[Danikka]

Hey there, welcome to the Snailed It podcast with Danikka and Erin, brought to you by Authors Own Publishing. 

 

[Erin]

Hi everyone, welcome back to the Snailed It podcast with Danikka and Erin. Today it’s, I mean it’s still in the realm of books, but it’s maybe a little bit different for us. We are talking about the death of the author and separating the art from the artist, which are two separate theories, do we call them? 

 

[Danikka]

They’re separate schools of thought, they’re very similar. So the death of the author came first, separating the art from the artist came later, but they’re used quite interchangeably and so we wanted to look them up and kind of check whether using them interchangeably was correct because it’s become very, very relevant in the bookish space to talk about this stuff.

 

[Erin]

And not even in the bookish space, honestly, it’s kind of in all of the spaces. 

 

[Danikka]

It’s in all of the spaces, in media in general. 

 

[Erin]

Can we not enjoy art at all?

 

[Danikka]

Yeah, exactly. And I mean, that is basically the topic of this podcast is can we enjoy it? What can we do? Because I think that’s actually what has inspired this podcast, to be honest, because it’s something that is very topical in the book space. Like we see people get cancelled online for enjoying what they want to read or like being told just let people read what they want to read or there’s, you know, very polarised topic, this topic, like, you know, people’s authors that they love for a long time coming out that they’re not very nice. You know, there’s two very, very, very big examples that I’m sure everybody’s thinking of that we will get to later. But like we’ve talked about a lot off the podcast, like we talk about it a lot, 

 

[Erin]

A lot, yeah.

 

[Danikka]

Very, very regularly. And like we actually had this podcast sitting on the list for a while. 

 

[Erin]

And we’ve just been nudging it down.

 

[Danikka]

Yeah, we’ve just nudged it down the list a few times. And so the other day we sat down and kind of did like a pre-recording research session and grabbed some sources, grabbed some quotes. And we wanted to kind of deep dive on this with you guys, because I feel like it’s something that confuses a lot of people. Like if you listen to our podcast, I feel like you’re really similar to us in that you want to do the right thing, right? You want to put your money in the right place. You don’t want to hurt anyone and you don’t want to feel guilty while you’re enjoying things.

 

[Erin]

Yeah.

 

[Danikka]

Like, I mean, we literally were just talking about this before we hit record on the podcast. It’s like we have these nostalgic attachments to these things that we enjoyed before we knew that someone was a piece of shit. And it just, it hurts to like, have these things that become a piece of you. Because art does become a piece of you when you consume it. There’s this quote that I love and I can’t remember what it is exactly, but it’s like when you read a book, you’re like leaving a piece of you on the page. It is like a very personal thing. And it’s the same, like when you’re looking at movies and listening to music, like it all becomes a part of who you are. 

 

[Erin]

Yeah, and that’s a good sort of segue into the death of the author theory.

 

[Danikka]

Yeah.

 

[Erin]

So the death of the author was first introduced by a French philosopher in 1967. 

 

[Danikka]

Yes. 

 

[Erin]

In an essay titled the death of the author.

 

[Danikka]

We’ll link all of the sources for you in the show notes. But yeah, we’ve highlighted the paragraphs from these articles that we found because we feel like they’re more articulate than anything we could say. 

 

[Erin]

100%. Where we will say it in 30 minutes. They can say it in a couple of seconds. 

 

So the death of the author is a literary theory that argues that the meaning of a text is not determined by the author’s intention, but rather the reader’s interpretation. This theory was first introduced by French philosopher Roland Barthes, since then has been widely debated and criticized in the literary community. The theory suggests that once a text is published, it takes on a life of its own and becomes open to interpretation by readers. The author’s intention and biography are no longer relevant to the interpretation of the text.

 

According to Barthes, the idea of the author as a singular authoritative figure is a product of Western culture and is not applicable to other cultures. 

 

[Danikka]

So this is a French philosopher and philosophers are academics. 

 

[Erin]

True.

 

[Danikka]

So he’s speaking specifically about academic theory and interpretation and interpreting the works largely for academic purposes. 

 

[Erin]

True. 

 

[Danikka]

And also he’s talking about the idea of the author being an authoritative figure, being a product of Western culture and not being applicable to other cultures. So he very specifically here doesn’t say that it’s not applicable in Western culture. He says it’s not applicable in other cultures. 

 

[Erin]

Yeah, he says it’s a product of Western culture.

 

[Danikka]

So I think that that’s quite telling. I mean, we’re Western in our cultural kind of upbringing, so we can’t speak to other cultures. But in our Westernized cultures, celebrities have a lot of influence and power.

 

[Erin]

One hundred percent. 

 

[Danikka]

And yes, if you are looking at just interpreting their art from an analytical perspective, perhaps you could, for an exercise in thought, consider removing them. But it would be for an exercise in thought purely. And I don’t think that it would ever actually have any consequence on the meaning of the work. I feel like philosophers, I love them to death. And they’ve coined a lot of really cool things that we believe in culture. But they have a tendency to, as Rhi would say, go up the ants arsehole with things. They just think about things too much. 

 

[Erin]

They’re not wrong.

 

[Danikka]

And I just feel like in 1967, we didn’t have billionaire authors who were actively hurting minority communities and probably grooming authors and like authors who groomed minors and who sexually assaulted people were the norm. 

 

[Erin] 

Yeah I was going to say, I mean, they were probably running rampant with that.

 

[Danikka]

Yeah.

 

[Erin]

And everyone was like, that’s cool. That’s fine.

 

[Danikka]

Yeah. It was very much like allowed. 

 

[Erin]

He’s a white man. It’s totally fine.

 

[Danikka]

To basically like kind of shit on his idea for a minute. We’re not in 1967 anymore. We’re 2025.

 

[Erin]

I do kind of understand this to a point, the author’s intention, not that it’s irrelevant, but the reader’s interpretation may or may not be in line with what the author intended. So that reader can take whatever they want from a book. And that’s something as an author, you kind of have to accept, you know, it doesn’t matter what you intend.

 

It doesn’t matter that if I intended my books to be like fluffy, soft, squishy romances, if some people are offended by parts of them or whatever, that was obviously never my intention. But if that’s their interpretation, then there’s not really anything I can do about it. But I feel like, especially in the author who we keep skirting around, their intention, but maybe we misunderstood their intention.

 

Because a lot of people read those books thinking that the intention was about like acceptance and found family and, you know, all of that sort of stuff. When actually, like when you then read them with a more critical eye, with the knowledge of the author’s bias, you’re like, oh, 

 

[Danikka]

Yeah. 

 

[Erin]

Oh no. Yeah. Oh, all of this stuff was just there. But when we were reading it in the late nineties, nearly 2000, like all of our meaning was saturated in that kind of stuff. Actually, I would be curious about knowing if people took away a different view, then like, oh, acceptance and found family and like the underdog, blah, blah, blah. If other people took away a different message, did you read those books as a child or did you read those books as an adult with an adult. Like when, at what point did you read them? Because I think if you read them prior to the irony of her coming out as a horrible fucking person, like, yeah, I don’t know. I know what I’m trying to say, but I’m not saying it eloquently.

 

[Danikka]

Yeah. But I mean, speaking of the early 2000s, I feel like this is leading us really well into separating me out from the artist. Because that’s kind of when that started to become a thing, I believe was around like the 1990s and the early 2000s. And I don’t know the exact timing.

 

I couldn’t find it. So if anyone does find the exact time that that came out, I’d really appreciate if you could send it to us, because that’d be really cool, because I’m a nerd about that stuff. But we found a few articles about it.

 

And it actually comes from the music industry. When, you know, there are a lot of, I think, specifically around a lot of rappers being involved in gangs and that kind of thing. And so that’s when separating me out from the artist kind of became a thing.

 

And so I want to talk about the part of separating me out from the artist that agrees with us first, because we did find articles that are pro separating the art from the artist as well. And we want to discuss that, too. But I love this quote so much, because I think it perfectly articulates exactly what we’re trying to say and exactly what we believe, just to be a little bit biased.

 

But this is from the commonwealthtimes.org, and the article is called Separating The Art from the Artist is Impossible. So it says the phrase separate the art from the artist has been coined as a way to differentiate one’s appreciation of an artist’s music from their disdain for the artist’s actions. However, this phrase is just a lazy cop-out that gives fans an excuse to not think critically as to why they continue to support problematic artists.

 

And I just think that’s beautiful because we can literally apply that to books. We can apply that to movies. We can apply that to actors.

 

[Erin]

We can apply that to everything.

 

[Danikka]

We can apply that to anything. And like, I love that it doesn’t flinch. It’s just like this phrase is a lazy cop-out that gives fans an excuse to not think critically as to why they continue to support problematic artists.

 

Because the thing is, and the difference between separate the art from the artist and death of the author, not even just in school of thought, in the timing that they come out, is death of the author was from a time that authors really didn’t make a lot of money, really. And like I was saying, it’s from academic circles where they’re talking about interpreting things for the point of analysing them. And yes, the art taking on a life of its own, as you were saying, and allowing people who are consuming the art to interpret it and enjoy it the way that they want to enjoy it without the artist trying to push their intent or control.

 

Which is another thing that the artist that we’re talking about, the author that we’re talking about does all the time as well as try to enforce her intention onto her fans. 

 

[Erin]

Yeah, which doesn’t work super well. 

 

[Danikka]

No, it doesn’t.

 

And that’s something I do love about her fan base is they just ignore her and keep doing what they want anyway. And I’m trying to very much say that what they’re doing is separate from her in their fan fiction and stuff, which I appreciate. Because I do appreciate that, like we were saying at the start, that nostalgia and especially for queer folk, that kind of having to find meaning in art where they don’t have representation and create it themselves through fan fiction and things like that. It’s really hard to then separate yourself from that later on. 

 

Yeah, so basically this is what we’re getting at, is we live in a time where when you’re supporting a problematic artist, you can’t separate them from their art because when you’re buying their art, when you’re supporting them publicly, even if you continue to support their stuff secondhand so that it’s not going towards them, when you’re having them in the background of your videos, when you’re talking about them online in a positive light, you are making people who do continue to support them to feel like it’s okay. And even if you yourself are not giving them money anymore, if you’re not actively not supporting them, the people who are supporting them are continuing to support them and continuing to think that’s okay. So it will still have a ripple effect.

 

[Erin]

Yeah. 

 

[Danikka]

And so that’s why we feel as strongly about this as we do. And so this is probably a good moment for me at least.

 

I think I feel like you feel the same. We’re not telling anyone to not read things. But the purpose of this is just to informatively tell you what these things mean so that then you can make an informed decision on what you want to do and to make clear what our stance is.

 

[Erin]

And I think if there is things like nostalgia, comfort reads, all that jazz, you are allowed to read those and still get nostalgic and still feel comforted by them. But when you know that in the larger atmosphere, it might be harmful for other people, maybe don’t talk about it on social media. 

 

[Danikka]

Yeah. Yeah. Just like if you’ve got your bookshelves in the background of your video, just put them in the part that’s not in the frame. You know what I mean? 

 

[Erin]

Yeah.

 

[Danikka]

It’s just as simple as that. Because privacy, I feel like, is something that is becoming more and more a luxury as we put more of our lives online. And I just think you are allowed to have things that you don’t put online. And you don’t have to feel guilty about things that you’re keeping private. 

 

[Erin]

No. 

 

[Danikka]

And you’re allowed to have things that you keep private. But we’re just saying, just make an informed decision about where you put your money and who you’re supporting because what they’re doing with their money is actively harming people. And that’s what we’re saying about separating the art from the artist is not possible. And I think that this leads us in quite well, actually, to the counter argument.

 

[Erin]

Which is fascinating. 

 

[Danikka]

I found this really fascinating, actually. 

 

[Erin]

So this one is from Paisano Online.

 

[Danikka]

Yeah.

 

[Erin]

Separate the art from the artist. So separating the art from the artist essential to absorbing art is what it’s titled. So in this modern age, we must separate the art from the artist or there will be fewer books, artworks and musicians that we can enjoy and learn from.

 

Separating the art from the artist involves differentiating appreciation for an artist’s work from their actions. This act is essential to continue absorbing art. Art is not just temporary pop culture. It lasts forever and is a vital way for us to learn about past societies and cultures. As long as we educate ourselves on the true histories behind art and push for education systems to do the same, we can encourage the longevity of these artworks and allow them to evolve with our society instead of leaving them in the past. 

 

And that sounds so nice. But I just…

 

[Danikka]

It sounds nice, doesn’t it? 

 

[Erin]

It’s just not true, you know. 

 

[Danikka]

I just… So this person is conflating separating the art from the artist with preserving history, which is just not true. It’s just not true. 

 

[Erin]

And I also like that it’s like, we’ll have fewer books to read and whatever. And it makes me think of those people who you occasionally see on social media who are like, well, if I took out all of the problematic authors from my TBR, I’d have nothing to read. It’s like, well, then you’re… Then who… Then maybe you need to be examining who you read. 

 

[Danikka]

Yeah, exactly. 

 

[Erin]

There’s a lot of authors out there who are not problematic.

 

[Danikka]

Yeah, absolutely. 

 

[Erin]

What, what, what? 

 

[Danikka]

Yeah, it’s like people are acting like everything you do in life is problematic. It’s like, no, it’s really not. Like, you’re not getting cancelled for drinking like coffee or tea. You’re getting cancelled for being transphobic and sexually assaulting people and culturally appropriating heinous things that happened to people that aren’t your story to tell.

 

[Erin]

Yeah. 

 

[Danikka]

It’s pretty easy to not do those things. Just don’t be a shit human.

 

So the other problem that I have with this article, so she’s conflating preserving history with not holding artists accountable for their actions. And I have actually seen people talking about not reading artists because she does mention Hemingway, for example, in this article, who was a massive misogynist and alcoholic and not a nice person. And for another example, Lewis Carroll famously groomed the girl who inspired Alice in Wonderland.

 

[Erin]

What?

 

[Danikka]

Yeah, no, he was absolutely heinous. Enid Blyton is another one. She was horrendous. She was famously loved children. I’m doing finger quotes right now, but she abused the hell out of her own two children. She was horrible to them. She used to throw picnics for kids who were not her own. Like, she would have big picnics and tea parties for her fans, her kid fans, but her kids would be not allowed to attend and be locked up in their room. And yeah, she was a really horrible mother.

 

So there’s lots of authors in the past who were absolutely horrendous. They’re just like historical examples I can think of. And I mean, I’ve seen arguments for not watching movies like Gone with the Wind, for example, and things like that. And reading that book. 

 

[Erin]

And the difference with those things is that those authors are dead. Like, actually dead.

 

[Danikka]

And they’re not making money. And they are actually like what she’s talking about is they are giving us a way to learn about past societies and cultures. And they are giving us a way to learn about the way those people lived back then, because we’re aware of what those authors were like. We’re not glorifying those people because we’re aware of their life and we’re aware of what they were writing into their books. Because also a lot of those authors, I mean. 

 

[Erin]

Wasn’t Roald Dahl like a massive anti-Semite and stuff? He was a massive anti-Semite. He was a big racist. He was horrendous to his wife. Like really, really horrible husband. Charles Dickens, horrendous husband. Tried to get his wife committed to an asylum.

 

[Erin]

What?

 

[Danikka]

Yeah, like that. We can go on like they were all horrible, but they’re dead. 

 

[Erin]

They’re dead.

 

[Danikka]

They’re not making money. 

 

[Erin]

I mean, their families probably are, which is where the money should have gone if they were so horrible to their family. Right on. Do they have a work estate, do you think? Anyway. 

 

[Danikka]

Most of these authors have been dead long enough, they don’t even have estates anymore. Like copyright doesn’t protect their work anymore. So copyright only lasts for, and I mean. 

 

[Erin]

70 years? 50 years? 

 

[Danikka]

I think it depends on the country. I think.

 

[Erin]

I think it’s 50 or 70. 

 

[Danikka]

Yeah, I can’t remember. I think in Australia it’s 50, but they’ve reduced it. In America, it’s not. I can’t remember, but anyway. At the moment, they’re currently trying to dismantle them because of all the AI stuff, but that’s another podcast.

 

[Erin]

That is a whole other situation. 

 

[Danikka] That’s a whole other situation. But for, so the other.

 

[Erin]

Sorry, back to it. 

 

[Danikka]

The other thing that she’s saying is, she’s basically saying that choosing not to consume problematic authors is akin to censorship because there would not be enough books to read. So like we’ve also covered that.

 

But another paragraph from this article, if you want to go read the whole thing that I had a massive problem with and we didn’t include it because I feel like it was just, I just, I wouldn’t have been able to read it because I just got too angry. So she discussed an actual attempted censorship of a poem featuring homosexuality from the 1950s, where they were like actually trying to stop people from talking about people trying to live their lives. 

 

[Erin]

Like the poem was, was it that they were like they were asking for it to be changed or removed or something?

 

[Danikka]

No, they were trying to censor it. They were trying to like review it for publication. The poem was called Howl. And so she literally discussed them censoring that. 

 

[Erin]

And there was a court case and the author won. 

 

[Danikka]

And that was, there was a big court case. The author won and prevented the censorship. And she was talking about the cultural impact of that poem and how important it is. And then literally in the next paragraph, she talked about.

 

[Erin]

Then she was saying that it was like, see, so that was really good that that wasn’t censored. And that’s why we need to do all of like the transphobic views in J.K. Rowling’s books. 

 

[Danikka]

Yeah, yeah. She was like, yeah, we don’t censor homosexuality, so we shouldn’t censor transphobia and should keep reading and not care about J.K. Rowling and what she does. 

 

[Erin]

So you’re saying we shouldn’t censor homosexuality, which obviously we shouldn’t because they’re just people and they can live their lives. We also shouldn’t censor transphobic views.

 

[Danikka]

Yeah. 

 

[Erin]

Which is the other side of the coin. 

 

[Danikka]

Which is literally why they were trying to censor that poem in the first place.

 

[Erin]

Exactly! What? 

 

[Danikka]

Yeah. And then the closing line of this article is societal standards are always changing, meaning that what was obscene 70 years ago may now be essential and important.

 

[Erin]

I don’t think transphobic views are ever going to be essential or important, frankly. I certainly hope that in 70 years from now, in 2095, oh that hurt my brain, I don’t expect that transphobia will be important or essential. I just don’t think it will.

 

[Danikka]

Yeah, I really hope not. I mean, I don’t think that we should censor. So this is the other problem I had. This is what I was meaning when I was saying that she’s saying choosing not to consume a problematic author’s art is akin to censorship. It’s not. 

 

[Erin]

It’s not. 

 

[Danikka]

It’s not censoring their art. You can still read their books. There’s no court case happening. We’re just choosing not to put our money towards someone who is being actively hateful. Yeah, there’s a big difference. It’s completely different. There’s no legal proceedings happening here. She’s still free to have all of her opinions. We just don’t want to give her our money.

 

[Erin]

Yeah. 

 

[Danikka]

She shouldn’t be a billionaire. She shouldn’t be able to actively influence legislation in the UK.

 

[Erin]

And she shouldn’t then be able to post on social media with a cigar and a bottle of champagne. Don’t you love it when a plan comes together? * gag noise *

 

[Danikka]

Yeah.

 

[Erin]

Like what? 

 

[Danikka]

It’s absolutely horrible. It’s absolutely horrible.

 

[Erin]

Anyway.

 

[Danikka]

So anyway, there’s another article that we found from the same website that the Separating the Art from the Artists is a small article came from. But it was that art cannot exist without the artist. And I really liked this article because it’s talking more about what we were just talking about, which is that artists are celebrities and that they don’t face enough consequences.

 

And basically it’s saying that separating the art from the artist and not separating the art from the artist and showing them that we don’t approve of their actions is giving them the consequences that they should face. 

 

[Erin]

So yeah, the article is again from Paisano Online and it’s art cannot exist without the artist. So consistently supporting artists after they have made poor decisions, whether that be controversial remarks or allegations made against them, creates poor precedence for all celebrities.

 

Ideally, artists would be kept in check by their industries, but ultimately this is up to the general public. If consumers no longer support a disgraced artist’s work, the artist cannot do anything about it. If artists continue to be supported by consumers and carry on with their success, we as a society are condoning the behaviour the artist has displayed.

 

Oftentimes, dishonoured artists face little to no solid repercussions. They only get a little scolding from the public before everyone excuses the behaviour and forgets. These artists should not be put above normal standards. They should receive the same consequences as any normal person. If anything, celebrities should be showing that our culture is all inclusive and secure, not that someone can assault people and get away with it. Celebrities should not get different treatment than others when it comes to malicious acts.

 

While there are such things as heedless mistakes, celebrities should still be held to a standard of decency. Artists express themselves, emotions and thoughts through art and allowing them to continue to be unwavering can mangle our society. 

 

[Danikka]

I love that word, mangle.

 

[Erin]

Mangle

 

[Danikka]

It can mangle our society. We’re seeing it happen with this rise in right-wing ideologies, this rise in transphobia and hate towards minority groups. It’s mangling our society. It’s making people hateful. 

 

[Erin]

Yeah, and for what though? It’s just things like transphobia and homophobia in particular really confound me a little bit, racism also. But if someone is like, I was assigned female or male at birth and then at some point realised, knew in my soul that I was not that, I was the other, what difference does it make to anyone else? Actually, what difference does it make? Why do you care if some person that you’ve never met has gender-affirming surgery and takes gender-affirming medication? Why does that affect you at all? It just baffles me. And it’s like, oh no, don’t let the children see trans people and gay people because they’ll turn out gay.

 

[Danikka]

Oh no. 

 

[Erin]

Do you know, I feel like who has birthed most of the gay people? 

 

[Danikka]

Yeah.

 

[Erin]

I hate to break it to you. I hate to break it to you. But most of the gay and trans people have been birthed by straight cis people.

 

[Danikka]

Mm-hmm. 

 

[Erin]

Look at that. 

 

[Danikka]

Yeah. I feel like we could, this would be a fun special interest episode because I love it. When people talk about left-handedness and the percentages of that. 

 

[Erin]

We are both left-handed.

 

[Danikka]

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But anyway, that’s another podcast. 

 

[Erin]

It is. 

 

[Danikka]

Basically, I love that article in particular because I feel like it brings it all together in a really nice way. It’s like, you can definitely read what you want to read because there are two artists in particular that I feel like we’ve named JK now because she was in that article. Neil Gaiman as well. They’re two artists in particular that people grew up with, people have very nostalgic connections to. And I mean, I feel like with Good Omens in particular, that TV show finally gave some people some explicit queer representation. And the two actors, David Tennant and… Oh my God, I remember these names.

 

[Erin]

Martin? Michael. 

 

[Danikka]

Michael Sheen.

 

[Erin]

Michael Sheen. 

 

[Danikka]

They’re darlings. They’re absolute darlings.

 

[Erin]

Glorious.

 

[Danikka]

 And so I feel for them too because I really hope they don’t turn out to be problematic. I feel quite safe in saying that they’re darlings because they have done a lot to prove that they’re darlings.

 

[Erin]

Yes, yes. 

 

[Danikka]

I feel for everyone who got caught up in that because I’ve read what Neil Gaiman did and it made me sick. I’m actually tearing up thinking about it. And so I really feel for people who are feeling torn about this because it’s hard to have your heroes turn out like this. And I really don’t think that if you are attached to the books, you’re attached to things that you grew up with. I loved Enid Blighton books, for example, when I was a kid without knowing what she was like.

 

[Erin]

I still read them to my children now. And Roald Dahl. My kids love Roald Dahl.

 

[Danikka]

Yeah, my brother read Roald Dahl books like crazy. Something that I don’t agree with Roald Dahl, for example, is they’ve started to edit his books to try and take out the anti-Semitism and the racism and republish them.

 

[Erin]

I don’t think that’s right. 

 

[Danikka]

And I think that’s wrong. I think that’s wrong. 

 

[Erin]

Well, because there’s no learning then. 

 

[Danikka]

No.

 

[Erin]

And you’re kind of absolving him of… 

 

[Danikka]

Yeah, exactly. So in that sense, I do think that history should be preserved and you should just teach. There should be a foreword in the front of the book about him and his life and his beliefs and why they’re wrong or something like that. And maybe when his books are sold, a donation going towards a charity or something. 

 

[Erin]

Yeah.

 

[Danikka]

So I just feel like that is a way to move forward rather than trying to edit that kind of history. And same with things like Gone With The Wind and things like that. I feel like there should be, when that book is sold, some kind of like a foreword about the history and some kind of donation or something made from the sale of that book going towards some kind of not-for-profit. And in that sense, we can start to at least make progress towards healing the harm done by history and by these people who have done bad things. And we just need to just move forward with knowledge. Like just now that you have the knowledge, make an informed decision for yourself on what you want to do.

 

Another reason that we’ve done this episode is we have been thinking about it a lot and authors get called out for behaviour all the time. All the time. 

 

[Erin]

All the time.

 

[Danikka]

And so we are going to start to do a series on the podcast mostly because we have done a lot of kind of fluffy topics and we’re both passionate about a lot of things, if you haven’t noticed, like we get quite excited. And so we thought it might be fun and informative for people to do some more kind of deeper topics. So we’re going to intersperse our fluffier episodes and our interviews with other authors and our buddy read episodes because now that I have gotten on top of my workload finally, I’m going to have more time to read so we’ll actually get to do more buddy read episodes.

 

[Erin]

Phantasma

 

[Danikka]

Yes, Phantasma. 

 

[Erin]

Phantasma. 

 

[Danikka]

But next on the list. So we are going to start to do some more kind of meaty episodes. So we’re going to start with a problematic authors series or maybe we’ll call it authors behaving badly or something like that. I like that.

 

[Erin]

I like that.

 

[Danikka]

And because that’s inspired by a YouTube video, I can’t remember who made it. So I will also link that in the show notes when I find it because I think Madeline said that to me and it’s just really informative about authors going into reader spaces versus what they should be doing. I think it’s very contentious in the indie space because I think indies in particular, they have a very direct connection to their readers in a way that traditional authors don’t have.

 

[Erin]

Very different, yeah

 

[Danikka]

So we will be touching on authors like J.K. Rowling and Neil Gaiman who are confirmed problematic. But we’re also going to talk about other authors called out as problematic, but we have not…

 

[Erin]

But it’s a little bit more murky.

 

[Danikka]

It’s a bit more murky. Yeah. We haven’t decided yet or done the research ourselves whether or not they’re problematic. And so the episodes will be explorative in that we’ll be looking up what they’ve been accused of or why people are saying they’re problematic and discussing in our opinion, whether or not we feel it’s problematic or like looking at the sides of the coin and why it could be problematic for some people and not others. And we’re actually very excited about this series because we’ve found some authors who we didn’t know people were saying were problematic. And so we’re excited to start recording this. And I’m actually really glad that we finally recorded this episode 

 

[Erin]

Me too

 

[Danikka]

Because this is the one I was kind of most nervous about because it’s the heaviest. And so we’re going to refer back to this episode in the intro of each of those other episodes so that people can kind of have this as the basis if they’re kind of confused about what we’re talking about in those episodes. You can come back and re-listen to this one and see the resources as well. But thank you so much for listening to this one and, you know, listening to our passionate kind of 

 

[Erin]

Waffle. 

 

[Danikka]

Waffle, as usual. 

 

[Erin]

I feel like it wasn’t full on waffle.

 

[Danikka]

I think this one was quite informative. I’m proud of us. Yeah.

 

[Erin]

I mean, we’re taking the informative waffle. 

 

[Danikka]

But yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. But yeah, I just think to round it up, we’re not telling anyone what to read. Definitely not. We’re advocating for you to make informed choices about what you read and for you to still be able to enjoy what you enjoy. But just to be aware of the broader culture. And if you are having nostalgic ties to people who you didn’t know were problematic before and now you do, you don’t have to burn your books. You don’t, like, don’t throw them out. Don’t censor yourself in your own home. But just don’t contribute further to the zeitgeist and make them more money. 

 

[Erin]

And I suppose just be wary, especially if there’s people who are kind of harmed by them. In J.K.’s example, just think about how talking about those books and things is hurting other people, I suppose. You don’t want the people to be going, oh, so you’re okay with her or whatever. 

 

[Danikka]

Yeah. Yeah. Because I think we do live in an era where who you support or align yourself with is seen to reflect what you yourself do believe. Right or wrong. We’re not saying that that’s right. We’re just saying that that is a fact. It’s just how people navigate the world.

 

So yeah, think about your privacy. Think about what you want to do moving forward with this information. Because yeah, we’ve gone back and forth about it a lot. We talk about it a lot off the podcast. And we probably will continue to talk about it a lot off the podcast because it’s a really difficult issue. And there will be more people, unfortunately, who we find out we thought we liked and are not going to be nice.

 

[Dannika]

Because people are imperfect.

 

[Erin]

Turns out they’re shit

 

[Danikka]

And I guess you just have to decide for you where the line is. Because there will be things that for people are a hard line and the things for other people aren’t a hard line. Because like, for example, for me, I was raised super religious. So religion can be a really difficult thing for me. So I find religious authors in particular really hard to consume. So when I find out if they’re deeply involved with the religion, I find it really hard to continue to read and support them.

 

For other people, that’s not a problem because they don’t have religious trauma. And that’s just something else you maybe need to be sensitive of when you’re talking with people too. It’s just we all have our own experiences that we’re moving through in the world.

 

And if you’re someone who does have trauma, you just have to be aware that other people don’t have that trauma and you don’t need to judge them for what they’re consuming. So there are just things like hate that are maybe things that are universally hurtful. And then there’s things that are individually hurtful and we just have to be kind.

 

[Erin]

Yeah. Be kind. 

 

[Danikka]

Yeah.

 

[Erin]

That feels like a easy sum up.

 

[Danikka]

Yeah.

 

[Erin]

Let’s just all be kind to one another. 

 

[Danikka]

Yeah. But we love you. Thank you for listening. 

 

[Erin]

And we will see you next time. 

 

[Danikka]

In the next episode. Bye. 

 

[Erin]

Bye.