Three cultural things before bed...
Sep. 27th, 2024 10:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatA couple of things before bed...
1. Finished watching the first two episodes of FX's new Ryan Murphy series Grotesqueri - which stars Niecy Nash, Courtney B. Vance, Miceala Diamond, Nicholas A. Chavez, Raven Goodwin, and Lesley Mansville.
It's compelling and not what I expected. A police detective and a nun investigate a series of mass murders in a small town.
Mother: I thought you were burned out on serial killers?
ME: I am, but this is well done and about more than that?
Each of the murders is a commentary on Catholicism.
Wales: If Vance hears that - he'll get upset about it and want to shut it down.
Me: I doubt he knows it exists. We have so much content now, it's running under the radar.
Wales: True, we're drowned in content.
Specifically extreme Catholic and Religious devotion and practices. The police detective is struggling with her ex-husband, a philosophy professor who is trapped in a medical coma at a facility with a disreputable nurse who berates the detective for not spending more time with him. And her daughter - who's vice is over-eating, while the detective's vice is alcoholism. Murphy as always is a touch heavy on his metaphors. But less so here than in American Horror Story or Monsters. This one is a bit more understated in some respects.
The nun is a devotee of true crime, writes about crime, and is into serial killers. And the priest - flogs himself for his own desires and vices.
Yet, the performances, writing, and filmmaking are compelling and I couldn't look away. Also a creepy man in a hat walks around the detective's house at night - she can't quite see him, yet we do - his shadow in passing in another room, not quite in sight, almost out of the corner of our eye.
It's the creepiest thing.
2. Separation of Artist and Art
How do we handle art from people who have committed questionable acts?
But to pull away another layer? What if we were following the artist, maybe even a fan of the artist, and thought they were ethical, kind, and like-minded, only to find out in some way that they really aren't and we were wrong?
I think it's one thing to say, pick up the works of Shakespeare knowing full well, he was most likely an asshole. Or watch the films of Alfred Hitchcock knowing he preyed and mentally abused actresses who starred in his films. I mean, we know that going in, right?
And quite another to have say, read and loved the works of JK Rowling only to discover, whoa, she's a TERF and anti-trans, worse uses proceeds to hurt transgender. Or to be a huge fan of say Whedon only to discover he was an abusive boss, and well a lot like Hitchcock? Or Kevin Spacey or Johnny Depp or for that matter, Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby?
And what to do about folks like Neil Gaiman - where I'm not really sure what the heck the story is - because it's so poorly reported and presented? Gaiman's a special case - because I read his works thinking he was one thing, only to discover I was wrong, and he's another thing entirely. They are tainted somehow. The Gaiman thing is headache inducing. (If you want to know what it is - look it up on your own.)
I think it is a sense of betrayal? That the artist marketed and promoted themselves as one thing, along with their work - only to be proven to be something or someone else? That's unsettling.
Yet, what I'm struggling with is...people are more than one thing. And there is darkness in everyone, we just choose not to act on it or go there. Some people choose to act on it - when given the opportunity. Gaiman apparently did, as did Whedon. Both state - that it was consensual, and the women in question threw themselves at them. And they honestly are appalled that anyone would think otherwise.
Except, the women in question were in their employ? They were the boss?
There was a definite power imbalance?
And in regards to Gaiman, some were twenty-something fans?
Elvis did the same thing by the way. Women threw themselves at him. And he, well took advantage. But that's different, I think? They were much younger than Elvis - he attracted women who were younger than he was.
Not everyone did this. The Beatles didn't. But they were a band, and not being managed by the Colonel.
I don't know the answers to this. Human beings aren't puzzles that we can crack. They evolve and change, and grow and learn. From one moment to the next. No one stays the same. And I'm not sure I'll ever understand why people do the things they do. Or how I should deal with them? I usually leap away from it. I admittedly haven't watched anything Whedon has done since the news about him came out, I've not read anything else by Rowlings nor re-read the Harry Potter novels, and I don't watch films with Johnny Depp, nor do I see myself reading any more books by Neil Gaiman.
But I probably will watch the Second Series of Sandman - since I listened to the audio play and I'm curious. Should I feel bad about that? I don't think so. And I most likely will re-watch Buffy at some point. Or re-watch a Harry Potter film.
I don't think I'm wrong to do that. It seems illogical to stop enjoying the art or interacting with it. Enjoying the art shouldn't mean that I'm supporting or endorsing the creator, alive or long dead. It's art and in some ways separate from them?
This is something that I continue to have mixed feelings about.
3. Picked up another book via a Smart Bitches rec... The Book Eaters by Sunyi Dean
"Out on the Yorkshire Moors lives a secret line of people for whom books are food, and who retain all of a book's content after eating it. To them, spy novels are a peppery snack; romance novels are sweet and delicious. Eating a map can help them remember destinations, and children, when they misbehave, are forced to eat dry, musty pages from dictionaries.
Devon is part of The Family, an old and reclusive clan of book eaters. Her brothers grow up feasting on stories of valor and adventure, and Devon—like all other book eater women—is raised on a carefully curated diet of fairy tales and cautionary stories.
But real life doesn't always come with happy endings, as Devon learns when her son is born with a rare and darker kind of hunger—not for books, but for human minds."
I got it for about $2.99 on Kindle.
I told Wales about the book. She gave me the side-eye. She doesn't like fantasy based solely on an ill-fated attempt to read CS Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia. (I find it amusing that Chronicles of Narnia turned folks off of fantasy for life.)
ME: I bought it for $2 bucks.
Wales: Oh, okay, that's all I'd spend if that. Sounds dumb.
Sigh. I love Wales, but I really wish she'd broaden her cultural horizons. She doesn't like musicals, fantasy, science fiction (unless it's straight up horror same goes for fantasy) or comic books. At least she likes soap operas. She reminds me of my grandmother who was the same way. Mother likes fantasy, science fiction and musicals. And my brother likes fantasy and science fiction. So, I'm not bereft.
1. Finished watching the first two episodes of FX's new Ryan Murphy series Grotesqueri - which stars Niecy Nash, Courtney B. Vance, Miceala Diamond, Nicholas A. Chavez, Raven Goodwin, and Lesley Mansville.
It's compelling and not what I expected. A police detective and a nun investigate a series of mass murders in a small town.
Mother: I thought you were burned out on serial killers?
ME: I am, but this is well done and about more than that?
Each of the murders is a commentary on Catholicism.
Wales: If Vance hears that - he'll get upset about it and want to shut it down.
Me: I doubt he knows it exists. We have so much content now, it's running under the radar.
Wales: True, we're drowned in content.
Specifically extreme Catholic and Religious devotion and practices. The police detective is struggling with her ex-husband, a philosophy professor who is trapped in a medical coma at a facility with a disreputable nurse who berates the detective for not spending more time with him. And her daughter - who's vice is over-eating, while the detective's vice is alcoholism. Murphy as always is a touch heavy on his metaphors. But less so here than in American Horror Story or Monsters. This one is a bit more understated in some respects.
The nun is a devotee of true crime, writes about crime, and is into serial killers. And the priest - flogs himself for his own desires and vices.
Yet, the performances, writing, and filmmaking are compelling and I couldn't look away. Also a creepy man in a hat walks around the detective's house at night - she can't quite see him, yet we do - his shadow in passing in another room, not quite in sight, almost out of the corner of our eye.
It's the creepiest thing.
2. Separation of Artist and Art
How do we handle art from people who have committed questionable acts?
But to pull away another layer? What if we were following the artist, maybe even a fan of the artist, and thought they were ethical, kind, and like-minded, only to find out in some way that they really aren't and we were wrong?
I think it's one thing to say, pick up the works of Shakespeare knowing full well, he was most likely an asshole. Or watch the films of Alfred Hitchcock knowing he preyed and mentally abused actresses who starred in his films. I mean, we know that going in, right?
And quite another to have say, read and loved the works of JK Rowling only to discover, whoa, she's a TERF and anti-trans, worse uses proceeds to hurt transgender. Or to be a huge fan of say Whedon only to discover he was an abusive boss, and well a lot like Hitchcock? Or Kevin Spacey or Johnny Depp or for that matter, Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby?
And what to do about folks like Neil Gaiman - where I'm not really sure what the heck the story is - because it's so poorly reported and presented? Gaiman's a special case - because I read his works thinking he was one thing, only to discover I was wrong, and he's another thing entirely. They are tainted somehow. The Gaiman thing is headache inducing. (If you want to know what it is - look it up on your own.)
I think it is a sense of betrayal? That the artist marketed and promoted themselves as one thing, along with their work - only to be proven to be something or someone else? That's unsettling.
Yet, what I'm struggling with is...people are more than one thing. And there is darkness in everyone, we just choose not to act on it or go there. Some people choose to act on it - when given the opportunity. Gaiman apparently did, as did Whedon. Both state - that it was consensual, and the women in question threw themselves at them. And they honestly are appalled that anyone would think otherwise.
Except, the women in question were in their employ? They were the boss?
There was a definite power imbalance?
And in regards to Gaiman, some were twenty-something fans?
Elvis did the same thing by the way. Women threw themselves at him. And he, well took advantage. But that's different, I think? They were much younger than Elvis - he attracted women who were younger than he was.
Not everyone did this. The Beatles didn't. But they were a band, and not being managed by the Colonel.
I don't know the answers to this. Human beings aren't puzzles that we can crack. They evolve and change, and grow and learn. From one moment to the next. No one stays the same. And I'm not sure I'll ever understand why people do the things they do. Or how I should deal with them? I usually leap away from it. I admittedly haven't watched anything Whedon has done since the news about him came out, I've not read anything else by Rowlings nor re-read the Harry Potter novels, and I don't watch films with Johnny Depp, nor do I see myself reading any more books by Neil Gaiman.
But I probably will watch the Second Series of Sandman - since I listened to the audio play and I'm curious. Should I feel bad about that? I don't think so. And I most likely will re-watch Buffy at some point. Or re-watch a Harry Potter film.
I don't think I'm wrong to do that. It seems illogical to stop enjoying the art or interacting with it. Enjoying the art shouldn't mean that I'm supporting or endorsing the creator, alive or long dead. It's art and in some ways separate from them?
This is something that I continue to have mixed feelings about.
3. Picked up another book via a Smart Bitches rec... The Book Eaters by Sunyi Dean
"Out on the Yorkshire Moors lives a secret line of people for whom books are food, and who retain all of a book's content after eating it. To them, spy novels are a peppery snack; romance novels are sweet and delicious. Eating a map can help them remember destinations, and children, when they misbehave, are forced to eat dry, musty pages from dictionaries.
Devon is part of The Family, an old and reclusive clan of book eaters. Her brothers grow up feasting on stories of valor and adventure, and Devon—like all other book eater women—is raised on a carefully curated diet of fairy tales and cautionary stories.
But real life doesn't always come with happy endings, as Devon learns when her son is born with a rare and darker kind of hunger—not for books, but for human minds."
I got it for about $2.99 on Kindle.
I told Wales about the book. She gave me the side-eye. She doesn't like fantasy based solely on an ill-fated attempt to read CS Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia. (I find it amusing that Chronicles of Narnia turned folks off of fantasy for life.)
ME: I bought it for $2 bucks.
Wales: Oh, okay, that's all I'd spend if that. Sounds dumb.
Sigh. I love Wales, but I really wish she'd broaden her cultural horizons. She doesn't like musicals, fantasy, science fiction (unless it's straight up horror same goes for fantasy) or comic books. At least she likes soap operas. She reminds me of my grandmother who was the same way. Mother likes fantasy, science fiction and musicals. And my brother likes fantasy and science fiction. So, I'm not bereft.