Background Check
For all entertainment and cultural consumption:
I hate to break it to you, but everyone is “problematic.” Human beings are flawed. If they weren’t, literature and art would not exist. You’ve been duped by an ideology that will happily rob you of all joy and complexity in life and art. https://t.co/kLY3CGmnMo
— Joseph Massey (@jmasseypoet) May 3, 2026
Imagine the hours of fun. All that tutting and disapproval.
Update, via the comments:
The urge to achieve purity in such matters is, I think, a little odd. I look at my own bookshelves and I’ve long since become accustomed to reading things by authors whose political opinions – insofar as they’re known to me and insofar as I’d care to find out – may not be entirely congenial. Given the progressive dominance of cultural production, that’s kind of difficult to avoid.
Ditto TV and cinema.
And if madam feels a need to pre-emptively vet authors for ideological congeniality on every issue before investing time in their work, I’m guessing she may extend much the same filtering to friends, of whom similar conformity is presumably expected, and possibly family too. Which doesn’t strike me as a recipe for a happy life. Or one in which new things may be found out.
Also, open thread. Share ye links and bicker.
It would “happily” rob us all.
Well, the urge to achieve purity in such things is, I think, a little odd. I look at my own bookshelves and I’ve long since become accustomed to reading things by authors whose political opinions, insofar as they’re known to me, and insofar as I’d care to find out, may not be entirely congenial. Given the leftist dominance of cultural production, that’s kind of difficult to avoid.
Ditto TV and cinema.
Someone just discovered “never meet your heroes“, after all these years.
Given the liberal bubble most artists live in, I take it as a given that I’d never agree with any of them politically. That’s fine, I’m paying them to give me music/art/entertainment, I’m not going to give them a purity test and refuse to listen to them because they voted differently than I do.
Of course, that excludes the ones who are obnoxious about it (as many are), and who feel compelled to use their fame to lecture people who disagree with them.
And then there are the ones who are egregiously immoral that I want nothing to do with them. I’m not concerned with political disagreements, but wife beaters, child abusers and the like aren’t people I’m interested in giving money to.
But somehow I doubt that’s what the original poster was referring to.
Would a Socratic dialogue lead the complainer to an admission that she, too, is “problematic”?
But scrolling down through her feed suggests that seemingly everything upsets her. Oh–and she hates Israel and “Zionism”…of course. An Arabic version of a teenage basket case.
But it’s still not pure ENOUGH!
Related: absolute skill and expertise be damned.
If madam feels a need to pre-emptively vet authors for ideological congeniality on every issue before investing time in their work, I’m guessing she may extend the same filtering to friends, of whom similar conformity is presumably expected, and possibly family too.
[ Post updated. ]
I’d be hard-pressed to think of any Simon-pure characters in literature. Often it’s their flaws which drive the stories and make them interesting.
I was just looking again into the first Aubrey-Maturin novel: Much of the interest is in Jack and Stephen’s character flaws and how those flaws drive the plot. Jack’s aggressive independence is what makes him such a successful captain but he has to learn to control himself in order to progress. One can say similar things about Stephen. And never mind irascible Preserved Killick et al.
In Gregory Benford’s In the Ocean of Night, it is only thanks to Nigel Walmsley’s “difficult” personality that the alien artifacts are discovered and explored.
And what about Severian in The Book of the New Sun, raised from childhood in the torturer’s guild but slowly becoming something better?
It is perhaps a tad uncharitable but the notion of a Benny Hill style clearing of bookshelves when one of her beloved authors is declared beyond the pale brings a smile.
And it is a certainty all of her beloved authors will, in the fullness of time, be declared beyond the pale.
Over the years, I’ve become more appreciative of writers, musicians, actors, etc., who don’t announce their political views loudly at every possible opportunity and regardless of incongruity. Thus making it much easier to continue enjoying whatever it is they do.
Speaking of crazy women complaining about everything, this bears repeating.
Alternate headline: Are city birds transphobic?
From the comments: Birds know what’s up.
Man, just STFU. Please.
Obviously, this means birds are sexist. Something must be done!
Related: dogs in the Middle East and South Asia can tell the difference between a Muslim and a Christian. Islamophobia!
Better phrasing:
I’ve never met an author or artist with whom I agreed on all matters. And some of them were thoroughly obnoxious creatures.
Conceit does pair well with gullibility.
There’s a lot of that going around, sort of like an intellectual influenza. But at least he’s not gushing over the utterly fraudulent Jeff Koons.
On the other hand, many artists and art critics are interested in technique to a degree that ordinary people are not. Artists are naturally interested in learning techniques that they can apply to whatever they want to say. This can explain why particular painters and writers are considered extremely important irrespective of their subject matter. In the sf world, Heinlein and Bester are often cited for this reason.
Is Rothko innovative in this way? Perhaps. And I’ve noticed a few of his paintings which are indeed visually compelling. But in the end I see his paintings as more like wallpaper than art, and care more about whether his techniques can be used in works that say something I care about.
Quitting reading is clearly the solution.
If I only read authors who agreed with me politically, I’d have nothing to read.
If I wrote a book, I probably wouldn’t read it because my politics disturb me.
I’m not sure I’ve ever found an author “problematic”, mainly because I read for stories, and most of the time know zero about the author person. If I like the story I may seek out other work by the same name, but never actually go looking into the person who wrote it.
It’s the stories I find “problematic”, if you want to use that word. The tedious tripe foisted on the reader in the name of, as Critical Drinker would say, The Message. Sometimes I scroll through the library app looking for something new to listen to, and I click on an interesting sounding title, only to read a laundry list of box-ticking in the blurb. Dreck. Boring. I read for escape, usually from the modern world, but it seems lately the modern world wants to follow me everywhere. There is no escape.
So I read older stuff, mostly.
I once saw an exhibition of work by the Quebec artist Riopelle. The “signature” work on display was 5 feet tall and 20+ feet wide, and consisted mostly of Riopelle dipping a dead seabird he found on the beach into paint and pressing it on the canvas like a small child who’s just discovered potato stamps.
He lived on a remote island with his lifelong companion, and created the work after she died of cancer.
The guide was a huge Riopelle fan, obviously, and asked us what we thought of this “master” work. I said that it didn’t seem to mean or say much of anything beyond the artist being driven mad with grief after losing his wife and acting out in a way that was familiar to him.
I got more grief from the guide for referring to his “life companion” as his wife than I did for my evaluation of his work, which I think was fairly telling.
This is what happens when you decide the Bible is not worth reading.
I’m not concerned with belief here. I mean the stories. Everyone is problematic in the Bible, starting with Adam and Eve. We are all sinners. Worthy of love and forgiveness, but sinners nonetheless.
Just a dip into Ecclesiastics, starting with “there is nothing new under the sun.” If you keep that in mind, you’ll understand that we have been continually faced with unscrupulous people, bad art, corruption, and degradation. (Also that each new generation acts in the same way the previous generations have done since the time of Socrates, which makes it irritating to us oldsters, at least those of us who have driven into similar ditches and are seeing them about to do the same.)
I’m reminded of this quote from Andre Malraux about a conversation he had with an old priest: “You’ve spent 50 years listening to people in the secrecy of the confessional. What have you learned about the human soul?”
The priest replied, “Two things. First of all, people are much more unhappy than one things. And second, there is no such thing as grown-ups.”
>”The radicalization of young women”
>chart shows voting preferences of women up to 50 years old
People will jump through all kinds of hoops to try and filter that cohort so it doesn’t sound like they’re saying “all women”. Even though it really is all women.
…just another way for women to gain and retain status in the herd by enforcing adherence to this season’s fashionable opinions. Men don’t read fiction. The industry has been hand-wringing about this for about five years now.
This came to mind:
And also this.
I suspect that’s part of the reason I enjoyed the Rowan Atkinson Maigret mini-series. Other than the fact it’s well made and the period setting is evoked very effectively, there’s a pleasing relief from modern preoccupations. I didn’t spot any anachronistic messaging, any Very Modern Attitudes.
Despite the, you know, murders – and the general air of melancholy – watching the series did offer a holiday in time.
Privilege.
My bookshelves indicate otherwise.
Rolling Stone’s list is as good an indicator of talent as the New York Times Best Seller list.
Why can’t these people just be eaten by alligators or something.
I see, gyotaku ripoff, but with dead birds.
[ Discreetly tidies up PiperPaul’s aberrant formatting so as to avoid public shame. ]
Why can’t these people just be eaten by alligators or something.
We should all respect their wishes by refraining from all travel to the Netherlands.
Likewise purchasing their exports, whose transport required those evil fossil fuels.
It’s usually better that way.
I suppose I should add that I can’t think of an otherwise unengaging comedian, writer, musician or actor who became any funnier or more compelling because I discovered that their previously unknown politics are more in line with my own.
I am very skeptical of most completely non-representational art.
BUT I had the opportunity to stand in front of some real Rothkos when I lived in NYC.
They are magical.
He took the established oil painter’s technique of layering transparent glazes, and used it to add illusions of depth and light to his abstract paintings.
He also advanced color theory to support the impression, laying unlikely combinations of color alongside each other to create optical effects of receding/advancing/radiating.
This obviously does not come across in a reproduction because it depends on how light interacts with the many layers of paint.
But he used abstraction to isolate and experiment with the rudiments of how flat images are made and perceived. For that he deserves respect, unlike the other hacks.
The Commie Crab museum.
Another entry into “Damn the facts … Just declare VICTORY!! and go home.”
Have you ever seen Jules Breton’s painting The Song of the Lark? The setting sun absolutely glows.
What do you have against alligators?
I’m going to miss Western Civilisation.
The Hero’s Journey in literature is specifically about the hero overcoming his flaws and fears to rise to the need in front of him.
I also refer you to Thomas Sowell’s insight (The Vision of the Anointed) about the distinction between the tragic or constrained vision of conservatives and the unconstrained vision of progs. In the tragic vision, man is necessarily limited and flawed. In this vision we must design limited government and checks and balances to prevent fraud and abuse. In the unconstrained vision, man is a blank slate and is infinitely malleable (see the New Soviet Man for example), government can be a perfect instrument and the more gov the better. These conflicting visions explain why issues that seem unrelated can align with the same groups. Marry this to the adoption by the Left of the hierarchy of victimhood and we get infinite trouble.
One of the reasons so many progs hate Christianity and Judaism is that these religions focus so much on overcoming one’s flaw. A proper progressive religion would focus on killing those guilty of Wrong Think.
Is it them, Yogi?
Yes, Boo-Boo. And he dindu nuffin.
It seems to me that someone who cannot immediately recognize the priority of fire fighters responding to an emergency is a good candidate for permanent removal.
This critter does seem reminiscent of a particular UK cartoonist’s style, but I cannot recall who.
God, I don’t understand anime.
Exactly!!
Under modern ideologies, only white western males can have flaws, but no white western males can be the hero. No wonder modern storylines seem so boring and pointless.
The “heroes” are already perfect, yet they are endlessly oppressed victims at the same time. The “oppressor” is the same every time, and you know the “heroes” will get their revenge in the end, so that leaves a long middle to wallow deep in the neuroses and/or the sexual habits of the “heroes”. Bleh.
Is it Halloween already?