Reviews tagging 'Self harm'

Monsters: A Fan's Dilemma by Claire Dederer

9 reviews

grunbean's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous informative reflective medium-paced

4.0

I don’t read non-fiction, this was an exception for a book club. After reading this, I definitely want to try reading more memoirs!

I feel it is important to read this as a memoir as opposed to an essay. While there is analysis and plenty of examples referred to, this reads as a reflection of the author’s own experience with engaging with art created by bad people. Not all the artists are talked about at the same length, and you’ll find that there’s a lot of kinds of monster in here. 

I did find some of the examples of female artists confusing. They don’t generally equate to the literal crimes written about for male artists. It does add some balance, though, if this is in here for balance it may have been interesting to explore queer examples too.

I really enjoyed this, and I liked the conclusion it came too. It definitely encouraged me to think more about the parasocial relationships with artists, and how we can reconcile this when they’re revealed to be bad people. 


Expand filter menu Content Warnings

candlewaster's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark informative reflective slow-paced

3.0


Expand filter menu Content Warnings

nstew16's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging hopeful reflective sad medium-paced

4.5

Very accessible. At times it felt almost too casual for me, but I think that is part of the success of the book. It can reach a variety of people and acts as an open ended conversation between reader/author.

Expand filter menu Content Warnings

randeerebecca's review against another edition

Go to review page

informative reflective slow-paced

1.0

This book basically feels like the author is being an apologist for “monstrous” behavior without coming right out and saying it because she’s a self-proclaimed feminist. I see her feminism, but I think it’s very simplistic and minimally intersectional. She starts the book off by arguing that use of the word “monster” for men who are abusers (i.e. Harvey Weinstein, Roman Polanski, Bill Cosby, etc.) is so that as individuals, we don’t need to acknowledge our own potential for those kinds of behaviors. Which is an interesting perspective, but also a flimsy excuse. At times, it seemed like the author was arguing this point simply to make herself feel better about continuing to consume art when she felt guilty doing so because of the creator’s crimes and behaviors. She also goes on to blame the internet because now people have to know that their beloved cultural icons have done horrible things - it seems to me she’d rather live in ignorance? There’s a simple solution, of course. The author personally does not have to engage with social media, the very thing she blames.

There were a few bits that really felt yucky to me:
  • criticizing queer kids’ use of tumblr for “unbodied connection” with fandoms. Tell me you’re not queer without telling me? This is so ignorant of how isolating it can be to exist as queer, especially in small communities, and how important it can be to connect with others like you over something meaningful. But it’s wild because she later talks about being a weird kid needing connection and she got that from David Bowie music and fans? So she clearly understands the need, but maybe not the context.
  • Listed men who have been found to be abusive and pedophilic as examples of cultural “monsters,” and THEN followed that by listing women who had mental health problems and said “does self harm count?”
  • On Picasso’s abusive behavior towards women: “Picasso is the victim of, the servant to, his own impulses.”
  • Implied that the reason society went after Woody Allen and Roman Polanski for their pedophilia is because they are Jewish and our society is anti-Semitic… not because they assaulted children or anything…
  • Sylvia Plath is included in this book on cultural “monsters” because her suicide was a “violent act” against patriarchy, supposedly. The reality is that she was clinically depressed in the midst of heartbreak. The author does state that Plath was not a monster, so why is she even included in this discussion?
  • She conflates recovery from addiction to someone needing support for their “monstrous” behavior (i.e. pedophilia, abuse, violence)

The message at the end, summed up: we’re all monsters and all victims and what we do doesn’t make a difference anyway, so consume the media created by perpetrators 👎🏻

I will give her this: she made a point to say that memoir should be description and not prescription, meaning she doesn’t feel a person’s views espoused in their memoir(s) should automatically be taken as life advice by readers. Which is good, because I certainly won’t with hers.

Expand filter menu Content Warnings

nexusgoblin's review against another edition

Go to review page

informative reflective medium-paced

3.5

If you're going into this looking for an answer on how to deal with the monsters in our media, you won't find one. This is very much a personal look at how the author views and deals with it, and how as a collective it's not an easy answer to form. 

Expand filter menu Content Warnings

hduc's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark emotional hopeful informative inspiring reflective medium-paced

5.0

This book deals with monstrous people. Of course there will be disturbing stories. But fear not, take one or two pages at a time. You would come out of this book a heart lighter.

Expand filter menu Content Warnings

chelseadoherty's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging informative reflective medium-paced

4.0


Expand filter menu Content Warnings

jainabee's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark funny informative reflective medium-paced

5.0

I am so glad this book exists because I NEEDED it. It needed to exist in the world. The question of how to balance fandom of my favorite works of creativity with the toxic and destructive behaviors of the creators is an issue that torments me. Dederer directly addresses some of my own pet monsters; Woody Allen, David Bowie, JK Rowling, Miles Davis. This book makes me think a LOT. This book is very uncomfortable in a vitally important way. This book challenges me in ways I needed. The chapter comparing and contrasting Valerie Solanas and Sylvia Plath (!!!!!) flipped my wig with the brilliance of unexpected insights about how women respond to the violence of misogyny. The chapter about Lolita is a sparkling gem of brilliant insight and analysis that might be the best review of it I've ever read (spoiler alert: Nabokov is not a monster, though he is a genius). This book is FULL of triggering content, as it describes the crimes of the creators. No way around that. The point of the book seems to be to face the monsters directly and feel the extremely uncomfortable dilemma between loving something, even the monster, "even after everything." I got a lot to think about here.

Expand filter menu Content Warnings

aqtbenz's review against another edition

Go to review page

Not what I thought this was going to be

Expand filter menu Content Warnings
More...