or cancel McCarthy, but men having sex with young girls is kind of a theme. It is found in Outer Dark, Suttree, The Passenger/Stella Maris, Cities of the Plain, and No Country for Old Men. He even often paints the teen girls as the sexual aggressors.
Really enjoyed your discussion
Every single person has done bad things in their life. Not legitimizing doing bad things--pointing out one of the fundamental facts of life. So then the multiple choice answers for each of us to choose from are: A. Do I cancel the person, and all the person has done, out of my life; or B. Do I not cancel the person, and all the person has done, out of my life; or C. Do I cancel some of the person, and some of what the person has done, out of my life. If A or B, then go forth and live your cut-&-dry life to your own satisfaction.
If C, the question becomes to what degree do you do so. Where do you draw your lines? What are your thresholds, and why those? What are your demarcations, and why those? Do you remain consistent in your choice regarding all individuals, and if not why? Are these accumulated decisions to these clarifying questions logical, emotional, or both? If logical, you'll probably be more steadfast and static; if emotional, you'll be more fluid and changing--to which, a consequent question derives: How do you interact with someone who is more consistent in contrast to someone who is more erratic?
By the way, a consequence to choosing A is that you narrow your life through your own self-imposition so much so that you necessarily deprive yourself of that which you'll never know would be good, enjoyable, and positive to you through interaction. Is ignorance, then, truly bliss?
Great honest discussion here. Thanks for going into the topic of individuals who appear older than their actual age. I think that was a big issue for generations in the past that some people failed to realize or choose to ignore when interacting with those individuals.
Current reads 0:00 - 4:57
Topic: Separating the Art from the Artist 4:57 - end.
This was an excellent and much-needed discussion. I agree with a lot of what y'all have to say, and I appreciate the nuance and care you showed the subject matter.
The Merchant of Venice is strong evidence that Shakespeare may've been an anti-Semite. Yet we continue to be in awe of his mastery of our language. And that's okay. Artists owe us their work, not a model for living.
very interesting discussion. you treated the subject really well.
Well done. We can’t avoid these conversations, but it should be up to the individual if and how the choose they what and who they read.
For your Vietnam study, if you haven’t read “Nam” by Mark Baker, I recommend it.
@@trapg6324 I'll see if I can track down a copy
i was really hoping y'all would touch on this in an episode because it definitely deserved a more in-depth conversation than the extent of what was discussed in the club. by and large i agree with the sentiment that it comes down to a personal decision--i might enjoy XYZ's work while also acknowledging failings, faults, etc., but i understand why another person might refuse to interact with XYZ's work because of the faults, failings, etc. and i feel i have to respect that. obviously you can further into the weeds about it, but that's what i personally stick to as a general principle, otherwise i think i'd go insane. --signed a one-time women's studies student who shoulders the burden of many problematic faves across multiple forms of media (also i agree that it's got an anti-intellectual flavor to just outright dismiss the conversation)
Llewellyn Moss stays faithful to his wife in NCFOM, so if the woman from the article is telling the truth, it tells me McCarthy was 'processing' his decisions.
Carla Jean was 16 when Llewellyn married her.
@BookishTexan legal with parental consent, for what that's worth. I wouldn't consent to my 16yo daughter getting married, but it's a far cry from the alleged statutory **** and trafficking presented in the article. Not trying to argue, as you and I are almost certainly in agreement on the right/wrong of this event (if totally true).
@@hillbillyjackwagon I wasn't suggesting that Carla Jean was a victim of statutory or trafficking. I was pointing out that she is one of not a few underage girls who end up in sexual relationships with older men. It seems to have become a minor theme in McCarthy's work.
@BookishTexan right, I'm just pointing out the difference between what's alleged in McCarthy's relationship with the underage girl and the NCFOM character marrying at the Texas legal age (with parental consent). I think the better comparison is the hitchhiker or girl at the pool in the film, where he seems to be dealing with his own actions, albeit turning the girl into the more aggressive party, like you mentioned above. Either way, it's gross. I haven't read Outer Dark, the Border Trilogy, or his final 2, so I'm sure I'll have some cringe moments with this information in mind.
@ I’m not arguing about consent. I’m simply pointing out that McCarthy sometimes described relationships between teen girls and much older men. The relationship described doesn’t have to be illegal for it to call to mind McCarthy’s own relationship with a teenage girl. Carla Jean is 16 Llewelyn is in his mid 30s when they marry. Augusta Britt was 16, McCarthy was in his 40s.
The girl at the pool seems to be an almost direct reference to Britt. Notice on that case Llewelyn resists and the teen girl is the aggressor which is disturbing in a different way.
One thing I haven't fully looked into but heard on the GAN podcast, was how this one author William Gilmore Simms was considered at the forefront of American literature, but being from the south holding regressive views on slavery and then ultimately siding with the confederacy led to him being erased from American literary history compared to someone like a Hawthorne or a Melville or a Stowe. So while people may hem and haw about separating the art from the artist we already as a society have chosen that while some art is great some artists are not good people and don't deserve to represent what we are
If you are still on the Vietnam kick and enjoy memoirs check out Vietnam-Perkasie by W.D. Ehrhart.
20:00 her and Barney’s motivation in spinning the story to make her influence greater (and in some ways possibly make CM look better) seems to be selling the book that they are writing together.
Claire Dederer’s ‘Monsters’ is the absolute shit on this topic. Really fantastic, formative read.
That book always piqued my interest when I would see it in stores, but for one reason or another I never grabbed a copy. I'll have to get my hands on it.
@ I think it’d be up your alley. It doesn’t offer any pat or clean reassurances, and it can be really provocative but with a strong, thoughtful underpinning argument.
I always think about Celine and Knut Hamsun. Horrible and genius at the same time.
You know I have books from both of this authors and I didn't know the controversy around them. Thanks for pointing this out I will actually try to read the together now and see how I will feel 😊
Coincidental timing... I just finished McCarthy's _Child of God_ yesterday (the day before your video was posted). It is his third book, published in 1973, which puts McCarthy at 40 years of age. One of its many depraved themes is underage s3x. Thus, this topic was on his mind, regardless of whether any of it landed in his real world life.
People often confuscate the details of a book and the real life of an author; tending to think that the author is always writing about himself. To this, I point to _Lolita_ ... which is the same topic in reverse (they don't like the book's content, so hate the author).
And to relate it to music, I think of Michael Jackson. Regardless of whether he did what was claimed in his late career, how does that impact what he did in his first 30 years of his career? I understand not supporting his pocketbook when he was alive, but all his (alleged) transgressions now seem to be ignored posthumously.
And in TV, the same with Bill Cosby. He wrote and produced "Fat Albert" (which oddly is now called racist). How does what he did in his personal life in his 50s affect what he did when he was in his 20s?
I had just finished the Border trilogy, had firmly decided that Cormac McCarthy was my favorite author, and was halfway through Blood Meridian when the news broke. 😭
@@reading_fastandslow I hope you continue with Blood Meridian.
@ don’t worry, I finished it and it’s phenomenal. One of the best things about that book is all the layers of meaning and the undending perspectives from which you can analyze it (especially in regards to Gnosticism). I have a short essay written about the use of the word “pale” in the novel.
Hi Tony/Andy, I wonder if either of you have read The Language of War by Olksandr Mykhed? I think it would be right up your alley and I'd love to hear your thoughts on it once you've finished it.
"ignoring the positivity" ... you are bringing up the philosophic discussions of Dostoevsky. Regardless of whether you like his writing style or not, his topics were/are timeless.
If you had a time machine, would you go back in time and kill Hitler? It certainly would make many people happier...
For sure he his novels are thematically important.
David Foster Wallace is next 😈😈😈
I think separating the art from the artist is an oversimplification, a formula that doesn't quite work, but at the same time, it sometimes feels useful to think that way to avoid assuming every detail is literal. For example, Augusta Britt probably influenced certain characters, but that doesn't mean any character is a 1:1 stand-in for her. It can be helpful for interpreting work to acknowledge the idea behind that distinction, but that is just the literary theory part. What we as readers do with problematic writers and where we draw the line is an entirely different thing and also very personal.
You don't have to read the biography of the writer into the work at all. His novels should stand for themselves as art in their use of language and other writing qualities like themes and innovation. That's the separation of art from artist that's necessary to keep appreciating works from problematic people. Sometimes a bad person is a great prose stylist but his morals don't reduce the artistic qualities of his work.
@@NTNG13 That's a very theoretical view that may work for you to keep appreciating certain works, good for you, but which, again, I find a gross oversimplification in literary theory terms.
She was not a kid. A girl like her in the 70's with 16 y.o. was already a young woman. Today a girl with 20 y.o. is a kid.
The woman's story doesn't pass the smell test for me. Also, McCarthy is not alive for a response. I also wonder why we automatically think a writer is more morally superior to "regular" people.
Lol so he didn’t bang a minor but if he did then you don’t care. Well yeah dude, everyone has their own values.
Other people in McCarthy’s life have confirmed the relationship and even admitted to helping keep it a secret.
@@jackwalter5970 I would highly recommend watching Write Conscious's video on the subject. Apparently McCarthy's lust for young women was an open secret in the industry, and all of his wives were significantly younger than him.
As far as thinking writers are morally superior, I've never heard anyone say that.
@Lifeonbooks thanks. What I meant was writers are subject to the same failings as everyone else.
@@jackwalter5970 My comment was related to your statement that Augusta Britt’s story didn’t pass the smell test.