The question of separation of art from the artist has been frequently brought up in cultural criticism over the last decade; however, it isn’t a new phenomenon. In trying to find ways to consume and analyse a cultural product, New Critics of the 20th century in America, for instance, engaged in the possibility of reading literature without the context of its author. It is the same larger question that the podcasters, too, can be understood to be grappling with.

The 49-minute episode has been well structured. The choice of unpacking Munro’s short story Vandals at the beginning, accompanied by a reading of a passage from it, contextualises Munro as a writer for those unaware of her work. The story also provides a possible parallel between the narrative and Skinner’s abuse by Fremlin. Fan’s personal experience as a writer, following it, adds nuance to the discussion. She urges readers to consider the possibility of reflecting on work that deals with familial relationships as an honest grappling of the writer with complex feelings.

Poll

Who will win the Punjab Elections?

BJP 32.76%

AAP 43.10%

INC 24.14%

Submit

View All In Poll

Meanwhile, Schwartz claims that the hurt caused to readers in such situations does not come so much from a place of fandom but an artist’s ability to create a genuine connection with the reader. Today, therefore, it has become more difficult to draw a neat line dividing the art and its artist. What gives maturity to the conversation is that the central point made by the critics isn’t so much about whether the consumer of art is right or wrong. It is about how one returns to a piece of art and wrestles with it carrying the new knowledge of the action of an artist involved. Are there ways in which relationships between creators and consumers can be repaired? Are there some relationships that cannot be? The critics succinctly offer deeper possibilities for readers to approach the work of writers like Munro today, without denying their actions.

Log on to Apple, Spotify