1. Polanski
"A victim has the right to leave the past behind her, and an aggressor also has the right to rehabilitate and redeem himself, above all when he has admitted his mistakes and apologized.” Samatha Geimer - the victim of Polanski.
On page 16, Dederer acknowledges that Samantha has forgiven him but she doesn't interrogate that at all, and I find that disturbing. The act that Polanski did (and others in the same time frame have come forward to say they had a similar experience) was monstrous. But that doesn't reify him as a monster to me for all time, particularly if Polanski led a different life after. He seems to have. I could change my mind, here. But the victim forgave him, 44 years have passed, and I forgive him too.
2. Her insensitivity
Polanski's victim has asked one thing most strongly: Please, stop it! You are hurting me and my family if you keep bringing it up. You have victimized me more than Polanski did. I have forgiven him. But you (the press, books like this) are still victimizing me.
Dederer knows this or is a horrible researcher. Thus, she put her need to call him a monster and use him for this book above Samantha's insistent, consistent and persistent plea. (yeah - borrowing from another area...) She should have addressed this in the book.
3. Wagner
She truly knows nothing about Wagner and most everything she states as fact are not true, beyond that he wrote Jewishness in Music, and that she quoted the mean parts accurately. She quoted the Callow book accurately, but his book is wildly inaccurate and hyperbolic with no sources. It's just crap historically, though somewhat entertaining - he is an actor who did a Wagner stage show. Dederer has no business writing this chapter. It's pure character assassination without any research beyond the two sources (Fry and Callow.)
Wagner died 50 years before Hitler came to power, which she strangely leaves out. His politics were solidly left-wing (anti-militarism, anti-war, anti-capitalist) his whole adult life. He was not a fascist, a proto-fascist and, according to all historical biographies, had nothing to do with Hitler's anti-Semitism or the rise of the Nazis (though Hitler, as countless others in that era were, was a big fan of Wagner's music.) I would need to write a book to explain the true story and, happily, I basically did. I wrote it ten years ago as a blog to see if I could resolve the cognitive dissonance of loving Wagner's music with his reputation as a monster. I am currently redoing it to be more like a book (and fix links, various font problems, etc.) But here is a link to the old blog and what will come up is the conclusion that, no, he was not a monster.
4. The point of the book
She claims the point of the book is to explore how a fan should explore the dilemma of the art being created by "a monster". I don't buy it, at all. Most Wagner historians believe that "Jewishness in Music" was not written primarily to explore that issue but was a veiled attack on the Jewish composer Giacomo Meyerbeer, who he believed betrayed him. Similarly, I believe this book is actually her attempt to get revenge, particularly on those men who betrayed her. The ones she loved. Polanski. Allen. Jackson. Bowie. She wants to dig the knife in and, then, pull more people into her revenge via this book. Oh, and attack male critics along the way.
5. Woody Allen
I have followed this case closely since it emerged and have come to the conclusion - just as those who investigated did - that Dylan Farrow was coached by Mia Farrow to say she was molested and implanted those memories. I do believe Dylan believes them - she is a victim of Mia Farrow. This process - to induce memories - is quite easy. Look at the McMartin and other child care panic cases. Look at all the women who "recovered" memories of being sexually assaulted in therapy. Read Ceci and Bruck's "The Suggestibility of Childhood Memory."
So, for me the only issue is Soon-Yi, and it's none of my business, and he did nothing that hurt the public and, certainly, her. He and Soon-Yi did betray Mia Farrow and I did feel sorry for her but, then again, I felt sorry for Dory Previn, too. I know nothing about their dynamics and, again, it's none of my business, and I don't judge him for falling in love with another woman. Now, this is where Dederer starts twisting facts and throwing in conclusions that are just bull. She ignores what investigators concluded, and Soon-Yi and Woody have long said, which is that they had barely any relationship when she was a child. It was, ironically, the lack of that relationship that led Mia to ask Woody to spend some time with her. He didn't live with her, wasn't her father. Period. Dederer had an important relationship with her mom's boyfriend - good for her. But she is attacking Woody for no damn good reason on this count. Then she says that they started to sleep together when she was in last year of high school or first year of college. I cry foul. She was 20 (or 21). Because Mia thought Soon-Yi had learning problems, she was held back. But there is no doubt she was a woman when the affair started (though Dederer didn't mention the fact, and refers to her as a girl.)
Then there is the Manhattan thing. The Mariel Hemingway character was 17. Age of consent is New York is 17. So, nothing illegal. And I don't find it immoral. Such relationships happen, and I have known some. I realize I am probably in the minority here, but if there is consent, it is between them (fictional or otherwise). I will raise an eyebrow but that is about it.
6. Dederer clearly believes that girls are vulnerable, unable to consent when teenagers, particularly with older men. And it's disgusting (ok, not for those reasons said if you hit the link, but still - disgusting for her.) It's a moral thing for her that she assumes everyone shares. I do not. I believe in the agency of women and teenage girls. Once you are sexually mature and emotionally mature enough to date older guys, I don't have a moral problem with it. When I was in my teens, I went for guys in their 20s (more interesting, and I assumed better at sex). I wasn't having intercourse (gold star lesbian here!) but I did sexual things with those guys that were, technically, "statutory rape". I wasn't going to bust them (and my parents knew and thought I was mature enough to do what I wanted so they weren't going to bust them either). There are a lot of girls out there who were like me, I know.
Now age of consent laws have an interesting and strange history. But, in this day and age, they serve two purposes: to make a man be responsible financially if he makes an underage woman pregnant and to protect girls. What the actual age of consent is varies from state to state and between countries. And really between centuries! In 1890, in America, the average age of consent was 12, with 10 being quite common (clearly sexist and horrifying!!) In the reform era - the age of consent laws shot up by 1920 to 18 in most states as women reformers lobbied for the change. Now in America, the ages are between 16-18. In Europe, the ages are most commonly 14-16. France is 15.
I am European on this one... Anyway, there were lots of underage groupies that rock stars (and other types of stars) were having sex with that was consensual such as Bowie's groupie. She said she was fine with it, so I am fine with it. Not a Bowie fan, but it would have been completely legal in most Europe countries.
7. The #metoo problem. While I was very glad that the movement arose and women came forward, there was a horrific groupthink that led to people with wildly different levels of accusations were lumped in - without due process - as perpetrators. She repeats this in her book where she just repeats on page 14 a list of names. I hated this about the movement - if a woman accuses, it's true and we don't need any exploration of the charges. Women do lie! It happens. The "believe the women" thing is horrible. I blogged on it, if you care. Anyway, I think that list without, at least, trying to justify each inclusion was just mean.
7. J.K. Rowling.
Dederer says of Rowling's non-alignment with gender ideology that: "Many of the former Potter kids were trans and they were rightly very angry". No, they weren't! Rowling said nothing anti-trans, only that women's spaces should be protected. I can't disagree more with Dederer.
8. She is incredibly myopic while, at same time, accusing male critics of being so. She doesn't see it though, so I don't trust her self-awareness at all and her "Am I a Monster" chapter reflected that myopia to me.
Just to sum up, I believe she often didn't state facts accurately - sometimes horribly so, and has a lack of nuance, sympathy, empathy or historical understanding. And, I didn't find the "stain filter" helpful in any case.
