I don’t think I can read Alice Munro ever again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Never read her books and I won't start now. What a horrible woman.

Never heard of her, but jeez. What a rotten person.

[Anonymous]

I never fully understand people who say you should separate the art from the artist. I think the art and the artist are inextricably linked.

[Anonymous]

Why is this coming up again? It was HUGE news back in the summer. Is there something new to the story?

[Anonymous]

Me neither. I’m not at all into boycotts and cancellations, but the core of her work was always an intimate exploration of relationships and communication (and failure thereof). I can’t really enjoy that in light of knowing this. It’s as if all of her writing is her working out the silence behind her monstrous secret.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I never fully understand people who say you should separate the art from the artist. I think the art and the artist are inextricably linked.

Same.

And you know what? The options when it comes to reading are vast. It's not like without her work we'll all just be twiddling our thumbs. I don't need to give a monster space on my shelves, in my home, when there are so many other fabulous works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I never fully understand people who say you should separate the art from the artist. I think the art and the artist are inextricably linked.

I don’t think it’s true in all cases - like Dickens was a horrible man but I still love A Christmas Carol. for Munro it seems more intertwined. I thought her stories were musing on how life buffets insular female minds and lives, but now I see a lack of willpower and background evil

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Could someone please provide a gift link to the article?

Here's a free article from NPR

https://www.npr.org/2024/07/08/nx-s1-5032827/alice-munro-daughter-abuse-stepfather

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There’s so much wonderful literature out in the world. It’s ok to toss the ones who condone child sexual abuse and read other people.

It doesn’t mean her work wasn’t good. It just means we have choices of how we spend our money and how libraries spend their money. It shouldn’t be on her work.

This is how I feel too and Alice Munro was one of my favorite authors before I found out about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never read her books and I won't start now. What a horrible woman.

Never heard of her, but jeez. What a rotten person.

How have you never heard of Alice Munro?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never read her books and I won't start now. What a horrible woman.

Never heard of her, but jeez. What a rotten person.

How have you never heard of Alice Munro?

Some people avoid lit fic and don't give a damn about who wins the awards. I can't tell you who won the Pulitzer last year. I don't care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There’s so much wonderful literature out in the world. It’s ok to toss the ones who condone child sexual abuse and read other people.

It doesn’t mean her work wasn’t good. It just means we have choices of how we spend our money and how libraries spend their money. It shouldn’t be on her work.

I don't know. I agree that separating the artist from the art is difficult when they are alive - by supporting the art you are also supporting the artist. But she is dead.
I am sure many great artists have done awful things that we don't even know about. I am in no way condoning what she - or anyone else - did. But I enjoyed her work before we knew about any of this. And I wouldn't rule out reading her work again, though I admit it does make me think twice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s so much wonderful literature out in the world. It’s ok to toss the ones who condone child sexual abuse and read other people.

It doesn’t mean her work wasn’t good. It just means we have choices of how we spend our money and how libraries spend their money. It shouldn’t be on her work.

I don't know. I agree that separating the artist from the art is difficult when they are alive - by supporting the art you are also supporting the artist. But she is dead.
I am sure many great artists have done awful things that we don't even know about. I am in no way condoning what she - or anyone else - did. But I enjoyed her work before we knew about any of this. And I wouldn't rule out reading her work again, though I admit it does make me think twice.

She likened her daughter's sexual abuse as being similar to forgiving her husband for an extra martial affair. That is disordered thinking.

I am burning my books tonight. I do not want them to be enjoyed by anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is this coming up again? It was HUGE news back in the summer. Is there something new to the story?

I don't know - it does seem like the NY Times story was a retread of info we'd already learned. It was well written though.

It's really painful to read the story. I don't think I'll never read Munro ever again but I would definitely read her as more of a psychological/autobiographical exercise now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s so much wonderful literature out in the world. It’s ok to toss the ones who condone child sexual abuse and read other people.

It doesn’t mean her work wasn’t good. It just means we have choices of how we spend our money and how libraries spend their money. It shouldn’t be on her work.

I don't know. I agree that separating the artist from the art is difficult when they are alive - by supporting the art you are also supporting the artist. But she is dead.
I am sure many great artists have done awful things that we don't even know about. I am in no way condoning what she - or anyone else - did. But I enjoyed her work before we knew about any of this. And I wouldn't rule out reading her work again, though I admit it does make me think twice.

She likened her daughter's sexual abuse as being similar to forgiving her husband for an extra martial affair. That is disordered thinking.

I am burning my books tonight. I do not want them to be enjoyed by anyone.

Just recycle them, jfc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s so much wonderful literature out in the world. It’s ok to toss the ones who condone child sexual abuse and read other people.

It doesn’t mean her work wasn’t good. It just means we have choices of how we spend our money and how libraries spend their money. It shouldn’t be on her work.

I don't know. I agree that separating the artist from the art is difficult when they are alive - by supporting the art you are also supporting the artist. But she is dead.
I am sure many great artists have done awful things that we don't even know about. I am in no way condoning what she - or anyone else - did. But I enjoyed her work before we knew about any of this. And I wouldn't rule out reading her work again, though I admit it does make me think twice.

She likened her daughter's sexual abuse as being similar to forgiving her husband for an extra martial affair. That is disordered thinking.

I am burning my books tonight. I do not want them to be enjoyed by anyone.

Just recycle them, jfc

Nah I’d rather put them to good use and feed the fireplace.