Scan barcode
abi_kebs's review against another edition
5.0
Strap in kids, I have a lot of feelings.
This was kind of a grand slam. I really, really liked the way it was written. It’s accessibly written to the point where you wouldn’t need to have taken classes to be able to understand how to read it or parse out it’s ‘true meaning’ but it still feels like something I could have read in one of my sociology courses, if that makes sense (yay for non fiction that is stimulating but not overly complicated). Also it’s structured in a very logical way and it flows well, which is always appreciated.
The question of how to deal with art made by monstrous people (men, in particular) is so complicated and she approaches it with the appropriate amount of nuance and in such a human way. There is a real understanding of the human desire to consume art/ to not miss out on art, while also understanding the desire to not support monsters, to speak with your dollar, and the way that monstrous acts can stain even brilliant art.
A lot of the complaints about this book lie in its use of memoir but I think that’s one of its strong points!! I don’t think that you can have this conversation without it being personal. It’s not an objective thing and I think it would be disingenuous to try to come at it from a detached viewpoint. Also, consumption habits are so deeply personal that I think it would create a lot more of a defensive feeling in the reader (me) if it didn’t feel like she was going on this journey with you, feeling the contradictions and emotions that you are. And also it makes it more engaging to have a character in your story idk.
Her answer to the question of “what do we do with the art of monstrous men” essentially boils down to the idea that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. She claims consumption is meaningless as an ethical gesture and individual action as a solution is a tool created by The Systems™️ to shift the onus onto consumers. Basically, you can do with the art what you want- we cannot control our love for art just as we cannot control ‘The Stain’ that mars the art after we find out it’s creator is a monster- it does not, however, make you a good or bad person to abstain or not abstain from consuming the art.
This is a conclusion that I mostly agree with… I have thoughts… I have feelings… I think she is mostly right. I think that while I cannot stand to watch Polanski films, that is not an ethical gesture so to speak but rather an action motivated by ‘moral feelings’. It is a result of The Stain outweighing the art, for me. And ultimately, the money that he would make from my one stream is meaningless. It does not materially change Roman Polanski’s life if I watch his movies. So, to say that my abstinence is the ethical choice and makes me a good person does feel incorrect. And I think she is correct that when artists are outed as monsters and the conversation is immediately “well what do we do with his art” it does shift all the focus back onto the perpetrator and away from systems and the victims, which is bad.
But I also think that “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism” is kind of a cop out. I don’t think that individual action is The Solution to anything and, obviously collective action is far superior but I also think that there are levels of non-ethical consumption. It is better to buy clothes from literally anywhere other than Shein- I think it is fair to say that it is the less ethical choice to shop at Shein (even if your individual purchase doesn’t impact their bottom line *that much*). I struggle with where the difference is between something like the consumption of fast fashion and the consumption of art made by what she calls monstrous people… How different is it to give my money to fast fashion (where it will be used to kill the planet and abuse labour) than to give my money and attention to someone who is going to abuse their power and money.
At the end of second last chapter she states, “there is not some correct answer. You are not responsible for finding it. Your feeling of responsibility is a reinforcement of your tragically limited role as a consumer. There is no authority and there should be no authority. You are off the hook. You are inconsistent. You do not need to have a grand unified theory about what to do about Micheal Jackson. You are a hypocrite, over and over. You like Annie Hall but you can barely stand to look at a painting by Pablo Picasso. You are not responsible for solving this unreconcilable contradiction. In fact, you will solve nothing by means of your consumption, the idea that you can is a dead end.” And so, while what I am left with is a convincing argument from Clair Dederer and still complicated feelings towards the sentiment that there is no way to attach morality to consumption, maybe it is not my job to solve that contradiction. Maybe my consumption habits can continue to be fuelled by moral feelings and the balance of The Stain vs my love for art. And maybe that’s okay.
This was kind of a grand slam. I really, really liked the way it was written. It’s accessibly written to the point where you wouldn’t need to have taken classes to be able to understand how to read it or parse out it’s ‘true meaning’ but it still feels like something I could have read in one of my sociology courses, if that makes sense (yay for non fiction that is stimulating but not overly complicated). Also it’s structured in a very logical way and it flows well, which is always appreciated.
The question of how to deal with art made by monstrous people (men, in particular) is so complicated and she approaches it with the appropriate amount of nuance and in such a human way. There is a real understanding of the human desire to consume art/ to not miss out on art, while also understanding the desire to not support monsters, to speak with your dollar, and the way that monstrous acts can stain even brilliant art.
A lot of the complaints about this book lie in its use of memoir but I think that’s one of its strong points!! I don’t think that you can have this conversation without it being personal. It’s not an objective thing and I think it would be disingenuous to try to come at it from a detached viewpoint. Also, consumption habits are so deeply personal that I think it would create a lot more of a defensive feeling in the reader (me) if it didn’t feel like she was going on this journey with you, feeling the contradictions and emotions that you are. And also it makes it more engaging to have a character in your story idk.
Her answer to the question of “what do we do with the art of monstrous men” essentially boils down to the idea that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. She claims consumption is meaningless as an ethical gesture and individual action as a solution is a tool created by The Systems™️ to shift the onus onto consumers. Basically, you can do with the art what you want- we cannot control our love for art just as we cannot control ‘The Stain’ that mars the art after we find out it’s creator is a monster- it does not, however, make you a good or bad person to abstain or not abstain from consuming the art.
This is a conclusion that I mostly agree with… I have thoughts… I have feelings… I think she is mostly right. I think that while I cannot stand to watch Polanski films, that is not an ethical gesture so to speak but rather an action motivated by ‘moral feelings’. It is a result of The Stain outweighing the art, for me. And ultimately, the money that he would make from my one stream is meaningless. It does not materially change Roman Polanski’s life if I watch his movies. So, to say that my abstinence is the ethical choice and makes me a good person does feel incorrect. And I think she is correct that when artists are outed as monsters and the conversation is immediately “well what do we do with his art” it does shift all the focus back onto the perpetrator and away from systems and the victims, which is bad.
But I also think that “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism” is kind of a cop out. I don’t think that individual action is The Solution to anything and, obviously collective action is far superior but I also think that there are levels of non-ethical consumption. It is better to buy clothes from literally anywhere other than Shein- I think it is fair to say that it is the less ethical choice to shop at Shein (even if your individual purchase doesn’t impact their bottom line *that much*). I struggle with where the difference is between something like the consumption of fast fashion and the consumption of art made by what she calls monstrous people… How different is it to give my money to fast fashion (where it will be used to kill the planet and abuse labour) than to give my money and attention to someone who is going to abuse their power and money.
At the end of second last chapter she states, “there is not some correct answer. You are not responsible for finding it. Your feeling of responsibility is a reinforcement of your tragically limited role as a consumer. There is no authority and there should be no authority. You are off the hook. You are inconsistent. You do not need to have a grand unified theory about what to do about Micheal Jackson. You are a hypocrite, over and over. You like Annie Hall but you can barely stand to look at a painting by Pablo Picasso. You are not responsible for solving this unreconcilable contradiction. In fact, you will solve nothing by means of your consumption, the idea that you can is a dead end.” And so, while what I am left with is a convincing argument from Clair Dederer and still complicated feelings towards the sentiment that there is no way to attach morality to consumption, maybe it is not my job to solve that contradiction. Maybe my consumption habits can continue to be fuelled by moral feelings and the balance of The Stain vs my love for art. And maybe that’s okay.
freya_petersen's review against another edition
challenging
dark
hopeful
informative
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
This book is a great starting point for everyone whose life was changed by a piece of art ... only to find out that the artists of that work was/is - well, a monster in one way or another. Claire Dederer takes a long and honest look at a variety of these "monster"artists and their art - and at herself, her dilemma as a fan. What I liked most about this book is that it holds a lot of room for the painful (moral) ambiguities that this topic holds by nature. This book does not try to find THE ONE RIGHT MORAL SOLUTION, it's more of an exploration that takes a look at everything between "i can't look at this person's art anymore because of their horrible deeds" and "you should separate the art from the artist". and encourages every reader to explore their own attitudes (and biases), maybe even case by case. I can't recommend it enough.
carrionlibrarian's review against another edition
3.0
I found the first half of this as a really useful tool for puzzling out how you personally feel about monstrous creatives (even if I fought the urge to roll my eyes at every new fact, I learned about the author herself); each chapter kind of works as prompt for introspection and contemplation.
However, I have to agree with the other reviewers on here that say the second half of this book is much weaker than the first half. The second half spends a lot of time trying to convince the reader that Dederer herself is both a monster and an artist. (Spoiler: I don't think she really qualifies as either)
Outside of Rowling, who she covers in the first half of the book, she really doesn't seem to have looked very hard for 'monsterous' female creatives that don't fit her hypothesis that the worst thing society (and maybe Dederer) thinks a woman can do is abandon her children. And boy is it a stretch sometimes. She talks about Joni Michelle giving a baby up for adoption like it's even at all on par with anything else the men in this book have done while never once mentioning Marion Zimmer Bradley. (Also, I know the truth about Alice Munroe hadn't broken when this book was being written but I bet Dederer is really kicking herself on missing that one).
However, I have to agree with the other reviewers on here that say the second half of this book is much weaker than the first half. The second half spends a lot of time trying to convince the reader that Dederer herself is both a monster and an artist. (Spoiler: I don't think she really qualifies as either)
Outside of Rowling, who she covers in the first half of the book, she really doesn't seem to have looked very hard for 'monsterous' female creatives that don't fit her hypothesis that the worst thing society (and maybe Dederer) thinks a woman can do is abandon her children. And boy is it a stretch sometimes. She talks about Joni Michelle giving a baby up for adoption like it's even at all on par with anything else the men in this book have done while never once mentioning Marion Zimmer Bradley. (Also, I know the truth about Alice Munroe hadn't broken when this book was being written but I bet Dederer is really kicking herself on missing that one).
yawningtiger's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
reflective
sad
slow-paced
4.0
beccamarriner's review against another edition
challenging
dark
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
At the beginning the author mentions a fictional calculator that could help us determine whether or not it is acceptable to consume the art of monsterous people. I was looking for this book to give me the answer instead as it’s a discussion I’ve been involved with since I was a music student. I loved the way it was written, sharing personal experience helped me feel less alone in the emotional conflict I feel, especially with artists I’ve grown up with. I think some chapters were misplaced, primarily about abandoning mothers, purely because I think the space could’ve been dedicated to female monsters with more harmful natures. It didn’t give me a definite answer as to how to approach the artworks but it made me feel like there was a safe space to share any feelings of guilt.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Alcoholism, Homophobia, Rape, and Suicide
Moderate: Sexism and Toxic relationship