Scan barcode
A review by mirandaleighhhh
Monsters: A Fan's Dilemma by Claire Dederer
medium-paced
1.5
Upon discovering this I was really intrigued - the question of ethics and morality in separating the art from the artist is one I spend a lot of time thinking about. However- and people have gone more in depth with their review than I have the energy for after spending 10 hours listening to the author ponder this- this is unorganized and messy and upon reflection, this being a memoir is confusing and ultimately weakens a lot of the point. Because it’s trying to answer one overarching question, it dangerously compares “monsters” who an*lly r*pe 10 year olds to alcoholics? or women who “abandon” their children? (give them up for adoption or who work?)
It’s not that nothing ever made sense- she had a lot of takes that I agreed with - but honestly and truly this ended up reading like a woman who still has a lot of guilt and who has healing to do over her own life's actions. There is a lot of projection even and most especially when she is explicitly trying not to. There’s a lot of white woman guilt too it seems.
Most of all I hated her emphasis on peoples bad deeds creating a “stain” on their past and future actions…and there was a fucked up sentence regarding Michael Jackson when she first presented this concept…but anyway, the whole stain thing made her comparisons even more wild. Sylvia Plath’s suicide (her stain) and Woody Allen’s abuse of woman (his stain) are two completely different things.
And then she ends everything with mentioning how there are “monsters” in our lives that we still love. Like yes but…arent we talking about artists we don’t personally know and never will? So why are you ending it with “its all love yall” ???
I think this is a nuanced topic with lots to be said, and she says some of it, but her zooming in and out and in and out without thoughtful connection irritated me. She also doesn’t really discuss the question of platforming or financially supporting (ie buying merchandise or making the person money) a “monster” who is very much alive, which I think is an important piece of this whole fucking thing!
I cannot recommend this, especially the audio, and I can see how this would trigger a lot of people.
It’s not that nothing ever made sense- she had a lot of takes that I agreed with - but honestly and truly this ended up reading like a woman who still has a lot of guilt and who has healing to do over her own life's actions. There is a lot of projection even and most especially when she is explicitly trying not to. There’s a lot of white woman guilt too it seems.
Most of all I hated her emphasis on peoples bad deeds creating a “stain” on their past and future actions…and there was a fucked up sentence regarding Michael Jackson when she first presented this concept…but anyway, the whole stain thing made her comparisons even more wild. Sylvia Plath’s suicide (her stain) and Woody Allen’s abuse of woman (his stain) are two completely different things.
And then she ends everything with mentioning how there are “monsters” in our lives that we still love. Like yes but…arent we talking about artists we don’t personally know and never will? So why are you ending it with “its all love yall” ???
I think this is a nuanced topic with lots to be said, and she says some of it, but her zooming in and out and in and out without thoughtful connection irritated me. She also doesn’t really discuss the question of platforming or financially supporting (ie buying merchandise or making the person money) a “monster” who is very much alive, which I think is an important piece of this whole fucking thing!
I cannot recommend this, especially the audio, and I can see how this would trigger a lot of people.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Addiction, Alcoholism, Child abuse, Rape, and Abandonment