This is for those who know what “death of the author” means or who is willing to look it up, but in short, it can summed up to mean “whatever a work of fiction means is up to the people to decide on”.
Question inspired by an incident the other day where I saw someone one day cite “death of the author” when asked why he went into the womens’ bathroom, saying “you keep saying the symbol on the door is a stick figure in a dress, but I look at it and see a stick figure in a cape, and so I entered because I’m super.”
There’s also the financial aspect; Does supporting the art also support an artist you don’t agree with? JK Rowling is a good example; She’s a horrible bigot, who penned the single most wildly popular book series in living memory. She made over a billion dollars on Harry Potter, all while being a bigot. So it’s worth asking whether supporting the art is a moral choice, even if we’re using Death of the Artist.
Yes, and that’s a very good point. She’s a particularly good example, because her bigotry wasn’t widely known or expressed until she was done with the series. It raises the question: was it ethical to buy all of those novels before it became public that she’s a racist piece of shit? If so, why would the exposure of that information change the books? The only argument against buying the books is the one of boycotting.
Scott Adams is another one. The fact that he’s a pathetic excuse for a human being was only widely known around the time he stopped publishing.
I admit, I struggle with this issue more than most. I greatly admire Kevin Spacey’s acting, and the controversy broke my heart. I mean, we’re all shitty humans who’ve made mistakes and done shitty things to other people. Some things cross a line, and ideological sins are not forgiveable.