Monsters

Addressing the Bogeyman behind the Art: A Review of Monsters By Claire Dederer

Traditionally speaking, non-fiction has never usually been my go-to when it comes to reading. However, Claire Dederer’s book Monsters: What do we do with great art by bad people? has made non-fiction much more appealing to me. This is in large part because its title is a question that pop culture is grappling with today. Consequently, I read the book and feel as though I have reached mature reading status because I willingly choose to read non-fiction. Dederer’s describes her book as an “autobiography of the audience” and as a written thinking-through of how to reconcile the art and the artist (8). I should mention that when I say art, I mean art, music, literature, film, and television. Whilst Dederer tackles a big pop-culture dilemma, I will merely be offering some observations on her book rather than my own solution to this hot-topic. Also, spoiler warning ahead but I don’t think that’s necessary for non-fiction (this sentence is why I cannot be relied upon to solve big cultural dilemmas). 

I mentioned that Dederer describes her book as an “autobiography of the audience” (8). Indeed, Dederer takes a more personal reflection on the titular question of ‘what we do with great art by bad people.’ This allows the reader to ruminate on their own thoughts and challenge how they relate to the art that they consume. Moreover, whilst Dederer’s book can be classed as a piece of criticism, it is perhaps more accessible because of her own introspection, which enables a convincing discussion of the subjectivity of art and its reception - especially in Chapter 3 “The Fan”. Dederer clarifies and unpacks the personal connections we have to art and how we prescribe meaning to it, using our own experiences, in a way which is manageable and highly readable. 

There are other particularly strong chapters too. Chapter 5 “Genius” breaks down the very definition of  ‘genius’ and the unspoken social privileges that we give to artists who create things worthy of the label. Dederer’s case studies of Pablo Picasso and Ernest Hemingway successfully support and illustrate the points that she makes. Chapters 9 and 10 are also strong. These chapters seamlessly feed into one another and focus on the relationship between women and genius. This is the strongest example of Dederer balancing her personal reflections with her selected case studies; she interrogates the binary between women having a successful career and achieving genius versus societal expectations. If I were going to be picky, some parts of these two chapters do feel a little like trodden ground. For example, her idea that ambition is seen as a negative trait in women could be more nuanced. However, these chapters remain engaging and thought-provoking. 

 Not all Dederer’s chapters are as well-balanced as the ones I’ve highlighted. Firstly, Dederer’s use of case studies is not as effective in some chapters as they are in others like Chapter 5. Some are mentioned at the beginning of a chapter, but are only used in one sentence across 20-25 pages. It means that the links between the case study Dederer chooses and the chapter’s topic is clear, but weak. In Dederer’s defence, the book’s blurb gives the impression that the case studies appear more integral to the book than they are. Instead, due to their inconsistency, it would have been better to emphasise that they are a springboard for what really takes centre stage: Dederer’s thoughts. 

I also would have liked Dederer to have considered the current social moment a little more. Obviously, Dederer may have written this a few years ago, but so much has happened in the last couple of years beyond the domineering shadow of ‘cancel culture’ that could have been included. Dederer’s references to #MeToo throughout the book provide a strong origin point and backbone for her thinking, and her brief discussion of ‘cancel culture’ showcases her attention to the immediacy of the book’s overall subject matter. However, there have been more social developments and movements, alongside the ones that Dederer highlights, that have contributed to the re-evaluation of the relationship between the art and the artist. Essentially, what Dederer has chosen to include is necessary and important to the book, but she could have included more which would have broadened the book’s reach in being an “autobiography of the audience” (8).

 I’m also fully aware that my gripes with Dederer’s book are entirely subjective. Let’s be honest, this is a book presenting Dederer’s argument surrounding this question and isn’t a definitive answer to it. There were parts which I agreed with; parts which I disagreed with, but understood the how and why behind Dederer’s points. Sometimes, I just wasn’t convinced. Then again, this is a difficult topic with lots of subjectivity and no rulebook. Before I finish, here are a couple of bonus observations:

  • I realise that this is my second review that touches on cancel culture (see my review for Yellowface by Rebecca F. Kuang). I promise I do read other things! I’ve recently read Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice and You’d Look Better as a Ghost by Joanna Wallace. .

  • Dederer’s chapter on genius really reminded me of a podcast called Evil Genius which is a way less scholarly approach to thinking through the questions that Dederer discusses. The host and guests are comedians so it’s (hopefully) more light-hearted and deliberately reductive, but case studies are front and centre, for example there is an episode on Picasso. 

  • If Dederer wanted to really explore fandoms and the importance of art to people, all she had to do would become a Swifty, because surely they are the strongest fandom going right now. 

Overall, Dederer’s book doesn’t seek to provide a solution to its titular question - maybe there isn’t one. Undoubtedly, Dederer takes on a project with huge significance to the present moment in terms of culture, the arts and audience reception. You might not agree with everything that Dederer has to say, but her book certainly invites you to think this question through for yourself, for better or worse. 

Next
Next

Yellowface