Should I allow the fact that William Mayne has been jailed for the sexual abuse of young girls to put me off reading his children's books? I used to love his books when I was a child, especially The Twelve Dancers - the writing I remember had such freshness and purity. But seeing another book of his in a charity shop the other day, I hesitated and then didn't pick it up.

Rowan Williams (the Archbishop of Canterbury) said that although his view of William Mayne had changed since the court case, this would not stop him recommending his work, in particular A Game of Dark, which he read as a child...

For me this raises quite deep questions about splits/divisions between the writer self and the living-in-the-world self. Do you think William Mayne's books can remain untainted by his actions?

Frances

I know I'm being a loud mouth so-and-so today, but this is a really interesting one. I probably won't be sticking around much longer today, so will get the ball rolling.

I think the answer has to be "no", doesn't it?

I mean, it changes everything, what he did (though I don't know the details, thank god). If Michael Jackson had been found guilty, then people, perhaps like Rowan Williams, would be calling for his records to be banned from the airwaves.

It also raises the very dark question of what his motivations were for writing children's fiction. It changes the entire perspective of writing stories for youngsters whose naive innocence is what makes them such great subjects and readers, coz the guy was responsible for corrupting that very thing.

I dunno Frances, I think it's kind of hypocritical and quite worrying that the Archbishop of Canterbury said that, but can totally understand where you are coming from. If Tolkein was found out to abuse little boys, I'd find it harder to say, but would have to stick to my guns and disown the greatest work of fiction ever written.

<Added>

Tho I just remembered the Arthur C Clarke thing from a few years ago. I haven't read one of his books since I heard that, it does taint the author, but the more I think about it, the more I'm wondering whether it should.

Anymore ideas on this one?

To me the words of the Archbish sound very humane and reasonable - I certainly wouldn't want all William Mayne's books to be trashed because of what he's done. It's just that, I don't know...

Frances

Yeah you're probably right, its just that usually the religious establishment are the first to start singling things and people out because of what they've done and stand for. I suppose it is actually refreshing Williams said that, though obviously not saying what Mayne did was okay.

I don't think any book should ever be trashed, but a man who writes books for children in order to get his wicked way is just wrong so maybe his should be ignored in favour of writer's who were doing it for the innocence and wonder of a child's imagination.

Well, but here's the conundrum - I think Mayne almost definitely WAS writing for the innocence and purity of a child's imagination - you can't fake it on the page. He's a really good writer for children, and I believe that in the act of writing, his motives were pure. Must have been. But he then used his fame and good name to trap children and hurt them.

I just can't get my head round it.

Frances

I don’t know this guy as a writer but, if this conviction is correct, how can there be any question? Regardless of which came first, if he used his writing skills to attract young girls, or if his contact with children was an avenue to the abuse he was convicted of, there is no excuse. There is never any justification for child abuse. It is unacceptable and I, for one, would hate any child in my family being influenced by him.

Dee

This is a re-run of the Eric Gill case, except that Gill was dead by the time it came out. I don't know the rights and wrongs of it all (except that what such people do to children is wrong). I do remember thinking that it didn't greatly affect my attitude to Gill's work, which I love. But then he wasn't mostly producing things for children. What my attitude would have been to, say, a children's picture book by Gill, I don't know.

I think Rowan Williams' remark is both compassionate and sophisticated, which is typical of the man. I really don't think you can start judging literature by what its author does. You can, personally, find that knowing about it gives you a distaste for the work. Certainly W Mayne shouldn't be let near a child again. But I would HATE HATE HATE to live in a world where I couldn't experience any art I wanted to (and Mayne's work is art), just because of what its creator did. If someone could show me solid evidence in Mayne's work of things which were definitely pernicious, which would still seem pernicious if the work was anonymous, then I might change my mind about whether his work should be available. Till then, I'd give it to my children with a clear conscience.

Emma

Personally, I'd not do anything to line the pockets of a peadophile, or promote/encourage his success in the world.
Such evil should not be rewarded.

Except in hell.

JB

Paedophiles are in their very nature deceptive, sly, manipulative and very chronically damaged creatures. They have little or no conception of another's feelings - how could they? They wouldn't do what they do if they had.
They are capable of grooming in a sophisticated and wicked way. The damage they do to other's lasts a lifetime and destroys both innocence and potential.
I'm afraid I cannot separate Mayne from his actions - and am deeply suspicious of his motivations. 'Paedophile' is part of his very nature, intrinsic to him.

tc

I agree. No work is seperate from the artist, I don't believe in that. it is the same issue with serial killers making money from selling their stories. People who cause fatal or long term damage to society should not be allowed to profit in any way from their actions.

I would give serious thought if you really think that allowing your children these books has no affect. You are promoting the work of a person who would more than likely harm your children, and he is making royalities from you buying his book.

JB

For an uncompromising but very well-researched view, based on a lot of experience as a prosecutor in some of the worst cases of paedophilia, it's worth checking out Andrew Vachss' site:

http://www.vachss.com/vachss/faq.html

He's also a brilliant crime writer - prose that cuts like a knife and high on excitement. Perhaps understandably, most of his fiction is about dealing with paedophiles. Even the Batman book he was commissioned to write has Batman (very satisfactorily, it has to be said) blowing up a boatload of Western paedophiles who've been doing their twisted think in a very poor part of Asia.

Not for the faint-hearted.

Terry

fatal or long term damage

JB, you have it there in a nutshell. I think by their actions some folk have to be considered to put themselves outside of normal society and in my book, paedophiles are way up there at the top of the list.

Paedophiles are evil, no other way of looking at it. No "nice man" underneath, no misunderstood soul, just evil. The paedophillic 'part' of Mayne isn't something that can be separated neatly off, any more than the damage he has caused can be neatly separated off in his victims. It touches every part of lives. It's that severe and all-embracing.

x
tc

Agreed, and the last thing a decent person should do is reward it by buying or promoting his work.

JB

tc, you sum it up so well.

There is no justification for paedophilia. Almost anything else, I could accept mitigating circumstances, even empathise with the perpetrator. But paedophiles? Never.

Worst of all is that many of them insinuate themselves into positions of trust with vulnerable children. The damage they do is far-reaching and inflicts a life sentence on their victims. As you say, by their own actions, they put themselves beyond the conventions of normal society.

Dee

Dee,

I agree. On Andrew Vachss' site, there's some background to the Roman Polanski case. It doesn't make any comment, just shows you the newspaper articles over the years and supplies a transcipt of the girl's testimony at his trial. It's pretty clear that he did it, i.e. he was found guilty of drugging a 13 year old then having oral, vaginal and anal sex with her. He's been on the run ever since and, as far as I'm aware, has not contested the decision. I'd always avoided watching his films but started to wonder if I wasn't being too black and white about it. But after reading the background details, I'm very clear now that I will never watch any of his films again.

Terry