A book a day: Claire Dederer: Monsters

Idioma original: English

Original title: Monsters. A Fan’s Dilemma

Year of publication: 2023

Translation: Ana Camallonga

Valuation: between recommended and okay

Obviously, this essay is not about Godzilla or Swamp Thing, but about artists – understood in the broadest sense, also writers – who behave or have behaved in a reprehensible way; in fact, the cover already tells us where the shots are going, because the gentleman who is making a fool of himself with a bull mask (that is, turned into a classic monster, the Minotaur) is one of the most conspicuous, none other than the illustrious Pablo Ruiz Picasso. The subtitle of the book already makes it clear, on the other hand: Can the artist be separated from his work?, the not as old as one might think, but always thorny dilemma that the American writer Claire Dederer tries to elucidate here. Let’s see if she has succeeded… Now then, as there is a lot to cut, I am going to allow myself to use the Oriol Patented Method to review books. First, the successes of this essay, in my opinion:

• The author follows the system of analyzing one by one the different elements or actors of the matter, with the objective (or so it seems) of gradually leading us to a conclusion: the fan, the critic, the genius, the “anti-monster” – this is Nabokov, to whom she dedicates one of the best chapters of the book – the “abandoning mothers”, etc.

• She approaches the subject not from a supposedly even-handed, elevated or academic position, but from the recognition of her own subjectivity, which Dederer considers essential to exercising criticism. In fact, her interest in the subject comes from her devotion to the films of Roman Polanski and Woody Allen, despite the, at the very least, reprehensible behaviour of both with underage girls.

• His analysis of the different aspects of the issue is often full of subtlety, to which no doubt and to a large extent, his sense of humour and empathy, which is granted to him by the subjective point of view that I have already mentioned, contribute no small amount.

Now, as for the unfavorable points of the book (which, in a way, are the same as the favorable ones), the following can also be mentioned:

• Precisely, that subjectivity of which I speak. Or rather, the personalism, the constant need that Dederer shows to illustrate all her observations with personal anecdotes, however trivial they may be. This makes sense and is interesting when, for example, she talks to us about her experience as a film critic, because it is pertinent, but what do we care about what the waitress at the crepe shop or a friend told her while they were having a glass of wine in the garden of her house? Because it is not as if she was chatting with Noam Chomsky, precisely… I understand that the author has written memoirs before (sic) and, in addition, there is that North American custom of having to exemplify any assertion with personal anecdotes, but there comes a time when it becomes excessive and even ridiculous.

• This subjectivity -which has its positive side, I repeat- is also reflected in the clear ideological and cultural bias present in the book. Which, in principle, is not bad either, even less so because Dederer does not hide it, but the same thing happens with the personal references, which are somewhat excessive. In this case, Dederer makes his liberal imprint very clear (note, liberal in the American sense, that is, “progressive”, not “extreme center liberal” as it is understood here); the same happens with feminism, something that distances him from the central issue of the book, that is, whether or not we should separate the life and work of certain creators due to their unworthy and even criminal behavior. This is what happens with the chapter dedicated to the artist Ana Mendieta and her alleged murderer, her husband and also artist Carl Andre (in the case of Ana Mendieta, Dederer also denotes the embarrassing American obsession with racial classification, since he calls her a “colored artist” because, of course, she was of Cuban origin…). Also, and perhaps not at his age, Dederer is riding the wave woke and devotes a chapter to the figure of JK Rowling; although it is true that in addition to providing an interesting explanation of the fans’ animosity towards her, she does not attack the author of Harry Potter too much, perhaps because she thinks that her “sins” are not comparable with those of child rapists or women abusers, like Picasso.

• . However, the least understandable thing about the essay, in my opinion, is that the whole system of analysis that I have mentioned and that promised us very good things ends up, from a certain point, diluting itself in that flood of personalism and various derivations, leaving, in the last instance, the answer to Fan’s Dilemmawhich the title mentions in English, at least quite vague. What it is saying is that we should assume and even claim our love for the works created by people we despise, without forgetting the reason why they are despicable, but assuming our own contradiction (“…love does not depend on judgment, but on the decision to leave judgment aside

“). Which might seem a very mature and thoughtful answer to the problem, if it were not for the suspicion that Dederer has arrived at it simply because he is unable – or does not want – to arrive at another… That is to say, can the author be separated from his work? Well, neither yes nor no, but quite the opposite…

In any case, whether we agree or not with her conclusions, the issue here is to evaluate this book. Well, following the premises of Alessandro Manzoni, no less, to make a critique and from which Dederer herself extracted the method she used when she was a film critic, we must ask ourselves what the author’s intention was, if that intention is reasonable and, above all, if the author has achieved what she intended. The answer to the first question seems clear, to establish a criterion to know if we can or cannot enjoy artistic works made by people with dubious, deplorable or even clearly condemnable behavior. Secondly, the intention, without a doubt, seems reasonable… Now, as for the third question, I already say that I do not believe that it reaches us to offer a clear and categorical conclusion, but rather, and following the subjective tone of the entire essay, it leaves it to the personal judgment of each one. Which doesn’t seem bad to me either, except that I don’t know if that was the author’s intention from the beginning, or the end result of a somewhat (quite) rambling process. If that was really what she intended, she’ll know…