Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.
Loading... Monsters: A Fan's Dilemma (edition 2023)by Claire Dederer (Author)
Work InformationMonsters: A Fan's Dilemma by Claire Dederer
Loading...
Sign up for LibraryThing to find out whether you'll like this book. No current Talk conversations about this book. In this book, Dederer looks at the question of what audiences are to do with the work of "monstrous" creators, those who do terrible things that stain their public image and, therefore, the public perception of their work. Can one still love the music of Michael Jackson? The art of Pablo Picasso? Roman Polanski's films, or Woody Allen's? The list goes on, but the question is always pretty much the same. I was a regular viewer of The Cosby Show when I was growing up. As an adult, you can at least try to separate actors from roles they play, but to my child self, Bill Cosby as Cliff Huxtable was "America's Dad." So, that's the #MeToo revelation that hit home hardest for me, though of course there have been many others. I think most people these days have experienced the sinking feeling in their stomach that comes with reevaluating some favorite work of art when faced with new biographical information about the artist. So, what do you do? The portion of this book that focused on this question was smart and thought-provoking. I was less enamored with the parts of the book that veered into memoir, or to trying to explore "monstrous" behavior in women (usually related to abandoning their own children, though there were other examples). There are a few repetitive bits, and occasionally Dederer's rarified language use comes off as pretentious. Though I basically agree with her conclusion, I'm not left with a strong feeling about the book, or that it helped me explore the topic in any significant way beyond the mental work I've already put in to it. So, somewhat recommended? I highly recommended this book examining the art and work of people who also happen to have committed heinous crimes. The central question: does the crime mean we can no longer be fans and learn from their creativity? Artists include Polanski, Hemingway, Michael Jackson, Picasso, Miles Davis and many more. Great book to ponder on your own or in a book club!!! Here are just a few interesting quotes: Calling someone a monster didn’t solve the problem of what do with the work. I could denounce him all I wanted to, but Polanski’s work still called to me. This insistent calling—and my unwillingness to throw away the work—disrupted my idea of myself. It made me (and others) questions my claim to feminism. (p.46) And of course no one is entirely a monster. People are complex. To call someone a monster is to reduce them to just once aspect of the self. (p.46) A monster is “Someone whose behavior disrupts our ability to apprehend the work on its own terms.” (p.46) The stain begins with an act, a moment in time, but then it travels from that moment, like a tea bag steeping in water, coloring the entire life. It works its way forward and backward in time. (p.49) Mass media—There is no longer any escaping biography. Even within my own lifetime, I’ve seen a massive shift. Biography used to be something you sought out, yearned for, actively pursued. Now is falls on your head all day long. (P.51) When we love an artist, and we identify with them, do we feel shame on their behalf when they become stained? Or do we shame them more brutally, cast them out more finally, because we want to sever the identification? (p.64) What response, what opinion, what criticism do you have that is not tied up with history? (p.76) And other topics creep in too, like Cancel Culture, white men not wanting to be blamed for everything, does history frame/excuse the crimes and are women artists who “abandon” their children in order to find time to create monsters as well? Quick read about the people we admire and their monstrous deeds -- and whether this should disqualify us from consuming their work. Examples - Polanski, Wagner, Picasso, Rowling, Hemingway, Allen, and others. Dederer examines the works, and the artist's misdeeds. She recognizes their failings, and poses whether we should ignore the genius, and why some are more forgiven than others. She addresses all of this in the era of Me Too and Trumpism. Interesting book.
Famed composer Richard Wagner’s anti-Semitism was an obsession: "'[For Richard Wagner, anti-Semitism] was more than a bizarre peccadillo, beyond a prejudice: it was an obsession, a monomania, a full-blown neurosis. No conversation with Wagner ever occurred without a detour on the subject of Judaism. When, towards the end of Wagner's life, the painter Renoir had a sitting with him, Wagner interrupted his own pleasant flow of small talk with a sudden unprovoked denunciation of Jews which rapidly became rancid,' [said Simon Callow]. "Wagner also wrote at length about his obsession -- that essay Fry would have liked to forestall, 'Judaism in Music,' was published anonymously in 1850, the same year Lohengrin premiered. It describes the nature of 'the Jew musician' -- we've barely gotten started and we're already in choppy waters. The use of the word 'Jew' as an adjective is generally speaking not a good sign. My friend Alex Blumberg once observed to me as we walked through the Chicago neighborhood historically known as Jew Town: 'The word Jew is fine as a noun, starts to be a problem as an adjective, and is totally not okay as a verb.' "Writes Wagner, 'The Jew -- who, as everyone knows, has a God all to himself -- in ordinary life strikes us primarily by his outward appearance, which, no matter to what European nationality we belong, has something disagreeably foreign to that nationality: instinctively we wish to have nothing in common with a man who looks like that.' "Wagner is ramping up, working himself into a frenzy, and the modern reader in turn feels a mounting abhorrence, as well as a kind of lofty disdain for what we perceive as his cluelessness. But we tell ourselves he didn't know better. "And yet Wagner bases his entire rant on the fact that he did know better. He positions his screed as a dose of Limbaughesque real talk in the face of liberal platitudes calling for an end to anti-Semitism: 'We have to explain to ourselves the involuntary repellence possessed for us by the nature and personality of the Jews, so as to vindicate that instinctive dislike which we plainly recognise as stronger and more overpowering than our conscious zeal to rid ourselves thereof.' "He's making the point that he and his brethren don't want to revile Jews. This is some real 'I'm the victim here' shit. Wagner insists that he possesses -- we all possess -- a 'conscious zeal to rid ourselves' of the 'instinctive dislike,' but an honest man must wrestle with these feelings of 'involuntary repellence,' Hey, man, he's just describing how everyone really feels. Incidentally, this is an example of how insidious the word 'we' can be -- by employing it, Wagner normalizes and universalizes his own demented and hateful perspective, and suggests that all those fighting against anti-Semitism are simply deluded or evasive when it comes to their own natures. "From Wagner's perspective, to say one is not anti-Semitic is to lie: 'Even to-day we only purposely belie ourselves, in this regard, when we think it necessary to hold immoral and taboo all open proclamation of our natural repugnance against the Jewish nature. Only in quite the latest times do we seem to have reached an insight, that it is more rational (vernünftiger) to rid ourselves of that strenuous self-deception' -- he means here the self-deception that we actually might not be repelled by Jews -- 'so as quite soberly instead to view the object of our violent sympathy and bring ourselves to understand a repugnance still abiding with us in spite of all our Liberal bedazzlements.'" AwardsDistinctionsNotable Lists
"In this unflinching, deeply personal book that expands on her instantly viral Paris Review essay, "What Do We Do With the Art of Monstrous Men?" Claire Dederer asks: Can we love the work of Hemingway, Polanski, Naipaul, Miles Davis, or Picasso? Should we love it? Does genius deserve special dispensation? Is male monstrosity the same as female monstrosity? Does art have a mandate to depict the darker elements of the psyche? And what happens if the artist stares too long into the abyss? She explores the audience's relationship with artists from Woody Allen to Michael Jackson, asking: How do we balance our undeniable sense of moral outrage with our equally undeniable love of the work? In a more troubling vein, she wonders if an artist needs to be a monster in order to create something great. And if an artist is also a mother, does one identity inexorably, and fatally, interrupt the other? Highly topical, morally wise, honest to the core, Monsters is certain to incite a conversation about whether and how we can separate artists from their art"-- No library descriptions found. |
Current DiscussionsNonePopular covers
Google Books — Loading... GenresMelvil Decimal System (DDC)700.1The arts Modified subdivisions of the arts Standard subdivisions of the arts Philosophy and theory of the artsLC ClassificationRatingAverage:
Is this you?Become a LibraryThing Author. |
“Bad memoir happens when an author is a little in love with herself, when she can’t see her own faults. The same thing can be said for audience members. We think we’re fantastically enlightened, but are we really better than the people who came before us?” ( )