Olivia Munn onstage during an Emily’s List event in Beverly Hills on February 19, wearing a suit that was NOT criticized by Go Fug Yourself.
Hasn’t stan culture taught us that no one has more power than a murder of fans on the internet, waiting to attack? It was bad enough that Nicki Minaj DM’d Toronto writer Wanna Thompson on Twitter because she didn’t like her criticism of her music, calling her ugly and jealous, much like what you’d typically tell someone in the seventh grade if you wanted to make them cry in the middle of the cafeteria. But then Minaj’s fandom descended on Thompson too, calling her an “unemployed dark skin black guttersnipe bitch.” Thompson is an independent blogger, far from a famous writer and not affiliated with a major media brand. What power did she have that Minaj felt like she needed to rebalance in the world? Why is it her job to say nothing if she can’t say something nice?
Celebrities voicing their displeasure with journalists’ work can also set off chain reactions of behind-the-scenes consequences, especially where large and sensitive corporations eager to preserve their access to artists are involved. In 2017, for example, Spin reported that MTV management removed a negative review of a Chance the Rapper concert, at his team’s request. And as the New Yorker’s Amanda Petrusich wrote at the time, the idea that “any media organization could be effectively bullied into shifting its mission from journalistic to promotional, is unnerving.”
A noble shift has happened in online media, perhaps in the last decade, wherein most people who write or edit journalism and criticism for a living have come to agree that being an asshole for no reason is generally a bad move. Punching down is a waste of time, and while many people — namely writers — go through an exhilarating period of exercising the power of their words in wasteful directions, most of us eventually settle down. You learn that making fun of someone’s appearance, their weight, their failures, or other things outside their control might get you attention in the short term, but leaves you obsolete (and emotionally empty) in the end. There’s a reason why the cruelest of the early aughts celebrity gossip blogs don’t really have any cultural cachet anymore, and why marginalized people who were at the heart of high-profile scandals in earlier decades are seeing pop culture begin to reconsider the way they were treated by the press.
But that doesn’t mean that journalists or writers or reviews are always going to be a positive part of your publicity cycle. A review or profile isn’t necessarily for the artist in question — it’s for readers of a website, or a paper, or a blog; for fans or potential fans or merely interested parties. That, again, doesn’t mean journalists or critics should get away with criticism rooted in sexism or racism or an otherwise blinkered point of view, but I wish more artists could accept that even though they may be the subject of a given piece, they aren’t necessarily its intended audience.
Reviewers and artists work in a complicated, symbiotic relationship where both need the other. And new digital platforms have made that relationship even more fraught; as Alison Herman writes at the Ringer, “Thanks to social media, it’s both harder than ever for stars to shield themselves from the noise and easier than ever for them to respond directly to what surely feels like an all-out assault on their character.” But it’s not a journalist’s or critic’s job to fluff a celebrity’s ego.
As a famous person, you have agents, managers, makeup artists, hairstylists, friends, family, internet fans, IRL fans, strangers on the street, Twitter, Instagram, stan culture at large, and the people buying tickets to see you live, who are all more than happy to let you know that you’re the greatest person in the world. To expect the same from writers doing their best to honestly and insightfully assess your work or your public image is a misunderstanding of what we’re trying to accomplish. Some, it seems, have a better understanding of this relationship than others.
Writers know — probably better than anyone — what it feels like to have their life’s creative work torn to shreds by strangers on the internet.
One of the great ironies of all of this is that writers know — probably better than anyone — what it feels like to have their life’s creative work torn to shreds by strangers on the internet. I have been angry every day of my life, but nothing made me angrier than when Goodreads reviews of my first book started coming in. My book was otherwise successful both in sales and general critical acclaim (ha ha, I tricked you into reading about how great I am!!!), but one day I stayed up until 3 in the morning and read a one-star review of my book that said the reader didn’t like it because it didn’t have enough page breaks.
Now, I could’ve gone on Twitter and complained about how no one is allowed to review my book unless they’ve written one themselves, or said that reviewers like that are akin to bullies who drive other kids to suicide, or suggested that those people are wasting their lives unless they’re giving me constant, unfiltered praise. Instead, I simply mentioned the bad review 30 or 40 times in passing to everyone I have ever met, and moved on — sort of.
The truth is that I think about that Goodreads review all the time, along with every other bad review or mean tweet I’ve ever read about any of my writing, and if you’d like to sit down with me for a brief 13-hour lunch, I’d be happy to recount them all to you in livid, wholly unnecessary detail. Art is personal. Comedy, music, movies, television, fashion — it’s all personal, even when it’s supposed to be fiction. All creative work requires you to pull little pieces of yourself off, sell them to strangers, and hope that they treat it with care. It’s hard to blame anyone for feeling bruised if someone else is harsh about something as intimate as their soul-bearing record or an outfit that they felt good in.
But what lashing out at your critics (or at least the ones with valid, good-faith arguments) says is that you’ve given them power over you to determine how you feel about your own work — a power that the critic didn’t ask for. There’s a difference between being hurt, or disappointed (perfectly normal!), and attacking someone for breaking a promise they never made.
It is, I think, less of a conversation about the power dynamics between a writer and a celebrity, and more about every artist stopping to consider which hill you want to die on and who you think is responsible for dictating your work’s value. That, frankly, seems like the real power you wouldn’t want to give up. ●