AccueilGroupesDiscussionsPlusTendances
Site de recherche
Ce site utilise des cookies pour fournir nos services, optimiser les performances, pour les analyses, et (si vous n'êtes pas connecté) pour les publicités. En utilisant Librarything, vous reconnaissez avoir lu et compris nos conditions générales d'utilisation et de services. Votre utilisation du site et de ses services vaut acceptation de ces conditions et termes.

Résultats trouvés sur Google Books

Cliquer sur une vignette pour aller sur Google Books.

Chargement...

Monsters: A Fan's Dilemma

par Claire Dederer

MembresCritiquesPopularitéÉvaluation moyenneMentions
3101384,550 (3.96)21
"In this unflinching, deeply personal book that expands on her instantly viral Paris Review essay, "What Do We Do With the Art of Monstrous Men?" Claire Dederer asks: Can we love the work of Hemingway, Polanski, Naipaul, Miles Davis, or Picasso? Should we love it? Does genius deserve special dispensation? Is male monstrosity the same as female monstrosity? Does art have a mandate to depict the darker elements of the psyche? And what happens if the artist stares too long into the abyss? She explores the audience's relationship with artists from Woody Allen to Michael Jackson, asking: How do we balance our undeniable sense of moral outrage with our equally undeniable love of the work? In a more troubling vein, she wonders if an artist needs to be a monster in order to create something great. And if an artist is also a mother, does one identity inexorably, and fatally, interrupt the other? Highly topical, morally wise, honest to the core, Monsters is certain to incite a conversation about whether and how we can separate artists from their art"--… (plus d'informations)
Chargement...

Inscrivez-vous à LibraryThing pour découvrir si vous aimerez ce livre

Actuellement, il n'y a pas de discussions au sujet de ce livre.

» Voir aussi les 21 mentions

Affichage de 1-5 de 13 (suivant | tout afficher)
In this book, Dederer looks at the question of what audiences are to do with the work of "monstrous" creators, those who do terrible things that stain their public image and, therefore, the public perception of their work. Can one still love the music of Michael Jackson? The art of Pablo Picasso? Roman Polanski's films, or Woody Allen's? The list goes on, but the question is always pretty much the same.

I was a regular viewer of The Cosby Show when I was growing up. As an adult, you can at least try to separate actors from roles they play, but to my child self, Bill Cosby as Cliff Huxtable was "America's Dad." So, that's the #MeToo revelation that hit home hardest for me, though of course there have been many others. I think most people these days have experienced the sinking feeling in their stomach that comes with reevaluating some favorite work of art when faced with new biographical information about the artist. So, what do you do? The portion of this book that focused on this question was smart and thought-provoking. I was less enamored with the parts of the book that veered into memoir, or to trying to explore "monstrous" behavior in women (usually related to abandoning their own children, though there were other examples). There are a few repetitive bits, and occasionally Dederer's rarified language use comes off as pretentious. Though I basically agree with her conclusion, I'm not left with a strong feeling about the book, or that it helped me explore the topic in any significant way beyond the mental work I've already put in to it. So, somewhat recommended? ( )
  foggidawn | Apr 6, 2024 |
I highly recommended this book examining the art and work of people who also happen to have committed heinous crimes. The central question: does the crime mean we can no longer be fans and learn from their creativity? Artists include Polanski, Hemingway, Michael Jackson, Picasso, Miles Davis and many more. Great book to ponder on your own or in a book club!!! Here are just a few interesting quotes:

Calling someone a monster didn’t solve the problem of what do with the work. I could denounce him all I wanted to, but Polanski’s work still called to me. This insistent calling—and my unwillingness to throw away the work—disrupted my idea of myself. It made me (and others) questions my claim to feminism. (p.46)

And of course no one is entirely a monster. People are complex. To call someone a monster is to reduce them to just once aspect of the self. (p.46)

A monster is “Someone whose behavior disrupts our ability to apprehend the work on its own terms.” (p.46)

The stain begins with an act, a moment in time, but then it travels from that moment, like a tea bag steeping in water, coloring the entire life. It works its way forward and backward in time. (p.49)

Mass media—There is no longer any escaping biography. Even within my own lifetime, I’ve seen a massive shift. Biography used to be something you sought out, yearned for, actively pursued. Now is falls on your head all day long. (P.51)

When we love an artist, and we identify with them, do we feel shame on their behalf when they become stained? Or do we shame them more brutally, cast them out more finally, because we want to sever the identification? (p.64)

What response, what opinion, what criticism do you have that is not tied up with history? (p.76)

And other topics creep in too, like Cancel Culture, white men not wanting to be blamed for everything, does history frame/excuse the crimes and are women artists who “abandon” their children in order to find time to create monsters as well? ( )
  Berly | Mar 28, 2024 |
Quick read about the people we admire and their monstrous deeds -- and whether this should disqualify us from consuming their work. Examples - Polanski, Wagner, Picasso, Rowling, Hemingway, Allen, and others.
Dederer examines the works, and the artist's misdeeds. She recognizes their failings, and poses whether we should ignore the genius, and why some are more forgiven than others. She addresses all of this in the era of Me Too and Trumpism.
Interesting book. ( )
  rmarcin | Mar 19, 2024 |
This book was back and forth between artists who were "monsters" and memoir. There is a lot to think about and I came away as confused as before I started it. ( )
  ellink | Jan 22, 2024 |
Monsters. Door: Claire Dederer.

Wat een boek! Een must-read voor iedereen die houdt van kunst, literatuur en of muziek. Elke cultuurliefhebber dus.

Dederer’s boek leest alsof er een vriendin tegen je praat: vlot, meeslepend, boeiend, empathisch en met veel humor. Daarnaast zijn er veel terzijdes, zijn al haar standpunten heel goed onderbouwd, heeft ze een diepmenselijk inzicht (ook in zichzelf), is ze heel intelligent en breed geïnteresseerd én neemt ze geen blad voor de mond.

Ik heb zo genoten van het lezen van Monsters, én ik heb veel bijgeleerd. Mijn hoofd tolde bij wijlen, en mijn onderlijn-potlood maakte overuren. Ook omdat het niet enkel gaat over monsters als in ‘zij’ maar ook over de monsters in ‘wij’, in ‘ik’. Ik, Dederer, de schrijver en ik, Els, de lezer.

Monsters is een levensveranderend powerboek dat me heeft geraakt in mijn hoofd, hart én buik. Mijn hersenen tintelden en mijn ogen werden meer en meer tot tranen toe gevuld. Omdat het boek bovenal over liefde gaat. De liefde die we voelen zonder dat we het willen. De liefde die diep vanbinnen onze motor voedt, of we het beseffen of niet.

Ergens doet het aan de vroege Connie Palmen denken. Zij zou ook zo een boek kunnen geschreven hebben. Ik denk dat het in ieder geval een boek is dat ze graag zal lezen. Maar aangezien het meer van nu is zou ik het ook durven vergelijken met Maggie Nelson. Ook zij heeft de gave om je als lezer te veranderen en je wereld op zijn kop te zetten.

Monsters is een moedig, krachtig, eerlijk, relevant en belangrijk boek. Het houdt je een spiegel voor én geeft je een schop onder je kont. Eén van de beste boeken van 2023! ( )
  Els04 | Nov 7, 2023 |
Affichage de 1-5 de 13 (suivant | tout afficher)
Famed composer Richard Wagner’s anti-Semitism was an obsession:

"'[For Richard Wagner, anti-Semitism] was more than a bizarre peccadillo, beyond a prejudice: it was an obsession, a monomania, a full-blown neurosis. No conversation with Wagner ever occurred without a detour on the subject of Judaism. When, towards the end of Wagner's life, the painter Renoir had a sitting with him, Wagner interrupted his own pleasant flow of small talk with a sudden unprovoked denunciation of Jews which rapidly became rancid,' [said Simon Callow].

"Wagner also wrote at length about his obsession -- that essay Fry would have liked to forestall, 'Judaism in Music,' was pub­lished anonymously in 1850, the same year Lohengrin premiered. It describes the nature of 'the Jew musician' -- we've barely got­ten started and we're already in choppy waters. The use of the word 'Jew' as an adjective is generally speaking not a good sign. My friend Alex Blumberg once observed to me as we walked through the Chicago neighborhood historically known as Jew Town: 'The word Jew is fine as a noun, starts to be a problem as an adjective, and is totally not okay as a verb.'
"Writes Wagner, 'The Jew -- who, as everyone knows, has a God all to himself -- in ordinary life strikes us primarily by his outward appearance, which, no matter to what European nation­ality we belong, has something disagreeably foreign to that nationality: instinctively we wish to have nothing in common with a man who looks like that.'

"Wagner is ramping up, working himself into a frenzy, and the modern reader in turn feels a mounting abhorrence, as well as a kind of lofty disdain for what we perceive as his clueless­ness. But we tell ourselves he didn't know better.

"And yet Wagner bases his entire rant on the fact that he did know better. He positions his screed as a dose of Limbaugh­esque real talk in the face of liberal platitudes calling for an end to anti-Semitism: 'We have to explain to ourselves the involun­tary repellence possessed for us by the nature and personality of the Jews, so as to vindicate that instinctive dislike which we plainly recognise as stronger and more overpowering than our conscious zeal to rid ourselves thereof.'

"He's making the point that he and his brethren don't want to revile Jews. This is some real 'I'm the victim here' shit. Wag­ner insists that he possesses -- we all possess -- a 'conscious zeal to rid ourselves' of the 'instinctive dislike,' but an honest man must wrestle with these feelings of 'involuntary repellence,' Hey, man, he's just describing how everyone really feels. Inci­dentally, this is an example of how insidious the word 'we' can be -- by employing it, Wagner normalizes and universalizes his own demented and hateful perspective, and suggests that all those fighting against anti-Semitism are simply deluded or eva­sive when it comes to their own natures.

"From Wagner's perspective, to say one is not anti-Semitic is to lie: 'Even to-day we only purposely belie ourselves, in this regard, when we think it necessary to hold immoral and taboo all open proclamation of our natural repugnance against the Jewish nature. Only in quite the latest times do we seem to have reached an insight, that it is more rational (vernünftiger) to rid ourselves of that strenuous self-deception' -- he means here the self-deception that we actually might not be repelled by Jews­ -- 'so as quite soberly instead to view the object of our violent sympathy and bring ourselves to understand a repugnance still abiding with us in spite of all our Liberal bedazzlements.'"
ajouté par AntonioGallo | modifierDelancyplace
 
Vous devez vous identifier pour modifier le Partage des connaissances.
Pour plus d'aide, voir la page Aide sur le Partage des connaissances [en anglais].
Titre canonique
Titre original
Titres alternatifs
Date de première publication
Personnes ou personnages
Lieux importants
Évènements importants
Films connexes
Épigraphe
Informations provenant du Partage des connaissances anglais. Modifiez pour passer à votre langue.
Who has not asked himself at some time or other: am I a monster or is this what it means to be a person?
—Clarice Lispector
It is always tempting, of course, to impose one's view rather than to undergo the submission required by art—a submission, akin to that of generosity or love. . .
—Shirley Hazard
Dédicace
Informations provenant du Partage des connaissances anglais. Modifiez pour passer à votre langue.
For Lou Barcott and Wil Barcott, my best teachers
Premiers mots
Informations provenant du Partage des connaissances anglais. Modifiez pour passer à votre langue.
It all began for me in the spring of 2014, when I found myself locked in a lonely—okay, imaginary—battle with an appalling genius. I was researching Roman Polanski for a book I was writing and found myself awed by his monstrousness. It was monumental, like the Grand Canyon, huge and void-like and slightly incomprehensible. -Prologue, The Child Rapist
I started keeping a list.

Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, Bill Cosby, William Burroughs, Richard Wagner, Sid Vicious, V.S. Naipaul, John Galliano, Norman Mailer, Ezra Pound, Caravaggio, Floyd Mayweather, though if we start listing athletes we'll never stop. And what about the women? The list becomes much more tentative: Anne Sexton? Joan Crawford? Sylvia Plath? Does self-harm count? Okay, well it's back to the men, I guess: Pablo Picasso, Lead Belly, Miles Davis, Phil Spector. Add your own; add a new one every week, every day. Charlie Rose. Carl Andre. Johnny Depp. -Chapter 1, Roll Call
Citations
Derniers mots
Informations provenant du Partage des connaissances anglais. Modifiez pour passer à votre langue.
Notice de désambigüisation
Directeur de publication
Courtes éloges de critiques
Informations provenant du Partage des connaissances anglais. Modifiez pour passer à votre langue.
Langue d'origine
DDC/MDS canonique
LCC canonique

Références à cette œuvre sur des ressources externes.

Wikipédia en anglais

Aucun

"In this unflinching, deeply personal book that expands on her instantly viral Paris Review essay, "What Do We Do With the Art of Monstrous Men?" Claire Dederer asks: Can we love the work of Hemingway, Polanski, Naipaul, Miles Davis, or Picasso? Should we love it? Does genius deserve special dispensation? Is male monstrosity the same as female monstrosity? Does art have a mandate to depict the darker elements of the psyche? And what happens if the artist stares too long into the abyss? She explores the audience's relationship with artists from Woody Allen to Michael Jackson, asking: How do we balance our undeniable sense of moral outrage with our equally undeniable love of the work? In a more troubling vein, she wonders if an artist needs to be a monster in order to create something great. And if an artist is also a mother, does one identity inexorably, and fatally, interrupt the other? Highly topical, morally wise, honest to the core, Monsters is certain to incite a conversation about whether and how we can separate artists from their art"--

Aucune description trouvée dans une bibliothèque

Description du livre
Résumé sous forme de haïku

Discussion en cours

Aucun

Couvertures populaires

Vos raccourcis

Évaluation

Moyenne: (3.96)
0.5
1 1
1.5
2 2
2.5 2
3 11
3.5 8
4 24
4.5 6
5 19

Est-ce vous ?

Devenez un(e) auteur LibraryThing.

 

À propos | Contact | LibraryThing.com | Respect de la vie privée et règles d'utilisation | Aide/FAQ | Blog | Boutique | APIs | TinyCat | Bibliothèques historiques | Critiques en avant-première | Partage des connaissances | 204,457,690 livres! | Barre supérieure: Toujours visible