As an example, look at Minecraft. Notch is a red-faced transphobic blowhard who has pissed on his entire legacy and made a massive fool of himself on a regular basis. He's awful. Still, if I post that Minecraft Steve says trans rights, Notch won't and can't stop me from doing so. Many more people invested time and energy into it than just one Swedish incel, and their efforts matter, too.

Stuff that hits home with us more seems to impact us more when their creators turn out to be shitty. We confuse art and artist at our peril here especially, given that it resonates with us because we are the empathetic party. We have the right to empathy with the work in itself, as it is, author be damned.

People are fully capable of being shitty and artistic, as we well know, but why let them dictate our experiences? Art hinges on you to appreciate it, it's personal & yours.

In short, whatever an author's experience with a work is, whatever their canon may be, they are describing *their* relationship with their own work, you may describe yours, especially if the author forfeits their right to a platform by being a huge shitter.

Just as good people can come from abusive parents, good art can come from an abusive artist, and similarly deserves to find a home of its own, away from abusive figures.

@Colophonscrawl death of the author means that we can legally go and murder notch with a minecraft sword for being a bigot

@Colophonscrawl

I'm a big fan of the notion that authorial intent means jack shit.

What meaning an author of a work intended to give it matters far less than the meaning that the consumers of the work derive from it.

What meaning do you derive from the work?

If you liked a work, you probably didn't derive the sort of horrible bile that the author may now be known for.

This separates "I liked that work" from "there's no way I want to give that shitbag any more money." Both may be true and this is okay.

@teshub @Colophonscrawl This is me vs. a lot of Morrissey’s back catalogue.

@Colophonscrawl This is my official tv and movie policy. Too many people make those possible for me to hate them because of a few chuds.

Single-author works are more complicated....

@asherah I argue that single-author works must similarly stand on their own. If they are nasty or autobiographical or inseparable of their own merits from the author's nasty behavior, they'll be judged accordingly, but still to me that counts as judging independently of the author, it's just that the work so replicates the author that it looks as if they're synonymous. That's on the author, not on me as the person appreciating or not appreciating the piece.

@Colophonscrawl

“Nasty or autobiographical or inseparable of their own merits from the author’s nasty behavior”

E.g., the oeuvre of Woody Allen. (Which I have a hard time applying my own movie rules too, tbh.)

That’s a reasonable standard though.