The Fan's Dilemma

"Segregation in the day, integration at night."

“It was like "Sepherner in another world."”

Was he a businessman, a criminal, a hero? Charlie wasn't an example, a power. They had the crush in. Charlie's place, from Atlas Obsjura and Visit Mirdle Beach. Listen to Charlie's place on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. .

Charlie's place, from Atlas Obsjura and Visit Mirdle Beach. Listen to Charlie's place on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. "All right, so, I'm going to go to the next episode of the show. I'm going to go to the next episode of the show. I'm going to go to the next episode of the show.

I'm going to go to the next episode of the show. I'm going to go to the next episode of the show. I'm going to go to the next episode of the show. I'm going to go to the next episode of the show. I'm going to go to the next episode of the show.

“All right, so, I'm going to put out this campfire.”

Dad, we learned about this in school.

Oh, did you know? Okay, what's first?

Smokey Bear said too. First, drown it with the bucket of water, then stir it with the shovel. Wow, you sound just like him. Then you said it. If it's still warm, then do it again.

Where can I learn all this? It's all on smokybeard.com with other wildfire prevention tips. Because only you can prevent wildfires. Brought to you by the USDA Forest Service, your State Forester and the Ad Council. Saturday, May 2nd, countries, biggest stars will be in Austin, Texas.

And now, our 2026, I hard country festival presented by Capital One. Tickets are on sale now. Get yours before they sell out at ticketmaster.com. That's ticketmaster.com. The night before my birthday this year,

I had a late flight home from Los Angeles. I arrived back in Brooklyn and go to bed without seeing anyone. I sleep late into the morning that I come downstairs, not having seen my family in several days. And there's my wife and my two-year-old daughter.

So excited to wish me a happy birthday and give me my gift. So sweet to be reunited. And they bring out this giant box. My wife has been talking about it for weeks. With the box arrived in time, she's been thinking about it and worrying about it.

It's the perfect gift. She's been talking up how much I'm going to love it and how brilliant she is for coming up with the perfect present. Very exciting build up. They give me this giant box and I open it and it's a big, beautiful, fancy, framed photograph. Something that looks like it should be in a museum.

It's an old man in a black suit with a giant black dog next to him. And I look at it like, "Oh, wow, this is a really something." And my wife says, "Yeah, it's Billy Wilder. I looked so hard for it. I found it at this auction house. So incredible.

I know he's your favorite. How cool is that?" And I don't quite know what to say because this is not a photograph of Billy Wilder.

So I just sort of say, "Oh my God, I've never quite seen him look like this before.

I didn't know he had a dog like that. But then I had to, so I said, but I'm not sure it's actually not this isn't Billy Wilder. And my wife got so embarrassed, really not a great scene. She bought it from this auction house that labelled it as Helman Newton photographing Billy Wilder. Later that afternoon, she texts me from her office after doing some research.

Not only is it not Billy Wilder, it is a photograph of John Marie Le Pen. The founder of Francis Far Right Party who many considered to be a fascist. So we now have a giant, beautiful, black and white Helman Newton photographing of an anti-Semite in our home. Happy birthday. I tell this story, of course, because Roldahl is and always has been part of the fabric of my life.

He helped shape my worldview just like Billy Wilder did. But it's hard to escape the feeling now that there's been a bit of a mislabeling. It's hard to see doll as the sweet, creative hero I want him to be. And instead, I now sort of see him as this darker figure.

“Can I square dolls much loved, broken spine books, scattered throughout our house with the mizzosa on our front door?”

Should I hide his books? Like the Le Pen photo was hidden in the back of our closet? I really don't know the answer, but I want to. I really want to. For my hard podcast, imagine entertainment and parallax.

I'm Aaron Tracy. And this is the secret world of Roldahl. Episode 8. On our last episode, Roxanne Gays suggested we speak to the author, Claire Detterer.

Claire has very different feelings from Roxanne on the subject of separating the art from the artist.

“Claire is a prolific writer who's work is appeared in the Paris Review,”

The Atlantic, The Nation, Vogue, Marie Claire, Entertainment Weekly, New York Magazine, you name it. Her book, Monsters, a fan dilemma, has become something like a definitive text on this giant controversial issue that we're all grappling with. It's brave and it's honest and it's personal and it's really funny.

In its rave review, The New York Times wrote, "This is a book that looks boldly down the cliff at the rolling waters below, and jumps right in. Splashes around playfully isn't afraid to get wet." I started off by asking Claire to tell us a little bit about monsters.

I came to write this book.

I started it many years ago in 2015 or so,

because I'd been thinking and writing a lot about Roman Polansky. And I started my career as a film critic, and Polansky's one of my top five filmmakers of all time. I love his work. I was researching him for a previous book where I was writing about

"Predation of Young Girls in the 1970s." And so, Polansky came into that story, and I really began to learn a lot about what had happened in his not even just alleged rape of Samantha Galey, or Samantha Gimer as she sometimes known my red deposition. I read a lot on the subject.

And when I finished reading, I found to my surprise that I could still watch the films.

And this seemed hugely interesting to me.

There was something happening here that was complex and sort of upsetting. And I began to think about this problem. And in early moments of writing, I was just sort of looking for someone to tell me what to do. Which now is a dynamic I'm very familiar with.

As the author of this book, people just want me to tell them what to do. The book is not really what it's trying to do. What it's trying to do more is look at what was happening to me in that moment, when I was consuming the Polansky films, knowing what I know.

It was talking about what's occurring there. What happens to the audience member is the art changed. Is there something immoral in that moment? Does it matter? I was trying to be descriptive of the problem.

This is what it's like to consume work, knowing what we know. You know, I do have some ideas of what people could or might do, but the book is more interested in how we live through this problem. I'm curious.

“Is there a difference in your mind between consuming the work of artists?”

Who committed crimes against people versus those who just said big enough things? Rolda was a bit of a jerk to the people who were closest to him. But he's not accused of any sort of actual physical abuse, like so many of these artists monsters are. His crimes were what he said.

Do you think that there's a difference there? I don't mean to be Yoda like or KG. But I think that it's interesting that your question sites the answer to the problem in the nuances or differences in the behavior of the artists alone. And I guess what's most interesting to me is the audience member. This is really the nexus from which I look at this 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. 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 dolls anti-Semitism, 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 behavior. It really to me comes back to the subjective lived experience of the audience member. Certainly everyone can make the choice of themselves, whether they want to consume this work or not.

“But with all, 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 role dolls 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 JK Rowling? Do we give her books to our kids?

And it's different because she's alive and very much doubling down, right? She's saying what she's saying, and it's very interesting and complex dynamic there with doll. You have someone who's dead, where there's not this ongoing connection to the horrible things he said. This question is interesting because it's almost like when I think about this problem, I think about individual responses and institutional responses. Will I watch a polyansky film?

Yes, would I program or curate a series of polyansky films at my local art museum?

If my local art museum were to do that on its own, what I hope that they would acknowledge some of the complexities of the biography, also yes.

In your role as a parent in a sense, you're an institution. There's pedagogy involved, there's the person is can't escape the roof there under. So you have different pressures on you as an institution, then you do as a single person who's making his own decisions about whether or not to consume the art.

“So I guess you just have to ask yourself what kind of institution do you want to be?”

And what is it that you're saying to your kids? I mean, I don't know how old your kids are, but I do think there's a sense in which if you're going to consume this work, you can also talk to your kids about what's going on.

Maybe not when they're four, but maybe when they're ten kids can handle all kinds of complex discussions.

Part of the issue around this is this debate over levels of complexity. How much should people know how much should they have to have to know? Is it somehow disruption of some kind of innocence to share information with people? Which is the institutional question? Yeah.

I think that for me, the reason this question is so pressing is the way in which there is no escape from that biography. The biography is what's happening to us all the time. We can't not know. I'm 58 when I was young, it was very difficult to find out biographical information about artists. Certainly about pop artists or current pop culture figures.

It was really incumbent on the audience member. And now biography happens to us as audience members for all of these different cultural reasons. But the reason it's really happening is because social media is built upon biography.

“Your biography, my biography, that's what it's made out of as people's stories.”

So we learn this biographical information whether we want to or not. Like to me, it seems like a real nice city to ask, "Do I need to go find this biographical information to share with my students?"

Because in most cases, the biographical information is preceding the work almost always now.

You know, this is a question for the ages, but the reason that this moment is special or unique is because of this way biography is out there running the show. Ready for a different take on Formula One? Look no further than no grip. A new podcast tackling the culture of motor racing's most coveted series. Join me, Lily Herman, as we dive into the under-explored pockets of F1. Including the astrology of the current grid.

Louis Hamilton, Crap the Corn Son, Cancer Moon, wouldn't you know it? Michael Schumacher is also a Capricorn son, Cancer Moon. The story of the sports most consequential driver strike. We have one man who upon hearing that he was going to be fired, freaked out, and apparently climbed out the window of the bathroom.

“And was Daniel Ricardo's illustrious F1 career a success story, a cautionary tale, or some combination of both?”

He started getting all this attention, and he may be started to think, "I'm bigger than this. I'm better." And plenty of other mishab scandals and sagas that have made Formula One a delightful, decadent gumster fire for more than 75 years. Listen to no grip on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Segregation in the day, integration at night. When segregation was the law, one mysterious black club owner had his own rules.

We didn't worry about what went on outside. It was like stepping on another world. Inside Charlie's place, black and white people danced together, but not everyone was happy about it. And you saw the cake cake cake? Yeah, they were just up in that uniform. The cake cake set out to Ray Charlie taken away from here. Charlie was an example of Paul. They had the crush in.

From Atlas Obscura, Roko Ko-punch, and Visit Murdoch Beach comes Charlie's place. A story that was nearly lost to time, until now. Listen to Charlie's place on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Segregation in the day, integration at night. When segregation was the law, one mysterious black club owner had his own rules.

We didn't worry about what went on outside. It was like stepping on another world. Inside Charlie's place, black and white people danced together, but not everyone was happy about it. You saw the cake cake cake? Yeah, they were just up in that uniform. The cake cake set out to Ray Charlie taken away from here. Charlie was an example of Paul. They had the crush in.

From Atlas Obscura, Roko Ko-punch, and Visit Murdoch Beach comes Charlie's place.

Listen to Charlie's place on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome to Dirty Rush. The truth about Sir Arty Life, the good, the bad, and the sisterhood. With your host, me, Gia-Judice, Daisy Kent, and Jennifer Kessler. Rush, the recruitment, the ritual, the reality of Greek life, has been a mystery for those outside the sorority circles until now.

“Is it really a supportive sisterhood that's simply misunderstood?”

Or is there something more scandalous happening on campuses across the country? In this podcast, we pledge to feel back the layers and spell out the truth one Greek letter at a time. Watches and actives, rush chairs, and ritual keepers, some call it the best time of their life. While others say it's a nightmare. From a perfect rush to recruitment scandals, what is really going on behind the doors of those sorority houses from Alpha to Omega?

We're taking you inside Sir Arty Row, including the chapter room, as we explore the fellowship in the front of me. Let's get dirty. Listen to Dirty Rush on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Something else I grapple with is when the artist chooses to apologize. With Dahl, he was absolutely unrepentant in his time.

But it's so tracks. He's calling himself an anti-Semite, and he was totally fine with that.

But a few years ago, right before her, right around the same time, that Netflix bought the doll estate for an incredible amount of money to turn those stories into films.

The doll estate issued an official apology for his anti-Semiteism. So I guess I'm trying to decide if that should make a bit of difference from you or not. That's interesting. I like how you just said that. You're trying to figure out how you feel about it, and how you feel about as a Jewish family, how you're going to relate to that apology.

And the Wagner festival went through a similar thing where there was some reckoning. And I think one family member of the whole charts, I'm not sure where they are with that. I haven't done research on it in a few years. I think that to me, we can't change what Dahl said. We can't change who Wagner was. But I think the estate or the institutional drive to apologize is actually meaningful.

I think that apology, which is a little different from our more, but I think apology within the context of the conversations we're having. Is actually quite rare. It's not something people do a lot of. There's a lot of lack of repentance across the board around these issues. And I think that every apology gets more apologies.

One hopes that it creates this idea that we can acknowledge that wrong was done. And that has both emotional, maybe even aesthetic and certainly legal meaning. I sort of treasure every apology because they are so rare. And because they remind us that it can be done. So one of the things I'm thinking about a lot in the book is I really grapple throughout the writing of the book with

Should a person be written off or lost for having done a rotten thing or set a rotten thing. What is it to take responsibility for the calming things we've done? Partly through the book, I'm dealing with my own sobriety. And becoming sober sort of creates this necessity for an acknowledgement that you've done something wrong. Because if you hadn't done something wrong, you wouldn't quit like it, right?

One's own monstrosity is kind of baked in to the act of becoming sober. What is your life after that? What is it to be a person after that acknowledgement?

“And that question, I think, aligns me with people who've done something crummy, right?”

And what is it to be human in the face of that? So people do get in my opinion, they do get to change or get better.

And it's a little different within a state, but I think apology and remorse are such powerful tools.

And if we don't take them in some kind of good faith, we start to make them even more extinct than they already are. Yeah, it's so hard to think of any, especially in today's climate. I'm just thinking about Kanye West's track, Heil Hitler. I mean, so many of these guys are so underpetted. Yeah, and like, it's Kanye West making apology now with that be meaningful probably not because it has been so unrepentant.

The performance of his own hatefulness has been so ongoing. And so relentless that apology would just be another performance. But there are contexts in which it's meaningful, I think. Yeah, I read your piece and Paris review about Woody Allen this morning. And it seemed like one of the things about it, you so much was when he said,

“The heart with that's what the heart wants. This is just a vacation, which is the polar opposite of an apology.”

Oh, I love that. I've never thought of it that way.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I did try to title the book, the heart wants, but it wants and my editor just laughed me out of the room.

Something that I certainly think about a lot is whether or not the artists personal beliefs or prejudices infects their work.

And with someone like Roland Polinski, I'm not sure I see it, which maybe is why it's easier to watch those movies. With all, it's complicated. Some people certainly do make the case that there are figures in the witches that can be construed as antisemitic troops. I don't know how I feel about that, but I don't really see his antisemitism in his work.

So that becomes much easier for me.

“Yeah, I think that there's kind of an interesting lineup of the way these things work.”

I think you have someone like Woody Allen where the thing that people perceive as objectionable is so inherent in the work. When you watch Manhattan and the way that young women are presented and used in his films. So that's a place where the biography and the work are really close together. And that's disturbing in even a way. And then you have something like Cosby where there's such an incredible calzone between Dr. Huxtable and what he is said to have done that that makes the work sort of upsetting in a different way.

“And so I think that doll is fascinating because there is a sense that he is somehow uniquely tapped into what makes a person ugly in their heart.”

And he's found a way to express that through these different characters. Sometimes a minor character is in a book.

Sometimes a more major character and that is always fascinating when somebody has this darkness inside them or has this dark quality and then they express it through character.

It does make it more confusing because on some level the ridiculousness of being a person who is against others is expressed in his work. There's a parotic funny element to some of these characters and yet did he see himself as a comic figure because he had this hate that he was living inside of. I think probably not. I think there's something about authors who right work for children that has really withstood the test of time and certainly that is work that I had a relationship when I was young. You know that there is some part of the landscape of my psyche that belongs to world doll just as there is the part of the landscape of my psyche belongs to Laura Engels Wilder and she has her own problems.

And I would say that when that's your experience and you learn these pieces of biographical information there is this sadness that comes with it. It's a very specific sadness and I think it's a sadness that cries out to be discussed that needs to be acknowledged and talk about needs to be taken apart and looked at. We need to ask why does this sadness exist and too often in this discussion I feel like it's too absolute and there's either somebody saying you should absolutely throw out the books or there's somebody saying these things are separate and we don't care and you shouldn't care.

But what's most interesting to me is the fact that most of us live in the middle and I think that we actually are helping each other if we can say this is a bummer and yet the work is meaningful. That is reality and I think when we talk about that we're living in reality rather than in some fantasy land where the work must be separated or some other fantasy land where the work doesn't have meaning or cultural valence which it does. I'm just always really interested in acknowledging that our responses to this biographical information are emotional and I feel like so often when we're supposedly having these ethical conversations around these issues and people are defending their point of view what's really happening is they're having a feeling.

“Our audience members we are deep in our own subjectivity the art is giving us an emotional response so is the biographical element if we can acknowledge that's what's happening I think we can get a lot further.”

That was the great clear dinner author of Monsters a fan saw that after the break we'll talk to someone who sees the issue a little differently. Ready for a different take on Formula One look no further than no grip a new podcast tackling the culture of motor racing's most coveted series join me Lily Herman as we dive into the under explored pockets of F1 including the astrology of the current grid. Lewis Hamilton crap a corn son cancer moon wouldn't you know it Michael Schumacher is also a capacorn son cancer moon the story of the sports most consequential driver strike.

We have one man who upon hearing that he was going to be fired freaked out and apparently climbed out the window of the bathroom and was down to record is a listry is F1 career a success story a cautionary tale or some combination of both. He started getting all this attention and he may be started to think I'm bigger than this I'm better and plenty of other mishaps scandals and sagas that have made formula one a delightful decadent dumpster fire for more than 75 years.

segregation in the day integration at night when segregation was the law one mysterious black club owner had his own rules.

“We didn't worry about what went on outside it was like stepping on another world.”

Inside Charlie's place black and white people danced together, but not everyone was happy about it. And you saw the KKK? Yeah, they were just up in that uniform. The KKK set out to Ray Charlie taking away from here. Charlie was an example of power to had the crush it. From Atlas Obscura, Rococo punch and visit mortal beach comes Charlie's place a story that was nearly lost to time until now. Listen to Charlie's place on the iHeart radio app apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.

segregation in the day integration at night. When segregation was the law one mysterious black club owner had his own rules.

We didn't worry about what went on outside. It was like stepping on another world.

Inside Charlie's place black and white people danced together, but not everyone was happy about it. Can you saw the KKK? Yeah, they were just up in that uniform. The KKK set out to Ray Charlie taking away from here. Charlie was an example of power to had the crush it. From Atlas Obscura, Rococo punch and visit mortal beach comes Charlie's place.

A story that was nearly lost to time until now. Listen to Charlie's place on the iHeart radio app apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome to dirty rush. The truth about Sir Arty Life, the good, the bad, and the sisterhood. With your hosts me, G.a. Judea. Daisy Kent and Jennifer Kessler. Brush the recruitment, the ritual, the reality of Greek life has been a mystery for those outside the sorority circles until now.

“Is it really a supportive sisterhood that's simply misunderstood?”

Or is there something more scandalous happening on campuses across the country? In this podcast, we pledge to feel back the layers and spell out the truth one Greek letter at a time. Pludges and actives, rush chairs and ritual keepers, some call it the best time of their life while others say it's a nightmare. From a perfect rush to recruitment scandals, what is really going on behind the doors of those sorority houses from Alpha to Omega? We're taking you inside sorority row including the chapter room as we explore the fellowship in the front of me.

Let's get dirty. Listen to dirty rush on the iHeart radio app apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. Erica's Hall Mathis is the chair of the philosophy department at Wellesley College. He wrote a book called Drawing the Line. What to do with the work of immoral artists from museums to the movies?

It's all about what to do, think and feel, when artists that we love do terrible things. I started off by asking him the obvious question. So, and we separate the art from the artist is a question that really dominates the space. But I think it's largely the wrong question. I'm not sure it really matters whether we can separate the art from the artist often.

Because the question we should be asking is should we separate the art from the artist? And when I say should we separate the art from the artist? What I mean is that we should be taking seriously what we know about the more life of the artist. And then asking the question every time. How should what we know about the more life of the artist factor in to my art consumption?

Or how I'm engaging with this art in public? Or how I'm thinking about introducing my kid to this art or broader policy decisions that we make about the arts.

“So, I think it's essential that the question about the relationship between the more life of the artist”

and the artwork remain a live question in all of these different contexts. One that we need to think about in those contexts and figure out how to answer. But when we try to separate, when we say can we separate the art from the artist? I worry about that is it's often an attempt to say like, well if we can then we can sort of rise them apart and not effaced with this question. How should we engage with the more life of the artist?

And that concerns me, right?

I think that's the question that we should always be thinking about.

And sometimes the answer will be that the more life of the artist isn't particularly relevant in this context. That's certainly a possibility and that will happen in all kinds of different situations. But we'll have at least asked that question, that question away from the center.

I've been reading Edgar Allan Poe my whole life.

I didn't know that he married his 13-year-old cousin.

“How much responsibility do I have consuming art to really look into the potential really awful, disgusting behavior of the artist?”

Yeah, so I mean, I don't think that we need to become the like cops and private investigators of the art world. I think that the questions at the moral life of the artist poses for everyday art consumers are going to be dependent on the kind of information that's part of the public discourse.

Part of the public domain, the things that we can reasonably expect people to know.

I think that if we thought that there were some sort of strong moral obligation to do investigative work about every artist that we wanted to engage with, not only would that make a lot of art not fun for us, but it would be overly burdensome and not really sort of in the spirit in which we often want to engage with the artwork. I think it would prioritize the more or less of the artist over other kinds of considerations like our aesthetic engagement with their work.

“So I think it's really more of a question about given what we know, how should we confront that knowledge.”

Now how much can we go find out about the moral life of the artist? It feels a little bit dangerous only because it almost feels like you get rewarded by burying your head in the sand. Shusing not to read the articles that, you know, for a while, seemingly appeared almost every day in the New York Times about how awful a lot of our artists were. If you don't look at those, if you don't read those stories, you're going to be able to enjoy a lot more art. Yeah, that's true. I mean, I think there are questions we can ask about what people should reasonably know.

And those are broad questions that include this conversation that all kinds of other things and I think sometimes people can be subject to criticism for should not being aware of things that it's reasonable for them to know, given how pervasive they are in public discourse and how much attention they received and the media. But I think that we should certainly approach these issues not in the spirit of blaming people, if you encounter somebody who doesn't know anything about. The whole doll is anti-Semitism, right? I don't think they're a possibility. How could you not know that? But rather, well, now that you know that that opens up space for a conversation about how that is going to influence how we engage with the work.

Eric brings up a really good question. How should we engage with the work? For me, especially after my conversation with Claire, I'm realizing a lot of it depends on whether I can locate the bigotry in the actual text. I'm not sure I see it in doll's stories, but what do we do when there's a really clear connection between an artist's problematic actions or beliefs and the work we consume by them?

In our last episode, Roxanne Gay talked about the Nobel Prize winning author Alice Monroe, who stayed with her second husband, despite apparently knowing that he abused her daughter.

There's a strong case to be made that Monroe's guilt comes out in some of her short stories, which makes reading these stories for me now, feel pretty eki. The same goes for a bunch of other artists too. Some critics say that an everyone ranging from T.S. Eliot to as repound to HP Lovecraft, Picasso, Hemingway, Mailer, to even someone like Mel Gibson. You can see there sometimes monumental personal flaws come out in the work, which makes engaging with that work really complicated. I spoke more about this with Eric.

Roll doll has this very short story for adults, Genesis, and catastrophe. I'm going to spoil it, so if you don't want to hear it spoil, you should stop listening. But it's a very short story. It involves this kind of tense scene in a hospital where a mother is going through a complicated delivery. And in a very short space, the writing gets you very concerned for her and the life of her child. And then it's revealed towards the end of the story that the child is Adolf Hitler. And so you find yourself in this fascinating and uncomfortable position of having your concern about this child, put into a stark tension with your moral importance of Hitler.

And the thing about the story is that it seems very clearly designed in order to put you in that state of tension. It seems like you're supposed to have that feeling of, "Oh my gosh, I was so concerned for this child, but it's Hitler, how do I grapple with that?" So, once you then put that into this further context, if knowing about dolls antisemitism, then it can make you feel even further attention. She's like, "Wait, wait, was that interpretation? I just gave the story the right one?

“Are you supposed to feel attention? Is it not actually creating that particular kind of tension? Because there's some sort of implicit endorsement of the idea that you should be concerned about the survival of baby Adolf Hitler?”

I think it adds even further intrigue to the story and enhances some of the aesthetic delight and weirdness of it. I think when you engage in this kind of process that I was just modeling here, you're thinking through, "How do I fit this knowledge with my experience at the story?"

I think there's still space to think, "No, it actually is the first interpretation. The story really is trying to get you to feel this tension."

“And that's the case independently of whatever feelings doll Michael himself had.”

This kind of knowledge about the moral effort, the artists often just enhances our experience of engaging with their work. It makes it sometimes even more complex and complicated. And that's a real opportunity for us to sort of think with that knowledge and engage with the work. In light of it, rather than saying, "Oh, I'm not going to read this anymore because dolls antisemitic." I'm going to come back to my conversation with Eric in a minute. Before I do that, I want to dig into a separate, somewhat related topic.

And that's the giant, fascinating censorship controversy that swirled around doll a few years ago.

In 2023, 33 years after Doll's death, his publisher went through his books and removed all language that people might take offense to.

The Hollywood Reporter laid it out really well in a long article. They explained that Doll's fat phobia, for instance,

“was suddenly an odds with changing sensitivity around body image issues.”

So, Doll's publishers removed the word "fat" from all of his books and issued new additions. Augustus Clup, the gluttonous boy from the Chocolate Factory tour, is now referred to as "a Norbus." In James and the giant peach, Doll's lines, Ant Spunge was terrifically fat and tremendously flabby at that, is now Ant Spunge was a nasty old brute and deserved to be swash by the fruit. And the censors didn't stop there. Any time Doll wrote that a character was crazy or mad, they took it out. Viewing Bulupa's and Willy Wonkers Factory are no longer tiny, ticky, or no higher than I need, but just small.

In Matilda, our hero no longer reads the problematic author read your kippling. In the revised version, China reads Chinaustin. So, in that instance, the censors kind of got a tufer, not only changing Doll, but also erasing the very existence of kippling. Uh, what else? The fantastic Mr. Fox? He now has three daughters, instead of three sons. I absolutely cannot explain that. The BFG? His fame is cloak? His no longer black?

In fact, and this is real, the words "black" and "white" were systematically deleted throughout Doll's catalog, even when describing something like the color of snow. The very words "black" and "white" are treated as problematic. So, how did these changes even come about? According to The New York Times, they were made after Doll's estate hired a consultancy group to evaluate his work. The consultant's aim was to promote inclusion and accessibility in children's literature. Needless to say, fans of Doll's and free speech advocates and many others were completely freaked out.

To take just two examples, the writer-saman Rushty called the Revisions Observed censorship. Bestselling writer Phil Pullman said it would be better to let Doll's book square a print than to alter them without the author's consent. And that's kind of the big issue, right? That these alterations were made without Doll's approval. He was long dead, so he didn't have the option of signing off on them. Speaking into this, I found a bunch of fascinating similar examples of artists to states grappling with this sort of thing.

According to The New York Times, again, "Hageth the Christy, the bestselling novelist of all time, had her books altered after her death, too." The truly galling title of her top-selling book was changed to, and then there were none. Christy's great grandson says that without that change, it would probably be completely unpubbishable now. He's not wrong. Similarly, an addition of Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn, arguably the great American novel, replaced a racial epithet throughout the text, over concerns that such an offensive word was causing schools to stop assigning the book.

Dr. Susses estate took a different tack and just stopped publishing half a dozen of his books because of the racial and ethnic stereotypes in them.

Personally, I hate the idea of that amazing act of the Christy mystery not being published anymore, and I genuinely think it would be a tragedy if Huckleberry Finn disappeared.

But changing a dead author's words is the slipperyest of slopes. It's really complicated stuff. For some, for others, it's easy. Here's Margaret Atwood, the great novelist of the Handmaid's Tale, a book about a dystopian society that encourages censorship, speaking to BBC News. Good luck with Rowland Hall. You're just really going to have to replace the whole book if you want things to be nice.

“This started a long time ago, it was the designification of fairy tales. What do I think of it? I'm with Chaucer, he said.”

If you don't like this tale, turn over the page and read something else. So, if we follow Atwood's advice, no one should touch dolls' books. Readers should just be allowed to choose which stories of his they want to read. filmmaker Wes Anderson feels similarly to Atwood. Anderson, of course, adapted several doll stories for Netflix.

You know, I'm probably the worst person to ask about this because, you know, if you ask me should Renoir be allowed to touch up one of his pictures and modified, I would say no.

It's done. Somebody bought it. It's in a museum. I don't take even the artist. I don't want even the artist to modify their work. I understand the motivation for it, but I sort of am in the school where when the piece of work is done and we've, we participate in it. The audience participates in it. We know it. And so I sort of think when it's done is done and certainly no one who's not in author should be modifying somebody's book. He's dead. You hear Anderson's argument a lot in the world of film. If you're a Star Wars fan, you probably remember the hubba above George Lucas going back into the original trilogy years after it's released and making changes.

He re-engineered a famous scene, for instance, so that Han Solo doesn't shoot first and kill someone in cold blood.

Our rage fans didn't care that the person making the changes was the original creator. To them, like Anderson said, when it's done, it's done. But of course, this is all academic. Having read a lot about role doll, I feel pretty confident saying he would not have made the changes his publisher wanted. Let's go back to my conversation with Eric Mathis. I really want to know what he thinks about the censorship controversy. So I'm really concerned about the ways in which legitimate and important concerns about how we take the moral life of the artist into account can easily slide into practices of censorship, which I'm very opposed to.

“I think it's crucial that we not ignore the moral life of the artist. What you do with that knowledge, I think should not lead us to try to censor their work.”

So in the context of kids, for instance, and sort of children's literature and movies and things, I think that children need morally complex literature in order to develop and to morally sophisticated adults. My worry is that when you take morally difficult content out of an artist's work, I mean not only are you messing with their work in a way that feels artistically illegitimate, but you're also depriving kids of the opportunity to wrestle with challenging moral questions. Sometimes they're going to need help in wrestling with those questions, and that's why we often engage in practices of reading with our kids or talking with our kids about the books that they're reading, but I think that if you take away that content, you're also taking away the opportunity for moral growth and discussion and development, and that's not a great way of raising our kids.

I guess just to push back for a second or to really devil's advocate, some of the censorship they did, like removing the descriptors' fat and ugly, they feel like the kind of thing like if my kid was reading a book that had those words in them, I probably, and maybe this is my own moral feeling, I probably wouldn't stop reading and explain to them why those words are problematic the way I would if there was something incredibly bigoted or anti-Semitic.

“Those words probably do just get accepted by the child as normal. If the great majority of us are not going to turn those kinds of things into a lesson, is it still okay?”

I mean, when it comes to terms like fat and gross, it's not as if taking these terms out of kids' books are going to prevent kids from sharing these words as they go about their lives, why to grant that not everybody who's reading with their kids or talking with their kids about books is going to take the opportunity to think with them about the language being used. It leased the opportunity is there on the table, and there are ways in which we can promote it, so clearly the publisher in this case is taking action to address an issue, so they're committed a different way they could take action would be to provide some guidance for kids or for adults on how to engage with that content.

Throw a preface in the book, put it in appendix, write the hard different ways in which we can take these issues seriously without engaging in cutting or obscuring. This comes up also in the context of art and museums, especially when we know things about the moral life of the artist, and aspects of their moral life sort of come up in their work in really explicit ways. In the case of gogan, some people say, "Oh, well, we shouldn't have space on our walls to display gogan," which should sort of take that stuff off the walls, that's not a very common view, but it has been expressed.

My worry about that kind of approach to the problem is it's like putting the skeletons back in the closet.

It's like not a way of taking the accusations and the moral life of the artist seriously.

“In order to take it seriously, you need to confront it, and then there's a question of what you do once it's on the table.”

But if you sort of take it away, then you also take away this opportunity for a moral reckoning.

The ending is all about a kiss that is not asked for, and there's a instead of changing it, there's simply a disclaimer on the very last page that says, "You should always ask."

I would say I read that disclaimer to my daughter, I have read it once, and we've read "Pout Pout Fish" one billion times. That said, I'm very happy that they did not change the ending. Well, I mean, you know, also these kinds of interventions, they don't always have to happen in the moment or every time. Sometimes I think these are things that come up later in life. A kid might read some morally problematic content in a book as a kid, and nobody talks to them about it at all,

but then when they're a teenager, they think back and they say, "Huh, that was kind of odd that this happened in the book, or I'm sort of raising some worries for me, how this character was represented." And they have that there, right, as then a resource for thinking with. I don't want to sort of oversell the idea that it's about constant discussion and engagement, right?

“That's the only way we can take the moral content of these works.”

The moral lives they are to seriously is by talking the issue to death.

But I think having it there in a child's set of intellectual resources allows them the opportunity to think carefully about it, whether on their own or in conversation, and whether it happens to them or whether it happens to them online. That was Eric Mathis, author of Drawing the Line, "What to do with the work of immoral artists from museums to the movies?"

I'm so appreciative to Eric and also to Claire for coming on to talk about these really thorny issues. Next week, we're going to lay things up a little and get into a topic very dear to my heart. We'll talk about what doll might be most globally famous for these days, the film adaptations, which means we get to talk about Spielberg and Zemekez and Burton and Clooney and Streep and so many more.

True or false, Quentin Tarantino once directed a role doll story starring Bruce Willis.

We'll definitely get into that, and I'll speak to the man who just might be the single, most recognizable voice in TV criticism. I can't wait. See you there.

“The secret world of "Roll doll" is produced by a madgen audio and parallax studios for iHard Podcasts.”

Created or written by me, Aaron Tracy, produced by Matt Schrader, post-production by Windhill Studios, with editing, scoring, and sound design by Mark Henry Phillips. Editing by Ryan Seaton, music by APM, executive producers, Nathan Clokey, Kara Welker, Brian Grazer, Ron Howard, and Aaron Tracy. Additional voice performances and recreation by Mark Henry Phillips and 11 labs.

If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to rate and review the secret world of "Roll doll" on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. Copyrate, 2026. Imagine Entertainment, I Heart Media, and Parallax. When segregation was a law, one mysterious black club owner, Charlie Fitzgerald, had his own rules. Segregation in the day, integration at night.

It was like "Sepherner" in another world. Was he a businessman, a criminal, a hero?

“Charlie was an example, a poem, they had the crush in.”

Charlie's place, from Atlas Obsgera and visit Murdoch Beach. Listen to Charlie's place on the "I Heart Radio" app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. When segregation was a law, one mysterious black club owner, Charlie Fitzgerald, had his own rules. Segregation in the day, integration at night. It was like "Sepherner" in another world.

Was he a businessman, a criminal, a hero? Charlie was an example, a poem, they had the crush in. Charlie's place, from Atlas Obsgera and visit Murdoch Beach. Listen to Charlie's place on the "I Heart Radio" app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. The more you listen to your kids, the closer you'll be.

So we asked kids, "What do you want your parents to hear?" I feel sometimes that I'm not listened to. I would just want you to listen to me more often and evaluate situations with me and lead me towards success. Listening is a form of love. Find resources to help you support your kids.

And their emotional well-being. Add Sound Get Out Together.org. That's Sound Get Out Together.org. Brought to you by the Ad Council and Pivotal. This is the biggest night in podcast things.

The countdown is on to our 2026 "I Heart Podcast Awards" live from South by Southwest. March 16th will honor the very best in podcasting from the past year and celebrate the most innovative talent and creators in the industry. It's truly a "Who's Who of the Podcasting World Creativity" knowledge. And the passion will all be on full display.

And the winner of the "I Heart Podcast Award" is...

"Audible is a proud sponsor of the audible audio pioneer award.

“Explore the best selection of audio books, podcasts, and originals all in one easy app.”

"Audible" there's more to imagine when you listen.

Sign up for free trial at audible.com.