You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
Reviews tagging 'Rape'
Monsters: What do we do with great art by bad people? by Claire Dederer
113 reviews
challenging
emotional
reflective
medium-paced
Monsters made my head spin a little bit. There were moments where I found it illuminating to the point of profundity, and other times where I was so frustrated with the book and its messaging that I was ready to stop reading altogether. I think the word “Dilemma” in the book’s subtitle does a lot of heavy lifting to see where Dederer is coming from. More philosophical treatise on how art lovers deal with the way art, selfishness, and cruelty often go hand-in-hand than a reckoning for the monster themselves, your mileage may vary, but I’m glad I read it.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Adult/minor relationship, Infidelity, Mental illness, Misogyny, Pedophilia, Racism, Rape, Sexism, Sexual assault, Suicide, Antisemitism, Suicide attempt, Schizophrenia/Psychosis , Abandonment, Alcohol
informative
medium-paced
Content Warnings
Graphic: Child abuse, Pedophilia, Rape, Sexual assault, Sexual violence
Moderate: Addiction, Adult/minor relationship, Alcoholism, Sexual assault, Suicide, Transphobia, Alcohol
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Claire Dederer's question is brilliant and refreshing -- how does the average fan reconcile the moral contradiction of loving an artist, while knowing the evil they've committed?
But surprisingly, what this book ends up doing is meandering through unoriginal thoughts, well-trodden territory. Even an uncultured plebe like me remembers Ali Wong making the point of wanting a wife, and authors like Rachel Cusk and Elena Ferrante covering plenty of ground on the conflicts of motherhood and art. In the concluding pages, Dederer's thoughts finally arrive at the revelation that we're only human, and so are our idols. Yep.
I'd also refute this idea of removing moral obligations from the fan. It feels like the soul-cleansed mantra of our time -- everything is pointless, so none of it is my fault. How about acknowledging that what we consume and idolize becomes a part of us, how we think and therefore how we act and relate to the world, how we treat our fellow humans and shape society, who we honor and who we ignore?
There's not even a thought about how we have unprecedented access to art, an abundance of choice -- we can discard our artists and idols with lightning-fast ease, blocks and unfollows, so why are we harping on about loving the abusers and rapists?
I think what especially bothers me is the tone of privilege throughout, like watching someone discover empathy for the first time.
I do appreciate "Monsters'' for asking the question that's made me so incensed, and search more deeply within my own participation in consumerism and fandoms, expression and art.
But surprisingly, what this book ends up doing is meandering through unoriginal thoughts, well-trodden territory. Even an uncultured plebe like me remembers Ali Wong making the point of wanting a wife, and authors like Rachel Cusk and Elena Ferrante covering plenty of ground on the conflicts of motherhood and art. In the concluding pages, Dederer's thoughts finally arrive at the revelation that we're only human, and so are our idols. Yep.
I'd also refute this idea of removing moral obligations from the fan. It feels like the soul-cleansed mantra of our time -- everything is pointless, so none of it is my fault. How about acknowledging that what we consume and idolize becomes a part of us, how we think and therefore how we act and relate to the world, how we treat our fellow humans and shape society, who we honor and who we ignore?
There's not even a thought about how we have unprecedented access to art, an abundance of choice -- we can discard our artists and idols with lightning-fast ease, blocks and unfollows, so why are we harping on about loving the abusers and rapists?
I think what especially bothers me is the tone of privilege throughout, like watching someone discover empathy for the first time.
I do appreciate "Monsters'' for asking the question that's made me so incensed, and search more deeply within my own participation in consumerism and fandoms, expression and art.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Adult/minor relationship, Alcoholism, Cursing, Domestic abuse, Gun violence, Infidelity, Misogyny, Pedophilia, Physical abuse, Rape, Sexism, Suicide, Antisemitism
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
hopeful
reflective
sad
fast-paced
I was going to rate this book 3.25 stars, but the last two chapters brought up my rating by half a star. They, for me, were the most memorable part of the book and contain a lot of the key things I will take away from my reading experience of this book. However, the only way these chapters can come is to understand everything from those previous. Additionally, the previous chapters gain another layer of value when looked back on with the lens of having read the whole book.
I've had my eye on this book for a while, and I have to admit I was slightly nervous to actually pick it up, worried what I would find inside, and I think that is exactly the reason why I did pick it up. It is a book on monsters who've made art, and that is to say, a large chunk of the people who've made art. The book discuses many specific cases, but also takes a holistic view of the larger situation, recognising that both the finer details and bigger pictures are important. There are a few people in this book that I do not know of, which is probably due to the fact I was born in 2005, but despite not being aware of some specific artists and their art, I was still interested to read about what they had done and what they had made and what the author had to say about them - I obviously still felt the anger towards these peoples' crimes, but I had not interacted with their art and did not have an existing feeling towards their art prior to learning of their crimes, and therefore my feelings will differ from those who did. However, I was - sadly - able to relate a lot of the circumstances to artists that I have been aware of.
This leads to a point which, for me, is one of the most memorable from the book. I will enclose it in spoiler tags, although I'm not sure it really classes as a spoiler, but just in case.Throughout a lot of this book, the idea of objectivity vs subjectivity is discussed. In academic circles (beginning in school), objectivity is valued as the gold standard for reviewing etc, which is slightly insane for multiple reasons, which are discussed in this book. To begin, no one experiences the world through an objective lens. That just isn't possible, as real people experience real things through their own lens and their own experiences, and their emotions and feelings play an enormous part in how they take in anything, most notably for this book, how they take in art. Secondly, Dederer points out that too often 'objectivity' and 'subjective perspective of middle-class straight white men' are conflated, and the perspective of anyone else or any other group of people is dismissed as 'subjective' and 'just based on feeling', which could both be applied to the supposedly 'objective' perspective, as as Dederer says, isn't feeling what almost everything is based on? This idea is something I have always thought about, having been a neurodivergent, queer (and white, and having been afforded the privilege that comes with that) girl and now woman in a world very much built for straight white neurotypical men, something which they do not even realise. This book told of conversations and ideas which echoed a situation from a couple of years ago, where I had been trying to talk to a male relative about how the world is built for men, and almost before listening to a word I had to say, he said 'Who said the world is built for men?' and started to talk about sources, when the fact that it is has always been plain to see for every woman. Overall, Dederer's point that subjectivity is important as it is far more real than objectivity, affirmed what I've felt for a long time but struggled to put into words.
The book also discusses who is afforded this chance to be both a monster and a revered artist, and how these people are always men. Men who've been afforded the status of 'genius' are allowed to commit heinous crimes and people will still love their work, while the bar is much lower for women. This was a very necessary discussion, and I agreed with a large part of it. However, it was during some of this discussion where I had a major problem. Sylvia Plath's self harm was repeatedly discussed alongside awful crimes committed by people against other people. Self harm is not a crime. Self harm does not make someone a monster. The difference was briefly mentioned, but I do not know why self harm had to even be mentioned. The rest of the book mainly discusses monstrous men who had committed vile crimes - mainly towards women - and Sylvia Plath does not belong. She was a victim of monsters, she was not a monster. It made me quite upset to see her discussed alongside someone who had shot other people, as these acts are not remotely the same.
Capitalism and its effects are discussed throughout this book. This is a vital layer of the discussion, and I appreciated a lot of her comments on this. In the final chapters,Dederer discusses how in reality, each person's individual choice on whether or not to engage with art is much more important in the scope of their life than it is in a larger capitalist scope, where individual choices make very little difference. On the whole, I agree with her point, and it is an argument I will often chose to have, as those with power often like to deflect responsibility onto individuals, making it their responsibility to make minute changes, distracting from the need for systemic change, which would actually have an effect, with the most obvious example being climate change. However, it is not acknowledged that a large scale action by many individuals, in some circumstances, can have a significant effect, for example when boycotting companies that provide material support to unjust military campaigns, as removing a large flow of money is effective. On the whole, Dederer's point applies, asserting that while individuals agonise over decisions on whether to consume art, considering whether it makes them a good or bad person to either not consume or consume, there are enormous capitalist systems which commit enormous atrocities and are run by people who appear to be able to sleep soundly at night, and this is the real problem.
In the final chapter, the question that has hovered over the whole book is addressed. "What do we do about the monsters that we love? Those who are in our immediate circles? Those who we know in real life and interact with regularly?" This is something that I was glad to see addressed, as I feel that this is the more immediate question, the more valuable question, the one that we should be asking. Dederer does not address this in as much depth as I would have liked, but then it is not the subject of the book, so I was not expecting the depth that had been used to examine cases pertinent to the main question of the book. However, it is a subject I would be interested to read more about.
Overall, although a lot of what was discussed was not ground-breaking, it was very interesting to read about all of these issues and others together, linked by the question of 'what do we do with great art by bad people?' And it was very interesting to read how it was summed up at the end. I would recommend this book to most people, ensuring that they would be okay with some of the subject matter discussed (although rarely are the crimes gone into in great details, rather they are normally named and sometimes circumstances are described), as the topic applies to everyone, as everyone is a consumer, and the world of art - and the rest of the world - is full of great things made by bad people.
I've had my eye on this book for a while, and I have to admit I was slightly nervous to actually pick it up, worried what I would find inside, and I think that is exactly the reason why I did pick it up. It is a book on monsters who've made art, and that is to say, a large chunk of the people who've made art. The book discuses many specific cases, but also takes a holistic view of the larger situation, recognising that both the finer details and bigger pictures are important. There are a few people in this book that I do not know of, which is probably due to the fact I was born in 2005, but despite not being aware of some specific artists and their art, I was still interested to read about what they had done and what they had made and what the author had to say about them - I obviously still felt the anger towards these peoples' crimes, but I had not interacted with their art and did not have an existing feeling towards their art prior to learning of their crimes, and therefore my feelings will differ from those who did. However, I was - sadly - able to relate a lot of the circumstances to artists that I have been aware of.
This leads to a point which, for me, is one of the most memorable from the book. I will enclose it in spoiler tags, although I'm not sure it really classes as a spoiler, but just in case.
The book also discusses who is afforded this chance to be both a monster and a revered artist, and how these people are always men. Men who've been afforded the status of 'genius' are allowed to commit heinous crimes and people will still love their work, while the bar is much lower for women. This was a very necessary discussion, and I agreed with a large part of it. However, it was during some of this discussion where I had a major problem. Sylvia Plath's self harm was repeatedly discussed alongside awful crimes committed by people against other people. Self harm is not a crime. Self harm does not make someone a monster. The difference was briefly mentioned, but I do not know why self harm had to even be mentioned. The rest of the book mainly discusses monstrous men who had committed vile crimes - mainly towards women - and Sylvia Plath does not belong. She was a victim of monsters, she was not a monster. It made me quite upset to see her discussed alongside someone who had shot other people, as these acts are not remotely the same.
Capitalism and its effects are discussed throughout this book. This is a vital layer of the discussion, and I appreciated a lot of her comments on this. In the final chapters,
Overall, although a lot of what was discussed was not ground-breaking, it was very interesting to read about all of these issues and others together, linked by the question of 'what do we do with great art by bad people?' And it was very interesting to read how it was summed up at the end. I would recommend this book to most people, ensuring that they would be okay with some of the subject matter discussed (although rarely are the crimes gone into in great details, rather they are normally named and sometimes circumstances are described), as the topic applies to everyone, as everyone is a consumer, and the world of art - and the rest of the world - is full of great things made by bad people.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Addiction, Adult/minor relationship, Alcoholism, Child abuse, Pedophilia, Rape, Suicide
Moderate: Gun violence, Racism, Self harm, Sexual violence, Transphobia, Violence, Antisemitism
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
hopeful
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Content Warnings
Moderate: Alcoholism, Child abuse, Domestic abuse, Misogyny, Rape, Sexual assault, Sexual violence, Sexual harassment
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
informative
reflective
tense
medium-paced
Read my complete review at Bookisshh.com
Content Warnings
Graphic: Addiction, Adult/minor relationship, Alcoholism, Child abuse, Death, Mental illness, Misogyny, Pedophilia, Rape, Self harm, Sexism, Sexual assault, Sexual content, Sexual violence, Suicidal thoughts, Suicide, Terminal illness, Toxic relationship, Violence, Trafficking, Religious bigotry, Suicide attempt, Schizophrenia/Psychosis , Alcohol, Sexual harassment
challenging
reflective
medium-paced
I can't explain it well but I just loved the book. It was nuanced, personal and thoughtful. I really enjoyed how it was structured and narrated. I would recommend it to anyone interested in the "art of bad people" dilemma.
Content Warnings
Minor: Infidelity, Pedophilia, Racism, Rape, Suicide, Violence, Antisemitism
challenging
dark
informative
reflective
medium-paced
I have to agree with what a lot of other people have been saying in regards to this book; great in the first half, more of jumbled confused mess in the second.
There are several stand out chapters in the first half (most of which feature in part an artist who has done a monstrous thing) that I found gave me a new perspective and ideas to futher reflect on. Dederer spends a lot of this first half on society's reactions to an artist's crimes, from the fans to the critics (mainly herself) and gets across that to the audience it is far more emotional than logical when it comes to dealing with work you love being tainted by the artist's crimes. It was quite an enjoyable read throughout this part (the section which she discusses people using the excuse "they didn't know any better" in regards to monsterous artists of the past, using Richard Wagner as an example, was really eye opening to me).
I think the biggest problem with the second half of the book is made prominent with the chapter "Am I a Monster?", where Dederer makes this too autobiographical by asking herself if she is as bad as the artists featured in the previous chapters. It isn't the first instant of her adding her own biography into the book (she does state that one's own feelings on these issues effects their opinions on the artists) but here it just makes it so that she appears to think that her alcoholism makes her just as bad as the rapists, pedophiles and murders. This is where the book falls too far into an uninteresting memoir that did not engage with me and the conflation only continues from there.
There is also something quite irksome about her chapter "Abandoning Mothers", where she states that "If the male crime is rape, the female crime is the failure to nuture. The abandonment of children is the worst thing a woman can do". The problem is, there is a long list of women artists who have done far more horrific things, to children and others, than to abandon. It really felt like she didn't really try to find monstrous women (with the execption of J K Rowling, Virignia Woolf & Valerie Solanas) and her statement of a "failure to nuture" just seems sexist. I was unsure if she meant it in terms of what society deems the worst thing a woman can do, but throughout the chapter she writes about her own experiences with motherhood and how she sees abandonment as terrible (which it is but again, the worst thing?).
This isn't a completely valueless book, but by it's conclusion I find that it's a bit of a cop-out, where Dederer, by weaving her memoir through the book, tries to assuage her guilt by basically stating that there's no ethical consumption under capitalism and that we can't help what we love so we should just enjoy the art. While their is some truth to that, using the "no ethical consumption under capitalism" argument just removes all responsibility from the audience. Yes, we did not commit these horrid acts but should that mean we should still support the artists if they are continuing to hurt others or avoid consequences for their actions? Shouldn't we mitigate harm instead? Buy art second hand e.t.c.?
We can still enjoy said art and critique it. However, instead of ending it with nuance, Dederer ends it with very little. One size fits all.
There are several stand out chapters in the first half (most of which feature in part an artist who has done a monstrous thing) that I found gave me a new perspective and ideas to futher reflect on. Dederer spends a lot of this first half on society's reactions to an artist's crimes, from the fans to the critics (mainly herself) and gets across that to the audience it is far more emotional than logical when it comes to dealing with work you love being tainted by the artist's crimes. It was quite an enjoyable read throughout this part (the section which she discusses people using the excuse "they didn't know any better" in regards to monsterous artists of the past, using Richard Wagner as an example, was really eye opening to me).
I think the biggest problem with the second half of the book is made prominent with the chapter "Am I a Monster?", where Dederer makes this too autobiographical by asking herself if she is as bad as the artists featured in the previous chapters. It isn't the first instant of her adding her own biography into the book (she does state that one's own feelings on these issues effects their opinions on the artists) but here it just makes it so that she appears to think that her alcoholism makes her just as bad as the rapists, pedophiles and murders. This is where the book falls too far into an uninteresting memoir that did not engage with me and the conflation only continues from there.
There is also something quite irksome about her chapter "Abandoning Mothers", where she states that "If the male crime is rape, the female crime is the failure to nuture. The abandonment of children is the worst thing a woman can do". The problem is, there is a long list of women artists who have done far more horrific things, to children and others, than to abandon. It really felt like she didn't really try to find monstrous women (with the execption of J K Rowling, Virignia Woolf & Valerie Solanas) and her statement of a "failure to nuture" just seems sexist. I was unsure if she meant it in terms of what society deems the worst thing a woman can do, but throughout the chapter she writes about her own experiences with motherhood and how she sees abandonment as terrible (which it is but again, the worst thing?).
This isn't a completely valueless book, but by it's conclusion I find that it's a bit of a cop-out, where Dederer, by weaving her memoir through the book, tries to assuage her guilt by basically stating that there's no ethical consumption under capitalism and that we can't help what we love so we should just enjoy the art. While their is some truth to that, using the "no ethical consumption under capitalism" argument just removes all responsibility from the audience. Yes, we did not commit these horrid acts but should that mean we should still support the artists if they are continuing to hurt others or avoid consequences for their actions? Shouldn't we mitigate harm instead? Buy art second hand e.t.c.?
We can still enjoy said art and critique it. However, instead of ending it with nuance, Dederer ends it with very little. One size fits all.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Domestic abuse, Pedophilia, Rape
Moderate: Alcoholism, Child abuse, Sexual assault
Minor: Addiction, Adult/minor relationship, Abandonment
dark
informative
reflective
relaxing
sad
medium-paced
Content Warnings
Minor: Alcoholism, Child abuse, Domestic abuse, Rape, Sexual assault, Suicide
Content Warnings
Moderate: Alcoholism, Pedophilia, Racism, Rape, Sexism, Antisemitism, Grief