 |
| Mark Briscoe is at least back, and Jay Briscoe's return seems imminent Photo Credit: Scott Finkelstein |
Via ROH's Site
As soon as the Briscoes had departed from Ring of Honor, they're seemingly back in the fold. While former World Champion Jay is still supposedly "out" for a few months with injuries suffered at the hands of SCUM, Mark was announced as the 16th entrant in the tournament to see who will fill big brother's vacated title. I don't know if this is a work or a last minute thing to bring them back after job prospects with WWE weren't as abundant as once thought. I do know two things though. For one, it makes the company look extremely foolish for stripping the elder Briscoe of his World Championship, and two, having the brothers back in ROH will be welcome, at least from a performance standpoint.
That leads to the bigger conversation of whether you, or more specifically, I can enjoy a wrestler or any performer if I know they've done something awful. I do know that Jay Briscoe tweeted how he'd do awful things to someone who'd preach tolerance to his children. To me, that's not a person I want to hang around with. But it all goes back to the internal, nearly endless debate that both I and several other people I know have on whether they can support the art even if the artist is an utter chode or worse. Although He Who Shall Not Be Named is a classic wrestling example, there are others in other media that serve as great examples for discussion.
For example, Ted Nugent is a racist nutball whose professed politics put him on the right wing fringe. But does that mean I can't appreciate "Stranglehold" when it comes on the radio? I mean, that song fucking owns. The same goes for Jimmy Page, who allegedly kept an underage girl as a sex hostage for three years and doesn't seem to be repentant for it at all. Or Roman Polanski, who drugged and raped an underage girl and has been on the lam for it ever since. Or Adrian Peterson, who has vocally condemned gay marriage and homosexuality cuz religion. Sure, those charges aren't all similar in gravitas, and I can feel better about appreciating a dude who says awful things but doesn't act on them over someone who has committed grotesque crimes without any repercussion for said offense.
So with all that, where does Briscoe fall under that spectrum? It's not even Mark Briscoe, because while it's easy to assume he has the same intolerant beliefs, it's also not fair to saddle his brother's comments against him because he's a different person than his brother. But Jay Briscoe deleted the comments and apologized for them in public. Even if he didn't apologize for his homophobia, the fact that he apologized for the violent threat at least shows he's cognizant of what he said. But is it enough? I have no fucking idea at this point. Humanity is a weird thing.
"Judge the art, not the artist," seems like a good idea at the surface, but it's one that ultimately strips any moral responsibility from the person consuming said art. That shit doesn't fly with me. I do feel that it is perfectly acceptable not to want to consume product and thus support the artist making it when that artist is morally offensive to you as a person. But at the same time, can these things be reconciled? Is it possible to judge the art AND the artist and come to different conclusions about both? I think the answer to that question is different for every person and every situation, and whatever answer that you arrive at will be the one that dictates how you feel about the Briscoes returning to Ring of Honor.
As soon as the Briscoes had departed from Ring of Honor, they're seemingly back in the fold. While former World Champion Jay is still supposedly "out" for a few months with injuries suffered at the hands of SCUM, Mark was announced as the 16th entrant in the tournament to see who will fill big brother's vacated title. I don't know if this is a work or a last minute thing to bring them back after job prospects with WWE weren't as abundant as once thought. I do know two things though. For one, it makes the company look extremely foolish for stripping the elder Briscoe of his World Championship, and two, having the brothers back in ROH will be welcome, at least from a performance standpoint.
That leads to the bigger conversation of whether you, or more specifically, I can enjoy a wrestler or any performer if I know they've done something awful. I do know that Jay Briscoe tweeted how he'd do awful things to someone who'd preach tolerance to his children. To me, that's not a person I want to hang around with. But it all goes back to the internal, nearly endless debate that both I and several other people I know have on whether they can support the art even if the artist is an utter chode or worse. Although He Who Shall Not Be Named is a classic wrestling example, there are others in other media that serve as great examples for discussion.
For example, Ted Nugent is a racist nutball whose professed politics put him on the right wing fringe. But does that mean I can't appreciate "Stranglehold" when it comes on the radio? I mean, that song fucking owns. The same goes for Jimmy Page, who allegedly kept an underage girl as a sex hostage for three years and doesn't seem to be repentant for it at all. Or Roman Polanski, who drugged and raped an underage girl and has been on the lam for it ever since. Or Adrian Peterson, who has vocally condemned gay marriage and homosexuality cuz religion. Sure, those charges aren't all similar in gravitas, and I can feel better about appreciating a dude who says awful things but doesn't act on them over someone who has committed grotesque crimes without any repercussion for said offense.
So with all that, where does Briscoe fall under that spectrum? It's not even Mark Briscoe, because while it's easy to assume he has the same intolerant beliefs, it's also not fair to saddle his brother's comments against him because he's a different person than his brother. But Jay Briscoe deleted the comments and apologized for them in public. Even if he didn't apologize for his homophobia, the fact that he apologized for the violent threat at least shows he's cognizant of what he said. But is it enough? I have no fucking idea at this point. Humanity is a weird thing.
"Judge the art, not the artist," seems like a good idea at the surface, but it's one that ultimately strips any moral responsibility from the person consuming said art. That shit doesn't fly with me. I do feel that it is perfectly acceptable not to want to consume product and thus support the artist making it when that artist is morally offensive to you as a person. But at the same time, can these things be reconciled? Is it possible to judge the art AND the artist and come to different conclusions about both? I think the answer to that question is different for every person and every situation, and whatever answer that you arrive at will be the one that dictates how you feel about the Briscoes returning to Ring of Honor.
