ŷ������

Personally, I do think the art and the person behind it should be viewed as two separate things. But, having read the spoiler, I can definitely understand where you’re coming from. I am a big wrestling fan for example. And there are wrestlers that have done some bad things. When I rewatch old matches, I want to separate the wrestler in the ring from the person outside the ring. But for some wrestlers, that’s just really hard - if not impossible - to do.

This is clearly a review from the heart. And I appreciate your honesty, Marquise.

Thibault wrote: "Personally, I do think the art and the person behind it should be viewed as two separate things. But, having read the spoiler, I can definitely understand where you’re coming from."

Yeah, I think it all boils down to what you're comfortable with and what impacts you personally. One could disagree with an author's crappy ideological/political convictions, for example, and still like them. And continuing with Neruda, he was a Communist, a political stance I am opposed to but that I could overlook in favour of his poetry (I did know he was a Communist from the get-go, that was no secret), but this? No, I can't. I am a woman and I care for victims of this horrendous experience that men like Neruda have inflicted on them.

And women, too. I can't touch Marion Zimmer Bradley's books for the same reason.

Marquise wrote: "Yeah, I think it all boils down to what you're comfortable with and what impacts you personally. One could disagree with an author's crappy ideological/political convictions, for example, and still like them."

You’re definitely correct in saying that. Plus, ideological/political beliefs can sometimes be easier to look past rather than actions. Neruda’s despicable actions in this case being a prime example of that. Mostly because his actions have resulted in real victims.

I threw M.Z.B’s book in the trash rather than donate it to bookstore when I learned her background. I never thought I would do that to a book. But there you are. An author is always in their art, so I was not willing to let myself be responsible for passing any of her feelings or beliefs that are flowing through her characters. I must make clear, I do not believe in censoring books, I believe each person should make their own choices. But I have a personal line that I just can’t be a part of and it includes crimes against children. This is how I feel, I totally respect others who believe differently. We all should be happy with what we read. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this matter Marquise. Ever our open and honest reviewer.

I too believe in separating the art from the artist, but certain things are unforgiveable, and this is one of them. Plus, you have actually read the book, and are not giving it a "review" + a one-star rating merely because of the incidents you mentioned. (I dislike people rating books without reading them just because of some controversy connected to the author.) In short, I get your point of view, and agree with it. Makes me glad I have never read a Neruda work, and I now never will.

Please excuse me while I go have a moment of self-loathing. Oof. I wasn't ready for that information and now it's stuck there. You're right. To a certain degree I understand the concept of separating the art from the artist, but even there, and especially in a case like this, there are lines.

Thibault wrote: "Plus, ideological/political beliefs can sometimes be easier to look past rather than actions."

Yeah, I'm not in the habit of looking up authors' personal lives, so there's probably more who have questionable views that I'm not aware of. And also, I believe that an author's personal ideas can be counterargued and debated into oblivion, that's what free speech is for.

Candace wrote: "I threw M.Z.B’s book in the trash rather than donate it to bookstore when I learned her background. I never thought I would do that to a book."

I never read her and wasn't planning to when I found out about her background, but after I did, I decided I couldn't look past that so I would never read her. She crossed my red line, like Neruda.

And yes, authors do insert themselves and their ideas in their books. In the case of MZB, a friend was once complaining to me that he'd had to read her once and said she grossed him out but couldn't quite put his finger on why. Then I told him about what MZB's daughter revealed, and he said ah, that explains a lot of her writing that he felt uncomfortable with.

I haven't read her myself, so I can't tell to what extent her questionable background seeped into her writing, but I thought this anecdote was worth mentioning.

Rosh wrote: "I too believe in separating the art from the artist, but certain things are unforgiveable, and this is one of them. Plus, you have actually read the book, and are not giving it a "review" + a one-star rating merely because of the incidents you mentioned."

Thank you, Roshy! Yeah, I just can't get past this, it goes against my moral compass.

And yes, I've seen those reviews too, as well as social media posts of the same kind. I'm not going to tell people to not read Neruda, but given that this part of his life isn't well-known in the Anglophone world, I think they should make an informed choice. That's what I hope the review achieves, whether readers decide to read or not afterwards isn't up to me.

Mariella wrote: "Please excuse me while I go have a moment of self-loathing. Oof. I wasn't ready for that information and now it's stuck there."

🤗🤗🤗

I'm sorry, Mariella! I hadn't thought about Neruda in years until I saw your update and remembered why I went from loving his poetry (the poem that got me good grades was Poem 20) to despising it.

I don't mean to dictate what people think of him, but as I was telling Roshy, his memoirs aren't well-known in English so whilst he's fairly famous in English, his personal life (and his crime) isn't, and readers deserve the chance to make an informed choice.

I love the stances I'm seeing here, because they mirror my own: I personally tend to separate art from artist, but I have lines that ruin my ability to see past the artist and make me feel icky about anything associated with them. In this case, I can definitely see why a book of love poems would turn from beautiful art into something unsettling and repulsive in light of a past like that!

Anomaly wrote: "In this case, I can definitely see why a book of love poems would turn from beautiful art into something unsettling and repulsive in light of a past like that!"

Precisely! His poetry is known for praising the female boy and soul so very beautifully, and yet . . . he did this, to a woman. It's impossible to reconcile that knowledge for me.

Excellent, honest review Marquise. I had never read Neruda and he was somewhere on my TBR, then I heard about what he admitted to doing and he was permanently removed from it. There are lines that shouldn’t be crossed and that is one of them. The others for me are child and animal abuse. MZB is another no-go for me for that reason as well. As a book seller, I will sell any book on our shelves to anybody, but if I know the content of the book or the history of the author, I try to make sure it is shared in an appropriate way with the buyer so they can make their own decision. If they still want it, I sell it without judgment. That is their right, but they should know what they are getting upfront and should be able to buy it without anyone shaming them. I admit, we do stock less then two copies of each Anne Perry title because she was a murderer and Janet Dailey and Cassie Edward’s because they are plagiarizers. That is the owner’s decision and I don’t disagree, as well as Neruda and MZB. The books are available for those who want them, but we are honest and have similar titles/authors to recommend if the customer wants that type of book but not that author anymore. We 100% do NOT support banning books and have an on-going display of all the books that are being banned in our school district. The list is growing, which is disheartening. So fine line re: what we personally read, but we DO carry the books and WILL sell them, we just make sure the customer is educated so they can make their own decisions. We have no right to make it for them and we don’t judge what anyone buys and reads. Sorry for the rant, but I think this topic is probably one we all feel passionate about. Your reviews are always thought provoking, thank you!

Great review lovely hope you love your next read 💗💗

Zainab wrote: "Great review lovely hope you love your next read 💗💗"

Thank you, Zainab!

Jen wrote: "As a book seller, I will sell any book on our shelves to anybody, but if I know the content of the book or the history of the author, I try to make sure it is shared in an appropriate way with the buyer so they can make their own decision. If they still want it, I sell it without judgment."

I like your stance, it's very balanced and fair. Thank you for sharing, Jen!

I can separate the artist from his or her work as long as the peccadilloes are not sexual abuse and the like. Yuck ...

Marquise wrote: "Mariella wrote: "Please excuse me while I go have a moment of self-loathing. Oof. I wasn't ready for that information and now it's stuck there."

🤗🤗🤗

I'm sorry, Mariella! I hadn't thought about Ne..."

Which makes sense. So little of his work has been translated to English, so unless people are bilingual, they probably haven't been exposed to the rest. But it's good to know. I still think it's lovely work, and maybe objectively I can come back to it again later, but right now is probably just not the time.

That was a good one though. He just really has a way with words.

Manybooks wrote: "I can separate the artist from his or her work as long as the peccadilloes are not sexual abuse and the like. Yuck ..."

It's a red line in the sand we agree on, Gundula.

Mariella wrote: "I still think it's lovely work, and maybe objectively I can come back to it again later, but right now is probably just not the time."

I don't expect others to feel like me, but there was no turning back to me after that knowledge. All those beautiful words, the description of women's bodies and all the pretty words can't undo the fact he violated a member of the gender he so gushes over in his poetry. I just can't see a rapist's words as beautiful poetry anymore.

Sadly, in South America (and probably other places in the world) raping the housemaid was an acceptable way for society boys to début sexually. It appears a lot in Latin American literature, it's normalised. Sleeping with the domestic service (who can't say no if they want to keep their jobs and were often poor and rural and illiterate) was no biggie, just like people in the past could rape their slaves and not pay for it at court. Neruda never paid, he knew he raped that girl, he describes so nonchalantly that she was like a corpse when he "took" her, that passage in his memoirs is explicit.

So yeah, I don't give a damn if he's the best writer of love poems anymore. :(

Marquise wrote: "Manybooks wrote: "I can separate the artist from his or her work as long as the peccadilloes are not sexual abuse and the like. Yuck ..."

It's a red line in the sand we agree on, Gundula."

And especially if there is supposed "love" involved.

Manybooks wrote: "And especially if there is supposed "love" involved."

Oh, he has some of his love poems dedicated to Matilde, his wife number ... I don't remember anymore (he married multiple times), but he was a womaniser and rumoured to be unfaithful. And the story of his disabled child he abandoned is also another blotch on his reputation. He was simply awful as a father and husband from what I've read of his autobiography and other extra information that is published in Spanish but not known elsewhere because of language.

OH MY GOD��. HE DID WHAT!?!?? The mere idea of “separating the artist from the art�� when the artist did something like THAT is just repulsive to me. The artist does matter when it comes to something as personal and emotional as writing, and especially poetry. How can you take his words seriously if it stems from a guy who would rape someone? You can’t. And thus, the poetry loses all meaning. Thank you for this amazing review, and being a decent person by not being one of the people who “separates the artist from the art�� when you SHOULDN’T!

I've missed your scathing reviews! lol What the frick. I wanted to read this book. I'm glad I didn't. Nicely reviewed, my friend.

Marquise wrote: "Manybooks wrote: "And especially if there is supposed "love" involved."

Oh, he has some of his love poems dedicated to Matilde, his wife number ... I don't remember anymore (he married multiple ti..."

The more you read about him, the more yuck.

Ohh... never knew about this. I only see people going gaga over the poems.

Normally, I would say it is possible to separate the poetry and the artist, but as man who never had any love of Neruda, I'll say this: he reads like a rapist. It's not to me hid deeply below the surface, and so when you tell me that he is a rapist I'm not terribly surprised.

Do you feel used now reading him? You should. You should think about the claim of Robin Williams character in 'Dead Poets Society' when he says that we read poetry to "woo women" with a little more seriousness and a little more disgust. Because women, especially young women, are in love with love and in love with the idea of being in love and sociopathic men love to exploit that. Neruda well knew what he was doing. He got the young version of you to crush on him, at the least in a literary sense, something that I imagine was always his goal. Beware anyone who writes about love as if it is an open wound and a source of pain. Such a person neither loves nor has ever been in love and perhaps does not even know what love is. They know perhaps lust well and desire, and using people to slake temporarily that desire, but I'm pretty sure love is something they've never experienced. I don't blame you for not separating the art from the artist in this case, because I think in your maturity you are going to recognize it all as rape poems.

And let's not stop there. Rape isn't the only way to make sex terrible. It's not like consent is this high bar you have to pass over and then above it all sex is beautiful, healthy, and good. Consent is this super low bar - a very minimum but nowhere near sufficient level of goodness and health in a sexual relationship. It's not the high bar but merely the bar at which we say, "Below this is so bad it's not merely a personal problem but a criminal problem. This is so far below standard that we as a society will need to intervene." But the bar is rather higher than that, and I doubt Neruda ever got much above the bar or rape. All he really ever got from women was probably consent to be used by him, sufficient to defend himself from the charge of rape, but hardly admirable.

Neruda could only write about what he knew, and frankly it reads ugly to me as a man and a shudder at all the young naive women he has used more grotesquely than he used the young you.

Manybooks wrote: "The more you read about him, the more yuck."

Yeah, it's all so very eye-opening.

Srivalli wrote: "Ohh... never knew about this. I only see people going gaga over the poems."

I know, because the Anglophone readership knows nothing about him as a person. His international image is very curated, but in his native country and other countries that speak Spanish and have access to the info, there have been some public polemics.

Persephone's Pomegranate wrote: "I've missed your scathing reviews! lol What the frick. I wanted to read this book. I'm glad I didn't. Nicely reviewed, my friend."

Ha! You're spoiling me. :) Thank you, Persy.

Imme wrote: "How can you take his words seriously if it stems from a guy who would rape someone? You can’t."

Exactly how my thought process went, thank you. Love poetry from a rapist is . . . just doesn't compute in my worldview.

Marquise wrote: "I know, because the Anglophone readership knows nothing about him as a person. His international image..."

I understand how this works. :(
Though I wouldn't be surprised if some of them knew and ignored it.

Matt wrote: "Normally, I would say it is possible to separate the poet and the artist, but as man who never had any love of Neruda, I'll say this: he reads like a rapist."

Interesting, you're the first person who has vocalised their impression of Neruda this clearly, but by no means the only one that has voiced their discomfort with his poetry. My classmates (we were 14-15 at the time) didn't like him at all, but as these things go, we were young and all chalked it up to our teacher making him mandatory reading for a class that would decide half of our grades. Who loves anything one is forced to read? :) But now that you point this out, I want to go back and ask my old classmates to explain.

I dislike poetry in general but I can take some types, yet love poetry is an absolute no-no to me. I tried for years to like it, even got to write some of it myself as a teen (during my Neruda phase, though mine weren't good), and it never 'clicked.' My last attempt was about 5 years ago when I tried erotic poems (e.e. cummings and others) because a then boyfriend fed me those, and it was another failure.

Neruda doesn't have to do with my aversion, but he certainly didn't help any, and I finally just accepted that I do not and never will like poetry and I'm fine with it. Do I feel used? Well, I guess love poetry does take advantage of girlish innocence like all other media that create romantic stereotypes and expectations to throw at women.

Well I did like his poetry if a bit shallow, but knew nothing about him as a person. He's now going in the same pile as Lord Byron, though since I'd always known Byron was trouble, I'd never been into his poetry.

Srivalli wrote: "I understand how this works. :(
Though I wouldn't be surprised if some of them knew and ignored it."

Looking at what his defenders think, I wouldn't be surprised either. There was a hot polemic when they wanted to rename the Santiago airport in Chile after him and women protested, but he had his defenders too.

Rebecca wrote: "Well I did like his poetry if a bit shallow, but knew nothing about him as a person. He's now going in the same pile as Lord Byron,"

Ah, Byron. He was saved by my chronic distaste for poetry. :D

Marquise wrote: "Looking at what his defenders think, I wouldn't be surprised either. There was a hot polemic when they wanted to rename the Santiago airport in Chile after him and women protested, but he had his defenders too."

Ohh... I hope they didn't go ahead with the renaming. They'll always have defenders. :/

Interesting, you're the ..."

I don't like poetry but then also I don't dislike all poetry either. Of the love poets, the only one I really like is John Donne, because as a young man he writes the usual, "Please sleep with me our I will die" stuff that young men in frustration or cunning write to young women and have since the dawn of time, but he also does that as young man and then he grows up. He doesn't stay stuck in that eternal selfish boyhood, and then ponder women as objects his whole life. Donne never reads like a monster, and indeed seems to grow into true love and respect and more concerns than just whether he can get a girl he is infatuated with undressed.

I am rather fond of Tennyson and Kipling, two other poets quite often cancelled these days with a I think rather less reason. Kipling in particular is far more subversive than is generally credited, and he - much like a good satirist - has the whole of the human condition under his gaze and isn't really sparing anyone - least of all his fellow British. But saying that, I don't spend a lot of time reading poetry.

Mostly, I worry about the mental health of anyone who'd actually make a career of being a poet, and whether then it's a good idea to try to learn anything from poets whose lives rarely show them to be the sort of person you'd want to learn from. I'm rather glad we no longer uphold poetry as the highest literary art, though that being said, I think the lack of it is felt the popular music of the last 20 years.

As far as your condemnation of media, I must defend here my sex by saying that it's not the patriarchy chiefly responsible for the avalanche of ill-conceived romantic ideals and unserious emotional expectations that are rather unlikely to be fulfilled. For that we cannot blame the only rakes and predators that exploit it, but the "fairer sex" itself who willing and addictively consume it and are responsible for the greater share of the creation.

Srivalli wrote: "Ohh... I hope they didn't go ahead with the renaming. They'll always have defenders. :/"

Last I checked, they didn't. Not sure about today, as that was years ago, though.

Matt wrote: "As far as your condemnation of media, I must defend here my sex by saying that it's not the patriarchy chiefly responsible for the avalanche of ill-conceived romantic ideals and unserious emotional expectations that are rather unlikely to be fulfilled."

Oh, sure, but I wasn't framing it in terms of gender or arguing it's all men's fault. The writers of romance are overwhelmingly women, and those who campaign for better, sensitive, and realistic romance with non-toxic and non-questionable relationships are also women because they know the market well and what reforms and improvements it needs. The target audience are the ones that have to push for positive change, or at least that's the ideal.

What I find sad is that its been over 400 years since Christine de Pizan wrote her critiques of romance poetry and impact on society and we are still saying the same things.

Make it over 600 years: Debate of the Romance of the Rose, The Love Debate Poems, and her satire The Book of the Duke of True Lovers come to mind. The last one especially because she uses a commissioned piece to warn ladies to be wary of men who have a selfish view of love.

Rebecca wrote: "What I find sad is that its been over 400 years since Christine de Pizan wrote her critiques of romance poetry and impact on society and we are still saying the same things."

Yeah, and she's not even read widely nowadays. I bet only a few nerds know her besides the academics like you. She was so far ahead of her time!

Marquise wrote: "Last I checked, they didn't. Not sure about today, as that was years ago, though."

Oh okay. I hope they dropped the idea.

I think I have the same attitude towards Pablo Neruda now that I have about Novalis. I never liked the latter's stance regarding a poet being supreme and that the Reformation and the Enlightenment destroyed Mediaeval Catholic superiority anyhow (as is shown in Die Christenheit oder Europa) but Novalis falling in love with and getting engaged to his twelve year old cousin smacks of incest and pedophilia even if there was never anything sexual and physical about their relationship (and that when Sophie died Novalis made her his muse quite creeps me out).

Rebecca wrote: "Well I did like his poetry if a bit shallow, but knew nothing about him as a person. He's now going in the same pile as Lord Byron, though since I'd always known Byron was trouble, I'd never been i..."

After reading about Lord Byron's life and his "affair" with his half sister, I now understand why of the English Romantic poets I only ever really enjoyed John Keats.

It kind of bothers me that in Faust II, Goethe obviously fashions Faust and Helena's child after Lord Byron (but I do appreciate that Goethe's portrait of Byron is not only flattering but also critical).

Manybooks wrote: "I think I have the same attitude towards Pablo Neruda now that I have about Novalis."

I'm familiar with the anti-Protestant arguments but had no idea about his personal life. o.O Doesn't sound good!

Srivalli wrote: "Oh okay. I hope they dropped the idea."

It's not as if Chile is lacking in good poets to honour, either, like poetess Gabriela Mistral, who also won a Nobel.

Marquise wrote: "It's not as if Chile is lacking in good poets to honour, either, like poetess Gabriela Mistral, who also won a Nobel."

But the allure of picking a controversial name and whipping up some drama is too hard to resist. Ugh!

I suppose. :(