Monsters: What Do We Do with Great Art by Bad People? - Book Review (and Some Thoughts)

The premise of Monsters: What Do We Do with Great Art by Bad People? is simple: can you and should you consume the works of someone who is, in the words of the author, 'a monster'. This question is one that many have considered, especially in light of the #MeToo movement, but it is complex. Should you ignore stunning works of art, music or other areas of the creative industry even though what has been produced may be amazing, genius even? Is biography a fallacy?

I listen to Evil Genius, an excellent BBC podcast series which looks into the same issue but in a more playful way. This book promised a more thorough and scholarly examination of the matter and, with that in mind I dove right in.

In the introduction, author Claire Dederer discusses the issue straight away with her love of Roman Polanski, the legendary film director and alleged child abuser. Dederer described herself as a humanist so how can she square such horrid abuses with the art she loves. Should we separate the art from the artist? The book examines this conundrum about how can you be a virtuous consumer yet also a citizen of the cultural world.

The book is not about judging the art against the crime but rather is an examination of us and how we, as a audience, can decide this most thorny of moral conundrums. She looks at the feelings and thoughts that people have towards these figures the two would often collide as the accretions of a life lived often informed both. People who had a step-parent in their life felt disgusted by Woody Allen as it was a betrayal of a special trust and bond whilst many felt revulsion at Pre-President Trumps "Grab 'em by the ¶u$$y'" and the casual misogyny and assault this implied. She covers different themes within this dilemma over numerous chapters:

Chapter 2: The Roll Call. She names creatives- alive and dead- who might fit into this paradigm.... What do we do? Boycott everything they produce? Illegally download or watch a mates copy of their stuff so they do not financially gain?

Chapter 3: The Stain. This looks at the concept that no matter what we decide to do with knowledge of the problematic behaviour the 'stain' (as she calls it) colours the work and affects our appreciation of their art- both current and past. For example, the allegations against Michael Jackson mean that many do not feel like they can listen to any of his work, even his early work as part of the Jackson 5 before such alleged abuses ever occured.

Chapter 4: The Fan. Dederer looks at how the onset of the Internet has led to a para-social relationship between fans and the objects of their affection, thus making the biography of the content maker more pertinent.

Chapter 5: The Critic. This looks at the consumption of art with subjective and objective responses. She discusses her search for theory and praxis and how auteur theory became a big thing in the mid-90s. She discusses how, as a reviewer, she had to almost become auhtorotative and make critical pronouncements but struggled as she knew it was opinion based upon her subjectivity. It was difficult to be the arbiter of good taste as the biography of the artist and the biography of the consumer are interlinked- thus the decoupling is personal and there is no simple answer or one stop algorithm.

Chapter 6: The Genius. Dederer looks at the concept that some people have a hall pass due to their greatness.  For some, the talent of the genius is mercurial and so, to ask them to alter their process would be to mess with their muse. Many people who believe this quote musicians, singer songwriters etc who 'lost their talent' when they got on the band wagon and stopped their vice, whatever it may have been. However, is their talent mercurial? Could it be that the sense of entitlement makes people believe that the creative is a genius or, by buying into the hype, do we help create monsters? Side thought: Are monsters born or are they created? Does society help to create them? Anyways, Dederer looks at Picasso, Gaugin, Hemmingway and the villainy of their own base impulses.

Chapter 7: The Anti-semite. Racism and the Problem of Time considers the idea that people are products of their time and that, generally, people were (in the author's words) "Jerkier" in the past. The third conditional tense is the idea that 'If I were there I would have done better' but would you? Looking at the current state of the world if doesn't seem like we are actually learning from the past- we are at the apex of history but repeat it's mistakes continuously. Just look at some of the terrible hot takes about what is happening in Palestine and the way society still seems to, by a large, ignoring it.

Chapter 7: The Anti-Monster looks at Lolita and Nobakov. Did the author have a penchant for younger girls? There is no evidence to say he did but Derderer seems to pursue the idea that writing a character as heinous as Humbert hints at art as biography. I don't think this is a valid point as the whole point of narrative is that you can be experimental and crazy, pushing boundaries, but that doesn't mean you agree or condone the actions of the characters. Thoughts are not action and Nobakov created the portrait of a monster whilst not being one (seemingly).

Chapter 8: The Silencers and the Silenced, looks at institutional presence and how often some people are overlooked. As such they are often forgotton and their works not appreciated. Dederer considers the work of artists and how males are often remembered but their female muses or companions left out, even if they were great artists in their own right.

Chapter 9: Am I A Monster? looks at how monstrousness seems to be considered a spectrum. There are extremes where people almost condone the fact that dreadful things have been done but with the proviso, 'at least it wasn't that bad.' According to the author, the world is set up as a patriarchy and so men have it easier than women. Women, until very recently, were the ones who nurtured and looked after children and family. However, the women who achieved success were those who abandoned their family and children.

Chapter 10: Abandoning Mothers, looks at the phenomenon of mothers leaving their children to get their great works done. She mentions Doris Lessing, Joni Mitchell and a few others who achieved great success and were driven enough to abandon their children to achieve greatness. 

Chapter 11: Lady Lazarus, looks at how the act of woman affects their work via 'the stain'. In this case, Dederer looks at the Scum Manifesto of extreme feminism by Valerie Solanas and the works of Sylvia Plath. Both are stained by their acts, Solanas by her shooting of Andy Warhol and Plath by her suicide.

Chapter 11: Drunks, considers how alcoholism and abuse of drink can affect the behaviour of people. Raymond Carver was a notorious and abusive drunk but, after going sober, became a calm and contemplatively gregarious man. Should his earlier behaviours stain his work? That is the question we are asked to contemplate- do we cancel someone for their earlier misdemeanours or is there redemption? Dederer looks at the #MeToo movement where many just said to cancel the individuals involved and divert funds but when dealing with emotions, atomised consumer behaviour does not work as systemic issues and complicity need to be dealt with- even unintentional complicity must be considered and changed otherwise nothing changes in the long run.

Chapter 12: The Beloveds, looks at the utilitarian vs aesthetics debate. We are trying to apply consumer thinking to subjective emotions and it does not work- you love what you love and no stain can stop that. Sure, it tarnishes the work but something about the art, whatever it may be, speaks to you and that's just human. So what do we do when there is a monstrous stain on your artlove? Something that may be linked to a part of your identity.

Throughout the book, Dederer explores the question of monsters from a very personal perspective and doesn't pretend to offer the answers. What she does do is present a personal perspective in bitesized chunks, which reads a but like a series of essays.

I like that Dederer is trying to address the issue but her non-sequiturs, colloquialisms and tangents felt more like a late night pub cod-philosophy rather than a cohesive piece with a throughline. In my opinion, the masters of presenting the facts whilst seeing the interconnected of society and self are the two Jo(h)ns: Jon Ronson and John Higgs. They are fine purveyors of the human condition and how audio-visual Proustian flashbacks (is that even a thing?) affect our present ideas- the idea of memory and ego are entwined and affect the present, like it or not.

Art is unique as it had the ability to transcend time; the life of the artist ends but, for those pieces considered worthy, their art goes on, either in its original or copied, edited and remixed form ad infinitum.

Reading the book got me thinking about the words of Ramesses II, 'Look upon my works and weep...' He thought he would live forever through his legacy but his works are scattered to the wind and his grand vision lies in ruins. His work is apprecited but he, as a person, is largely forgotton, except in the role played by Yul Brenner. Sometimes artlove transcends time and as we grow older our viewpoints about the artists can alter or change.

Overall, I thought that there was the bones of something good here but a stronger writer than Dererer would lift this up significantly in my opinion. She raises some good points and it is worth sitting with them- if only to consider your own views and ethics and think about where they might be coming from.