You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.81 AVERAGE
3.81 AVERAGE
2.5 stars
This entire book is predicated on the false premise that Great Art is a finite resource.
There were some bits of it that I liked specifically the parts where she discussed parasocial relationships, intersectionality, and fascism. Her analysis of Lolita was fantastic. If anything, she can write.
However, it was unfocused. More of an exploration into her own personal feelings and experiences rather than any objective look weighing cause and effect that I had hoped for. Her espousing on the vice or virtue of selfishness is widely unnecessary in this piece of commentary about good art by bad people. And, ultimately, in answering "what do we do with bad art by good people?" it fell flat.
<i>“I wanted to write an autobiography of the audience.”</i> On who’s fucking authority? You don’t speak for me, American woman I've never met.
Her writing feels self-important. I don’t like her approach. She paints herself as some bleeding heart academic and I don’t buy it. It’s disingenuous. She’s so self aggrandizing. So self-pitying. Like this is her burden to bear. Girl, get up.
This would go hard for people who stake their entire moral character and personality on the media they consume.
I have a problem with people who engage with art, people who think of themselves as art critics but have they themselves never produced an original work of art. These people seem to think that good art is in the hands of geniuses, but this is simply not the case because good art is in the hands of the public. Anybody can make good art. In fact, everybody SHOULD make good art because that is what it means to be human.
My answer to what do we do with great art by bad people is ignore it. We are in no shortage of great art. Great art is everywhere if you look for it. Look beyond the curated galleries of what taste makers and gatekeepers tell you is good art. Good art is in the hands of your local artist in the art markets trying to sell merchandise that they made with their own hands. Good art isn’t the hands of your little cousin picking up a crayon for the first time. Good art is in the hands of that YouTube musician with under 200 subscribers. Good art is in your hands if you have the courage to put in the time and effort. Great art is everywhere we do not have to be shackled to these perceived “masterpieces” made by bad people.
Why is it so easy for me to "abandon" art that I love, formative pieces in my life, made by monsters? Because I value human life and safety infinitely more than any piece of art. We love art because it is an expression of human life, thought, and experiences never the other way around.
The answer to what we do with great art by bad people is redefine what we think of as great art. The correct answer is to make more art.
This entire book is predicated on the false premise that Great Art is a finite resource.
There were some bits of it that I liked specifically the parts where she discussed parasocial relationships, intersectionality, and fascism. Her analysis of Lolita was fantastic. If anything, she can write.
However, it was unfocused. More of an exploration into her own personal feelings and experiences rather than any objective look weighing cause and effect that I had hoped for. Her espousing on the vice or virtue of selfishness is widely unnecessary in this piece of commentary about good art by bad people. And, ultimately, in answering "what do we do with bad art by good people?" it fell flat.
<i>“I wanted to write an autobiography of the audience.”</i> On who’s fucking authority? You don’t speak for me, American woman I've never met.
Her writing feels self-important. I don’t like her approach. She paints herself as some bleeding heart academic and I don’t buy it. It’s disingenuous. She’s so self aggrandizing. So self-pitying. Like this is her burden to bear. Girl, get up.
This would go hard for people who stake their entire moral character and personality on the media they consume.
I have a problem with people who engage with art, people who think of themselves as art critics but have they themselves never produced an original work of art. These people seem to think that good art is in the hands of geniuses, but this is simply not the case because good art is in the hands of the public. Anybody can make good art. In fact, everybody SHOULD make good art because that is what it means to be human.
My answer to what do we do with great art by bad people is ignore it. We are in no shortage of great art. Great art is everywhere if you look for it. Look beyond the curated galleries of what taste makers and gatekeepers tell you is good art. Good art is in the hands of your local artist in the art markets trying to sell merchandise that they made with their own hands. Good art isn’t the hands of your little cousin picking up a crayon for the first time. Good art is in the hands of that YouTube musician with under 200 subscribers. Good art is in your hands if you have the courage to put in the time and effort. Great art is everywhere we do not have to be shackled to these perceived “masterpieces” made by bad people.
Why is it so easy for me to "abandon" art that I love, formative pieces in my life, made by monsters? Because I value human life and safety infinitely more than any piece of art. We love art because it is an expression of human life, thought, and experiences never the other way around.
The answer to what we do with great art by bad people is redefine what we think of as great art. The correct answer is to make more art.
challenging
reflective
slow-paced
slow-paced
If I had to hear about Claire’s island or the Pacific Northwest one more time I was going to lose it.
This is just a thinly veiled memoir filled with personal anecdotes and meandering tangents. Truly all over the place and comes to the obvious conclusion that “it’s just complicated!” No shit!
Also, this just seems like some long winded excuse so Claire can watch Allen and Polanski movies in peace.
This is just a thinly veiled memoir filled with personal anecdotes and meandering tangents. Truly all over the place and comes to the obvious conclusion that “it’s just complicated!” No shit!
Also, this just seems like some long winded excuse so Claire can watch Allen and Polanski movies in peace.
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
reflective
medium-paced
"That is: love us not reliant on judgement, but on a decision to set judgement aside. Love is anarchy. Love is chaos. We don't love the deserving; we love flawed and imperfect human beings, in an emotional logic that belongs to an entirely weather system than the chilly climate of reason.
Pearl Cleage-in her older, mellower days-softened toward Miles. She spoke of him with tenderness, with sadness, with feeling: " We can just hope the next time he comes around his spirit and personality will be as lovely as his music". We can just hope." (257)
-----
This is a hard book because of the content. From drunks, abusers, women who abandon children; the author really throws in the kitchen sink on the subject of monsters and the art we love. But the author writes a book honoring the voices of not just fans like herself but also the voices of victims like herself. I'm still not sure hiw to recommend this book. I think it's moving. I think it's a critique of a system that makes monsters. I think it's a critique of fandoms. I think it's a subtle critique of what we capp cancel culture. But it ends with a sense of hope that maybe art can be honored but also somehow how put in the context of horrible people but it starts with accountability and honesty of the art and the monsters who created. For a subject so complicated, the author ends us with that complicated solution. It'll take me some time to process this book but I'm giving it 4 out of 5 stars.
Pearl Cleage-in her older, mellower days-softened toward Miles. She spoke of him with tenderness, with sadness, with feeling: " We can just hope the next time he comes around his spirit and personality will be as lovely as his music". We can just hope." (257)
-----
This is a hard book because of the content. From drunks, abusers, women who abandon children; the author really throws in the kitchen sink on the subject of monsters and the art we love. But the author writes a book honoring the voices of not just fans like herself but also the voices of victims like herself. I'm still not sure hiw to recommend this book. I think it's moving. I think it's a critique of a system that makes monsters. I think it's a critique of fandoms. I think it's a subtle critique of what we capp cancel culture. But it ends with a sense of hope that maybe art can be honored but also somehow how put in the context of horrible people but it starts with accountability and honesty of the art and the monsters who created. For a subject so complicated, the author ends us with that complicated solution. It'll take me some time to process this book but I'm giving it 4 out of 5 stars.
reflective
slow-paced
This book really meanders in its subject matter, and I feel she conflates actions and “crimes” that are not even in the same ballpark (abandoning mothers vs violent sexual crimes against minors). She’s really just using the “what do we do with great art by bad people?” Question as jumping-off-point for all her thoughts about monsters and monstrosity in general. The real question at the heart of this book is “Isn’t everyone, on some level, monstrous? And if so, where do we draw the line of who gets forgiveness/redemption and who doesn’t? If we expect to be forgiven, shouldn’t we also be expected to forgive?” And she doesn’t have a clear answer for you -not that I really expected she would-
I loved some of this book and in other places it dragged and things felt out of place for what the book is claiming to be about. My favourite chapter was her analysis of Nabakov’s Lolita.
I loved some of this book and in other places it dragged and things felt out of place for what the book is claiming to be about. My favourite chapter was her analysis of Nabakov’s Lolita.
Monsters: What Do We Do With Great Art By Bad People? by Claire Dederer
My very first non-fiction read of 2025! I was drawn to this book by its cover, and I did the thing we are so often taught not to do, and I judged it. The pink made it stand out and the title, as well as the concept of this book, had me very intrigued. As always, this review contains spoilers so if you haven’t read it and aren’t looking for specifics about it then don’t read any further.
Monsters discusses an issue that has risen so crucially within the modern age of art, media, film, music, and the literary scene as well. The division between the art and the artist. How can us as fans still enjoy a piece of art if we find out the person who created it is immoral? Does that make us immoral for liking the art? Can we continue to enjoy it?
One argument that Dederer makes is using the situation with J.K. Rowling which I think is especially interesting as I am a fan of the Harry Potter books. I was raised in the wizarding world - the films, the books, the merch. So were many queer kids and trans kids as well. So Rowling doing what she did created such a struggle for LGBTQ+ Harry Potter fans because Harry Potter is such a comforting and wonderful thing on its own, but it now feels so tainted and disappointing when you remember who’s hand was on the pen. So can I continue to like Harry Potter? Even if I don’t spend any money towards the franchise, is it wrong of me to talk about how much I love the Prisoner of Azkaban knowing how harmful the views of the woman who wrote it are, and how her views contradict my own? Unfortunately, this book doesn’t give any answers to these kinds of questions. In fact, it kinds of just leads you on in an ongoing struggle that has no conclusion whatsoever.
A lot of this book also felt very memoir-like, which I wasn’t expecting and didn’t really enjoy. I picked up this book because of the topic it was said to discuss, not because I wanted to know about Claire Dederer and her friends’ opinions. For a non-fiction, I was expecting there to be more of a basis in the philosophical element behind it, perhaps in sociology or psychology. But there just wasn’t any. It just felt like one long twitter thread of people talking about the issue, who knew some things, but not a lot things. People who talk for the sake of talking.
I do think that the topic Dederer has presented is important and needs to be discussed, I just don’t think she was entirely successful in her aims when it came to this book. At least, it didn’t meet my expectations. So I recommend to people, especially readers, to do your research into this idea of the dichotomy between art and artist, and what you feel comfortable with when it comes to contributing towards art. At the end of the day it’s all about being mindful of your own views and who you are supporting.
My very first non-fiction read of 2025! I was drawn to this book by its cover, and I did the thing we are so often taught not to do, and I judged it. The pink made it stand out and the title, as well as the concept of this book, had me very intrigued. As always, this review contains spoilers so if you haven’t read it and aren’t looking for specifics about it then don’t read any further.
Monsters discusses an issue that has risen so crucially within the modern age of art, media, film, music, and the literary scene as well. The division between the art and the artist. How can us as fans still enjoy a piece of art if we find out the person who created it is immoral? Does that make us immoral for liking the art? Can we continue to enjoy it?
One argument that Dederer makes is using the situation with J.K. Rowling which I think is especially interesting as I am a fan of the Harry Potter books. I was raised in the wizarding world - the films, the books, the merch. So were many queer kids and trans kids as well. So Rowling doing what she did created such a struggle for LGBTQ+ Harry Potter fans because Harry Potter is such a comforting and wonderful thing on its own, but it now feels so tainted and disappointing when you remember who’s hand was on the pen. So can I continue to like Harry Potter? Even if I don’t spend any money towards the franchise, is it wrong of me to talk about how much I love the Prisoner of Azkaban knowing how harmful the views of the woman who wrote it are, and how her views contradict my own? Unfortunately, this book doesn’t give any answers to these kinds of questions. In fact, it kinds of just leads you on in an ongoing struggle that has no conclusion whatsoever.
A lot of this book also felt very memoir-like, which I wasn’t expecting and didn’t really enjoy. I picked up this book because of the topic it was said to discuss, not because I wanted to know about Claire Dederer and her friends’ opinions. For a non-fiction, I was expecting there to be more of a basis in the philosophical element behind it, perhaps in sociology or psychology. But there just wasn’t any. It just felt like one long twitter thread of people talking about the issue, who knew some things, but not a lot things. People who talk for the sake of talking.
I do think that the topic Dederer has presented is important and needs to be discussed, I just don’t think she was entirely successful in her aims when it came to this book. At least, it didn’t meet my expectations. So I recommend to people, especially readers, to do your research into this idea of the dichotomy between art and artist, and what you feel comfortable with when it comes to contributing towards art. At the end of the day it’s all about being mindful of your own views and who you are supporting.
dark
informative