Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.82 AVERAGE
3.82 AVERAGE
challenging
informative
reflective
fast-paced
challenging
reflective
challenging
funny
hopeful
informative
reflective
medium-paced
[ décembre 2024 ]
> interesting read, but lowkey felt so underwhelming towards the end and i still feel at a loss with the concluding segments
at first, i was ready to excuse all the faults of the book by blaming it on the fact that it is a very personal narration, one that only Claire Dederer can write, and one not everyone (certainly not I) will relate to -- so yeah you will have to read a lengthy description of how marvelous a random Polanski movie truly is
before going to yap about what made the book disappointing, a few good words about it:
- made me get out of my reading slump, so hey, at least there's that
- a lot of interesting randomly-ordered thoughts that will give me things to ponder about for the next weeks to come
- very personal narrative that i really enjoyed, and i now find it to be the only way for her to talk about the audience (her entire project throughout the book) --> you have to talk about yourself, and I, as the reader, will pick and choose what resonates with me the most (and as she says! the idea is not to be moralistic, i can do that on my own)
- although the comments on the difference between 'we' and 'I' grew a bit repetitive, it made me realise how more powerful it is to write 'I' rather than 'we' (when for instance, she said 'we' when talking about mother-artists, i immediately turned my empathy off and was registering less than I would have had if she used an 'I')
> but it all came to a stop when I read the last two chapters which made me realise how bad the structure of the book is:
Dederer talks about discovering she is a monster herself (due to her struggles with alcoholism), and even though she appears to have come to terms with that, it didn't feel as though she did? i understand how voyeuristic this could have appeared to get an in-depth introspection of how she dealt with it; but at the same time her entire point is that 'we can all be monsters ourselves' so maybe *do* elaborate. this segment has a CLEAR link to the (very) earlier segment about the balance between the evilness of the act and the greatness of the art + as well as to the other segment about Roman Polanski and Woody Allen both having their fair share of trauma (Second World War, the Holocaust, Polanski's wife's murder, etc). and... she does (1) not raise very important questions that could have been raised and (2) does not make a link to that, at all? she also does not give a proper conclusion to the segment on Carver, because it feels she was about to say 'look, this former alcoholic made great art whether it was during his illness or during his sobriety' but she never really said anything?
the last chapters felt like going back to the beginning, not having advanced one tiny bit. she then concludes her chapter with the statement that 'there is no ethical consumption under capitalism so actually it's not your responsibility'... why did we do all this then. what do you make of the BDS movement, what do you make of the boycotting that actually has an impact? yes the problem is capitalism, but shielding behind the fact that 'we're all actually kinda bad and the industry's the problem ;))' is so so underwhelming, and almost rendered to me all her previous words irrelevant
same thing goes with her entire 'emotional' vs 'objective' reasoning dispute (that is rooted in misogyny); she seems to get over it throughout the book and then brings it back towards the end to talk about Miles Davis, and i was just like... all of this for nothing? this dichotomy has CLEARLY been used by authority figures to undermine women's valid responses to art (or anything actually) characterising it as emotional, and as such subjective, and as such bad --> and Dederer talks about that specifically when talking about the Manhattan dinner with the male critic... and yet she doesn't seem to have actually made any character development in the end :(
> interesting read, but lowkey felt so underwhelming towards the end and i still feel at a loss with the concluding segments
at first, i was ready to excuse all the faults of the book by blaming it on the fact that it is a very personal narration, one that only Claire Dederer can write, and one not everyone (certainly not I) will relate to -- so yeah you will have to read a lengthy description of how marvelous a random Polanski movie truly is
before going to yap about what made the book disappointing, a few good words about it:
- made me get out of my reading slump, so hey, at least there's that
- a lot of interesting randomly-ordered thoughts that will give me things to ponder about for the next weeks to come
- very personal narrative that i really enjoyed, and i now find it to be the only way for her to talk about the audience (her entire project throughout the book) --> you have to talk about yourself, and I, as the reader, will pick and choose what resonates with me the most (and as she says! the idea is not to be moralistic, i can do that on my own)
- although the comments on the difference between 'we' and 'I' grew a bit repetitive, it made me realise how more powerful it is to write 'I' rather than 'we' (when for instance, she said 'we' when talking about mother-artists, i immediately turned my empathy off and was registering less than I would have had if she used an 'I')
> but it all came to a stop when I read the last two chapters which made me realise how bad the structure of the book is:
Dederer talks about discovering she is a monster herself (due to her struggles with alcoholism), and even though she appears to have come to terms with that, it didn't feel as though she did? i understand how voyeuristic this could have appeared to get an in-depth introspection of how she dealt with it; but at the same time her entire point is that 'we can all be monsters ourselves' so maybe *do* elaborate. this segment has a CLEAR link to the (very) earlier segment about the balance between the evilness of the act and the greatness of the art + as well as to the other segment about Roman Polanski and Woody Allen both having their fair share of trauma (Second World War, the Holocaust, Polanski's wife's murder, etc). and... she does (1) not raise very important questions that could have been raised and (2) does not make a link to that, at all? she also does not give a proper conclusion to the segment on Carver, because it feels she was about to say 'look, this former alcoholic made great art whether it was during his illness or during his sobriety' but she never really said anything?
the last chapters felt like going back to the beginning, not having advanced one tiny bit. she then concludes her chapter with the statement that 'there is no ethical consumption under capitalism so actually it's not your responsibility'... why did we do all this then. what do you make of the BDS movement, what do you make of the boycotting that actually has an impact? yes the problem is capitalism, but shielding behind the fact that 'we're all actually kinda bad and the industry's the problem ;))' is so so underwhelming, and almost rendered to me all her previous words irrelevant
same thing goes with her entire 'emotional' vs 'objective' reasoning dispute (that is rooted in misogyny); she seems to get over it throughout the book and then brings it back towards the end to talk about Miles Davis, and i was just like... all of this for nothing? this dichotomy has CLEARLY been used by authority figures to undermine women's valid responses to art (or anything actually) characterising it as emotional, and as such subjective, and as such bad --> and Dederer talks about that specifically when talking about the Manhattan dinner with the male critic... and yet she doesn't seem to have actually made any character development in the end :(
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
reflective
medium-paced
challenging
reflective
tense
medium-paced
emotional
informative
reflective
dark
informative
reflective
medium-paced
It turns out the only person whose thoughts I care about this much is me
challenging
informative
reflective
fast-paced