An Analysis of Claire Dederer’s Essay “What Do We Do with the Art of Monstrous Men”

Claire Dederer’s Essay on Monstrous Men analyzes the moral dilemma society faces when consuming media created by “monstrous” men. In the Trump era, it seems as if every man has a sexual assault or harassment case against them. But Dederer’s article focuses specifically, on those men who create “genius” works of art. Those like Bill Cosby, Woody Allen, and Roman Polanski. The essay analyzes the personal responsibility that comes with consuming media from monstrous men.

Ought we try to separate the art from the artist, the make from the made? Or do we believe genius gets special dispensation a behavioral hall pass?

Claire Dederer

There is this ethical dilemma one has to face when consuming media that has been deemed a cult classic. Woody Allen movies typically fall under this category. Dederer struggled quite a bit with determining if watching Annie Hall was considered wrong, especially since it brings such a feeling of joy to Dederer. In fact, her passion for this movie was almost romantic.

To watch Annie Hall is to feel, for just a moment, that one belongs to humanity. Watching, you feel almost mugged by that sense of belonging. That fabricated connection can be more beautiful than love itself.

Claire Dederer

Yet almost immediately after, Dederer begins to justify her positive feelings when watching Annie Hall .

Look, I don’t get to go around feeling connected to humanity all the time. It’s a rare pleasure. And I’m supposed to give it up just because Woody Allen misbehaved? It hardly seems fair.

Claire Dederer

But what she concludes is that we are not responding to ethical thoughts about these monstrous men, but instead, with our moral feelings. Something deeply personal. The thing that was consistent throughout the essay was Dederer’s uncertainty about her own feelings. She was genuinely trying to work through these emotions we have all experienced throughout the last four years.

The ethical dilemma Dederer faces when watching Annie Hall is vastly different to her experience watching Manhattan. The problem was, Dederer had a big problem separating the artist from the art, especially when the art was as problematic as Manhattan.

A great work of art brings us a feeling. And yet when I say Manhattan makes me feel urpy, a man says “No, not that feeling. You’re having the wrong feeling. “

Claire Dederer

That’s exactly the problem with male “genius”. If women don’t agree, they are suddenly uncultured and have no taste. But Dederer challenges that narrative by saying:

Simply being told by men that Allen’s history shouldn’t matter doesn’t achieve the objective of making it not matter.

Claire Dederer

This was probably my favorite quote from the piece because it rings so true. Women are so often told they are overreacting or having the wrong feeling by men. But why is it wrong? Because we don’t agree with you? Because we are women? Why? That’s the genius of this essay, there is no “right” way to feel about any work of art, especially not one created by a problematic person. But pretending that the problem isn’t present is definitely not the right way to approach the issue at hand.

What I found the most interesting aspect of this essay was the way it ended. Dederer ended the piece by discussing the possible monstrosity of women, and why women are often deemed more monstrous for less intense reasons. The art of monstrosity becomes self reflective. She eventually brings up the death of Sylvia Plath, and the fact that she abandoned her children made her just monstrous enough.

She dreamed of eating men like air, but what was truly monstrous was simply leaving her children motherless.

Claire Dederer

Women are so often plagued by becoming the monster. But what does that mean for women? Especially for women artists? Where do you draw the line between motherhood and artistry?

Because the finishing is the part that makes the artist. The artist must be monster enough not just to star the work, but to complete it. And to commit all the little savageries that lie in between.

Claire Dederer

So why did this essay on the consumption of art created by monstrous men become one of the best Longform articles of the year? I believe it was Dederer’s honesty toward the subject. She didn’t pretend like she had all the answers or even the right ones. She went into this topic with the intention to explore the possibilities. I found her raw emotions the most comforting during my reading experience. It made her feel like just another woman trying to determine where to draw the line, but she didn’t seem better than anyone at it, because she wasn’t. That made all the difference.

David Foster Wallace’s iconic piece “Consider the Lobster” has confounded most readers since it’s release in the early 2000’s. I was so surprised to discover that this piece was actually about lobsters. I really thought it was going to be some complex metaphor for something, and maybe it is. But at it’s core it is essentially about the ethics of boiling lobsters alive along with Wallace’s intense loathing of the Maine Lobster Festival.

What the Maine Lobster Festival really is is a mid-level county fair with a culinary hook…

David Foster Wallace

While Wallace explores the complexities of boiling lobsters alive, he also poses an interesting take on the Maine Lobster Festival. He was sent there to write about the Festival, yet instead writes 7000 words, saying nothing positive about the festival for the first twelve paragraphs and then spends the rest of the essay contemplating why we even eat lobsters in the first place.

Up until the 1800’s, lobster was literally low-class food, eaten only by the poor and institutionalized.

David Foster Wallace

When reading this essay for the first time, I was confounded by Wallace’s focus on the morality of the Lobster Maine Festival. A task that seemed so simple turned into a profound analysis on eating animals. All the while never discouraging the consumption of animals but diving into the purpose behind such a barbaric act. He confronts the uncomfortable aspect of the subject and questions why we are okay with killing our food, specifically defining the fine line between indulgence and barbarianism.

There is, after all, a difference between (1) pain as a purely neurological event and (2) actually suffering, which seems crucially to involve an emotional component, an awareness of pain as unpleasant, as something to fear/dislike/ want to avoid.

David Foster Wallace

For me, the most surreal aspect of “Consider the Lobster” was the analysis on the different types of pain different animals feel. Wallace explores this near the end of his essay, describing how, although, lobsters are not as emotionally complex as humans, they still react similarly to humans when being boiled alive. Throwing in bits of humor throughout the essay humanizes the uncomfortability of the subject at hand. It makes the reader feel as if this serious subject, isn’t actually serious at all. Yet throughout the entire piece is Wallace’s stream of consciousness, although he is confused as to why we treat these animals the way we do, he never devalues his thought process along the way.

Given this article’s venue and my lack of culinary sophistication, I’m curious about whether the reader can identify with any of these reactions and acknowledgements and discomforts. I am also concerned not to come off as shrill or preachy when what I really am is confused.

David Foster Wallace

Although Wallace includes his stream of consciousness throughout the article, he never comes to any conclusions or makes assumptions on the consumption of animals. He acknowledges the uncomfortable aspects of killing one’s food, expresses his loathing for the festival and then moves on with his day. He doesn’t leave the reader wanting more despite his lack of a conclusion.

Elizabeth Royte’s essay “Remains of the Night” explores the significance behind not only why people litter in general, but especially when it comes to littering sex paraphernalia. Royte is an American science and nature writer best known for her book Garbage Land, which she mentions several times throughout “Remains of the Night”.

“Remains of the Night” is published on Medium, an online publishing platform. Royte utilizes this platform by adding a plethora of pictures throughout the essay. She leaves little to the imagination by providing vivid descriptions of the things her and her group find alongside pictures and photo-campaigns that encourage the community to clean up after themselves by including images of the sex paraphernalia that has been discovered.

“For me, garbage is more of a medium, a portal into other people’s lives: what they consume and discard, of course, but also how they interpret disposal laws and customs, and how they relate to the wider world”.

Elizabeth Royte “Remains of the Night”

This benefits the impact of her essay because it allows the reader to understand exactly what she has found. In the essay, she discusses finding a makeshift sex toy made from a cigar pipe wrapped in a blue condom. While the description gave me a good idea of what this object looked like, part of me still wanted to see a picture. When I scrolled down I found exactly what I was looking for and I was grateful that she provided me with the evidence she discovered.

But even though this entire essay is about foraging in the woods, there was an underlying message behind it all. Royte, brilliantly uses Medium as a way to slowly introduce these shocking images to the reader. Starting first with some lovely foliage and nature views and eventually transitioning into the raw and gritty truth behind sex garbage. However, in the first image there are human shadows that add a bit of ambiance to the more nature centered photos. These shadows depict the idea that some people are more likely to hide in the shadows, just like the act of having sex in a public park tends to hide in the shadows.

The images Royte uses keep the reader engaged throughout the essay. By slowing introducing the more crude content slowly as the essay unfolds, makes the topic more digestible. Royte often mentions how discovering these pieces of garbage that are used at the most intimate of times is exciting. Exploring the idea of who is behind these singular messes is an intriguing front.

But what I missed most of all was the cognitive dissonance of reaching a grabber into a pile of leaf litter and coming up with an intimate piece of someone else’s life.

Elizabeth Royte “Remains of the Night

In RadioLab’s Episode “Space”, they utilize several research techniques and stylistic choices, different from anything I have ever listened to. One thing I noticed, right off the bat was that there was a heavy use of sound effects throughout the show. These sound effects were used to emphasize the topic the hosts/ guests on the show were chatting about. This use of sound effects is something I think would make our podcast stand out.

While “Space” remained research heavy, it still felt like two friends having a conversation rather than a few interviews strung together. These conversations were more than just chat, they were planned, through interviews, yet came across as casual. They presented the reader with a lot of information at once, while still being accessible, which is essential in ensuring one’s audience doesn’t become bored five minutes into the episode. This casual and conversational approach to presenting research is something I would love for my group to utilize in “Pigment of Your Imagination”.

I really appreciated how the host began the show with the narration of an experience. It provided the audience with intrigue and kept me wanting to know more. I could feel myself in that moment, as if I was really there. This is such a special talent, to be able to convince your audience that they have experienced something with you and I would love to try and incorporate it in our project.

Jay Rosen proposes the idea that juvenile journalists should start by creating a niche platform for their work. This allows them to “know everything about something”. He recommends this because it requires research, teaches you the basics about online journalism and gives your targeted audience the upper hand, which allows you make mistakes and gives you the opportunity to handle these mistakes in a professional and timely way.

This technique allows new writers a platform on which they can gain visibility while also allowing them to learn the basics of online journalism. But Rosen makes a good point, in that interviews aren’t enough to gain visibility and become a “successful” journalist. Anyone can conduct a successful interview, but it takes a special type of journalist to appeal to a niche audience who almost always knows more than the writer. But writing to this niche audience allows one to hone in on their research skills and correct their mistakes and misinformation in a professional and timely manner.

This ideology that one should know “everything about something” applies to our group project because that is essentially what is being asked of us. Pick any topic of your choosing, research it, become one with it and make a platform for it. Sure, we could interview several people asking about their favorite colors and if Arcadia’s school colors had any influence on their decision to become a Knight, but that isn’t very interesting.

Instead, by discovering more about the history and psychology of colors, with a focus on Blue since it is the Pantone Color of the Year, and tying this all back to school colors, it provides a well rounded, interesting podcast about something everyone has had some interest in at some point in their life. Yes, including interviews is essential to our topic because we would like to know the student perspective on school colors, but it isn’t the focus of our podcast or our research.

Researching in such a way allows us to make connections between psychology and history that we may have not had access to if we had just conducted several interviews. These connections provide us with more interesting things to talk about in our episode and our blog posts. While it is possible to get similar information from an interview that could also be found in research, interviews have a bigger risk of providing false information, depending on who is being interviewed. In our case, we would be interviewing students, not experts, so the risk of misinformation is quite high.

Overall, the main reason for starting your niche platform is simply because you can. Yes, it will teach you important aspects and techniques of journalism, but it will also teach you how to be a good researcher. You don’t need to be a scholar to be proficient in research based writing, its a skill that every good writer should have. While interviews and outside opinions are essential to an informative, well researched piece, they should not be carrying the weight of it. A good interviewer, has done the research for themselves so they are able to ask interesting questions beyond the surface level of their topic.

What were some of its stylistic qualities?

• Despite the dark topic, the humour used in You’re Wrong About: Kitty Genovese  is extremely helpful in moving along the conversation. Both Mike and Sarah are very quick witted and it aids in defusing the massive amount of information they’re presenting their audience with. While talking about the treatment of LGBT and other New Yorkers by the NYPD in the 50s-60s, they remain humorously enraged by the actions of the police force, strengthening their connection to the audience, while also exposing a narrative often overlooked. 
• In Serial’s, “The Alibi,” is also about a super dark topic: murder. The difference is, they don’t really use humor to make things less intense. Instead, the speaker keeps a very serious and intrigued tone throughout the entirety of the segment which aids the audience in wanting more of the story than what is being told. 
• In Every Little Thing’s “Winnie the Pooh”, the humor and topic kept the discussion light hearted while also maintaining intrigue. I really appreciated the family aspect of the origin of the topic and how the hosts always circled back to that when seeking their answers. 
• The 99%’s “Heyoon” uses an heir of mystery to tell the story of a sculpture nicknamed “Heyoon” in Southern Michigan. The podcast as a whole uses this sense of mystery to intrigue the listener so that the listener wants to know what happens in the story. 

How did it use research? 

• Both Mike and Sarah are journalists, so the way they conduct research is investigative. Their discussion uses the research they gather to make connections intuitively as the discussion is about a highly disorganized and falsified event and most substantial facts are rarely recorded accurately. They collected interviews, newspaper pieces and biographical research about Kitty Genovese to gather raw information to then turn into realistic explanations of her death. The research they do also goes beyond what is considered part of the actual case, they take historical and societal research from past research and apply it to the Kitty Genovese story. This includes their research into LGBT culture during Kitty’s life and at the time of her death, and historical treatment of LGBT New Yorkers, like Kitty. They also do research into the NYC police and political treatment of crime during Kitty’s death, which was constantly neglected due to the sensationalized role of the `bystanders”. They also do research that took into account the media’s ulterior motives reporting on a black man murdering a white woman during the 60s.They took a very human viewpoint when doing their research. They acknowledge the erasure of other non-white women being murdered by the smae man, Kitty’s lesbian identity and the real context of Kitty’s death. By acknowledging the forgotten human effects of the crime they are also able to inform the audience about what has happened because of this sensationalized story and the protections that were attempted afterwards. 
• Likewise, in Serials, “The Alibi,” the presenter adds in a lot of interviews that helps with the mystery of who killed Hae Min Lee. She started off with talking to the accused man’s friend, but after talking to him, she is torn with what to believe. She also talks to the accused murderer, Adnan Syed, to hear his side of the story, unfortunately, he doesn’t give her very accurate information, as similar to the research in, “You’re Wrong About: Kitty Genovese.” Everytime the speaker was giving research to the audience, it followed the story of what happened next, or the next piece of evidence she was getting. Although it really helped her get nowhere, she had a purpose for it all and as the audience it makes you want to keep listening to know what happens next from people who lived through this story.  
• Every Little Thing organized their research in a very logical way. Since they were discussing the age of Winnie the Pooh, they first visited a man who is a professional age guesser (lol if that’s an official occupation, I don’t know), then when he wasn’t sure they went to a bear expert to gather more information, and when they came up short they finally went to a Winnie the Pooh expert who provided the host’s with the answers they needed. Even though the bulk of this episode was research focused, it was extremely entertaining and light-hearted. I feel like most people have always wondered how old Winnie the Pooh is and the answer was right in front of us the whole time.
• “Heyoon” uses interviews and news clips, and personal testimonies as its primary form of research. Host Adam Goldman uses the interview with Peter Hayden, the property Heyoon was on, to show the creation of Heyoon and its purpose. The podcast also uses clips of audio with some of narrator Alex Goldman’s friends who also explored Heyoon in their teen years. Both forms of research were used to explain the personal side of something that was very important in several people’s lives.

How was it organized? 

• Mike and Sarah focused very heavily on Kitty Genovese’s life which makes sense, as they are trying to explain the reality of her death. Like I said before they present the story outside of the original sensationalized story and introduce Kitty, not as a metaphor for human apathy, but as a person. Because of this, alot of the podcast is focused on Kitty’s role in her own death and the surrounding context of the time, rather than the people failing to save her. The amount of pointed questions they ask each other also plays into the organization, their ability to remain humorous while still moving the story forward is aided by the constant questions the hosts ask each other. This separates the topics being discussed into sections almost like a question and answer, while also keeping the conversation sounding organic and less lecturing. 
• The speaker in, Serials, “The Alibi,” organizes her content mostly in chronological order. She takes the accuser and hears his side of the story. Hears his friend’s story, then fills in the missing pieces from other alibi’s that fit in. the entire podcast, the presenter is going from person to person trying to hear the many sides to the story to figure out if Adnan Syed is in fact, innocent. 
• Every Little Thing took a straight-forward approach to their organization. The hosts first introduced why they were discussing the topic: a family argument over the age of Winnie the Pooh. They then reached out to three experts in different fields who they believed could help them find their answer. These experts were a professional age guesser, a bear expert and a Winnie the Pooh expert. When the hosts came to a dead end in their research, they moved onto the next thing. 
• “Heyoon”  is organized to frame the story in a very personal light, as the sculpture has played a large part in many teenage coming-of-age stories in the small town of Ann Arbor. The podcast starts off with the personal testimonies, and then slowly moves into the narrator’s background, and then introduces the interviews with the structure’s co-creators, Peter Hayden and Joseph Kinnebrew.

How did it tell its story? 

• A large majority of the research and organization is formatted in such a way that Kitty’s death is not the main concept, but instead the consequences of the society in which Kitty’s life and death happened. It’s very interesting and held my attention very well because of how invested in Kitty’s life. 
• The majority of Serials, “The Alibi,” is focused around the death of Hae Min Lee and if Adnan Syed is the one who actually murdered her. In comparison to, “You’re Wrong About: Kitty Genovese,” they don’t talk too much about Hae or Adnan’s life all too much, only with what happened, trying to fill the pieces of who actually killed her. It kept me very interested the entire time and made me want to keep listening to the rest of the series. 
• Every Little Thing is very focused on the specific topic of each episode due to its length. Each episode is typically under 30 minutes so there is little to no room to deviate from the topic at hand. The episode began with the host’s hypothesis about the age of Winnie the Pooh and then from there got the opinion of experts who gave them conflicting feedback, until they found the answer in the primary source, the books by A.A. Milne. The episode was conducted in exclusively interviews which made the audience feel part of the process. 
• In the 25-minute podcast, “Heyoon” tells the story about a mysterious spaceship-like structure in southern Michigan. It uses the structure of personal testimony followed by interviews to emphasize the effect of a symbolic structure.

The first episode of “Millennial” starts with, the host, Megan Tan describing the excited feeling she used to get when it was the first day of school. Throughout the short ten minute episode she begins to introduce the audience to her situation of being a post-grad millennial. She introduces us to the important people in her life, why she started the podcast and what’s to come in the next episode.

Tan intrigues her audience by giving a preview of what is to come in the following episodes. It’s obvious how successful this podcast will become due to her experience in audio/radio, and her ability to relate her experiences to the average millennial. It’s a harsh reality for almost all graduates to move back in with their parents after graduation, but what really resonated with me was when Tan was talking about how her house no longer felt like a home. This sentiment made me feel understood and I wanted to know more about Tan’s future.

This episode of “This American Life” covered the mortgage crisis of the early 2000’s and why banks started lending money to people who can’t afford to pay the money back. The content of this episode was presented by Adam Davidson, a business correspondent for National Public Radio and Alex Blumberg, one of the producers of the show.

The hosts delve into background on the shift in mortgage rates and ultimately conclude that it is in large part due to Alan Greenspan’s role in keeping fed fund rates low throughout the 2000’s. This conclusion is met by playing an audio clip of a Greenspan quote describing why he is keeping the rates low, and what it meant for investors and central bankers. Throughout the show the hosts speak with a slew of people in the field gathering information until coming to a prognosis of the financial system and it’s faults.

This American Life has a slightly different style than Stuff Mom Never Told You. While they both present a topic in similar ways, it seemed that This American Life spoke directly to experts whereas Stuff Mom Never Told You was more of a casual conversation discussing personal opinions on the topic.

However, both podcasts did not provide the listener with a source list, leaving the information and sources they referenced, difficult to access. To me, This American Life seemed more legitimized in terms of the way their research was presented. Their target audience is people who know a lot about finances and have an open discussion. Whereas Stuff Mom Never Told You is not trying to have this profound discussion with it’s audience. Their goal is to have an open conversation about things that most people are unaware of and bring light to it in a non-threatening manner.

As someone who knows little to nothing about finances or banking, This American Life was difficult to comprehend. It’s discussion was not accessible to those who aren’t fluent in the wide word on finance. The way in which the information was presented was quite dry. I often found myself tuning out what they were saying, only to be confused and have to go back. Stuff Mom Never Told You is the complete opposite of that. Their content is accessible, fun to listen to, and they aren’t experts in the topic which makes it interesting to learn along with them about the topic at hand.

Throughout much of my career as a student, plagiarism has seemed to be the highest offence with the biggest consequences on college campuses. In most cases, plagiarism is often seen as more serious than sexual assault. But plagiarism is subjective and while it’s definitely not okay to steal someone else’s work and pass it as your own, I think it’s important to take it on a case by case approach.

Out of the three articles, I believe the Jonah Lehrer case is the most unacceptable. While it is never okay to plagiarize someone else’s work, it is an entirely different thing to make up false quotes to use in a book about someone’s life. Even exaggerating the quotes, Lehrer has a history of plagiarism throughout his work, an aspect I believe is impossible to ignore or forgive. While I don’t believe his punishment should be as severe as some college campuses propose, I do think it says a lot about what kind of writer he is. Most importantly, that he isn’t a truthful or credible one.

The least objectionable article was Fareed Zakaria’s case. I personally, wouldn’t consider his case plagiarism since he was using his own work in multiple places. My understanding of plagiarism is when you use someone else’s work and claim it as your own. In Zakaria’s case, he was using his own work and I don’t see anything wrong with that. He mentions in the article that he wasn’t sure if he should quote himself which is a valid argument. I don’t think he should receive serious repercussions for including his own thoughts in an article even if they are from a different source.

In a typical mystery, the investigator is bound to run into dead ends. But how they deal with those dead ends tells us a lot about their investigative style. In The Mystery Show’s episode “Belt Buckle”, Kine runs into many dead ends. But when she discovered her investigations provided her with false leads, she was only motivated more to reveal the truth.

The first dead end happens early on in the episode. It’s when she is talking to Donna, the art teacher who once had Hans as a student. While Donna did remember Hans, she didn’t know much about him. But she did reveal more about his appearance which had the potential to give Kine a clue about whether or not this belt buckle belonged to him. Even though this art class was an irrelevant blip in the facade known as Hans, it did provide Kline with helpful information. She wasn’t deterred from her motives when Donna had little information, but in fact used this opportunity to learn more about art.

The second dead end occurred when Kine discovered that Bob Bland wasn’t actually Bob Six. While she was disappointed, Bland knew Hans pretty well and Kine decided to use his knowledge to gain more information about Bland’s old friend. While Kine doesn’t look further into uncovering who Bob Six is, it is eventually revealed from Hans himself.

The third dead end occurs when Kine decides to travel all the way to Phoenix Arizona for a conference with the hopes that Hans will be there, only to discover his absence. However, Kine jumps on this opportunity to learn more about Hans from the people who know him best. In fact, one of the members, Renee, ends up introducing Kine and Hans, thus providing us with the conclusion to this mystery.

In the pursuit of her mystery, Kine learned about how to see the horizon from art teacher Donna, about the ins and outs of the Culinary Association of Arizona, and the biography of Bob Six, chairman of Continental Airlines.