Aaron Tracy

His crimes were what he said.

Do you think that there's a difference there?

I don't mean to be Yoda-like or cagey, but I think that it's interesting that your question cites the answer to the problem in the nuances or differences in the behavior of the artist alone.

And I guess what's most interesting to me is the audience member.

problem.

I guess the question is, who are you?

Who is the person who's consuming the art?

You know, the person who's able to withstand their knowledge of someone's biographical shittiness, it's largely dependent on their own life experience.

You know, so you have the biography of the maker, but then you also have the biography of the audience member.

I think that somebody's experience of Dahl's antisemitism, for instance, might be coming to that work with their own experiences of that.

We can't just sort of make these kind of universal or hard and fast rules about what could or could not be consumed based just on the artist's behavior.

It really, to me, comes back to the subjective lived experience of the audience member.

Certainly everyone can make the choice for themselves whether they want to consume this work or not.

But with Dahl, I think there's that added wrinkle of what about kids?

Because it's not their choice, right, what I read to them.

As my kids grow up, I am, of course, terrified that they're going to be subject to any sort of anti-Semitism or bigotry of any kind.

But here I am happily giving them Roald Dahl's books.

And I'm curious if you have any thoughts about that.

Yeah, I mean, I think this really has come to the fore also with Rowling.

What do we do about J.K.