Navigating the quagmire of cancel culture and consumerism
Do not participate in promoting complacency.
At times it feels pretentious to criticize "mass market media" and "mass market literature." But other times, like after learning about this... "Elizabeth Gilbert halts release of a new book after outcry over its Russian setting."
I don’t know… it just itches my brain in the worst way.
I had forgotten she was the author who wrote “Eat, Pray, Love,” to be honest I’ve never read it and I probably never will. However, the important context for my thoughts on this is the understanding that she is a “mass market author.”
So, I read about this from a piece in Noema: "The Emptiness of Literature Written for The Market." (The piece shares many of my own thoughts around this topic in a much less hyperbolic fashion, so if you prefer that format, give it a read as well. I don’t write on here to fall under some illusionary zeitgeist about the proper structure of presenting an argument.)
Also, this partially feels like a follow-up to this essay I wrote last week:
Okay…
Kenneth Dillon in Noema:
"This summer, Elizabeth Gilbert, the author of the bestselling divorce memoir “Eat, Pray, Love,” posted an unusual video to Instagram. Gilbert’s warm smile has become familiar to more than a million followers, but in the video she looks sullen as she describes her forthcoming novel, “The Snow Forest,” in the past tense.
“I have received an enormous, massive outpouring of reactions and responses from my Ukrainian readers expressing anger, sorrow, disappointment and pain about the fact that I would choose to release a book into the world right now — any book, no matter what the subject of it is — that is set in Russia,” Gilbert says in the video, which has now accrued nearly 48,000 likes. “And as a result I’m making a course correction, and I’m removing this book from the publication schedule. It is not the time for this book to be published.”
Much of the criticism Gilbert mentions seems to have been shared on Goodreads, the literary social media platform owned by Amazon. The New York Times reported that the now-deleted page for “The Snow Forest” — a 1930s David and Goliath story about a rogue gang of environmentalists fighting to protect the Siberian wilderness from the forces of Soviet industrialization — was overwhelmed by one-star reviews decrying the novel’s setting amidst Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine."
Internet Ethicists
I’m not typically keen on delving into the realm of work culture, anti-wokeness, or cancel culture—or whatever moniker it goes by these days. It’s just not my thing. I find it quite tiresome, overdone, and often linked to thinkers who narrow their focus exclusively to it. Those entrenched in this space often emanate a kind of hollowness, reminiscent of the lack of depth and understanding in their own perspective. It's a viewpoint that can be shattered with a mere moment of genuine self-reflection.
Yet, when money is at stake, especially in this challenging economy, expecting these empty caricatures who label themselves as thinkers to rise to the occasion is simply too much. These so-called thinkers often had limited success before adopting the role of poster children for the anti-woke movement. Take, for instance, the likes of Ben Shapiro and his entire team at The Daily Wire, a group primarily comprised of individuals who lacked the creative talent to thrive in their desired artistic fields. Consequently, they now engage in conservative punditry, as it's the only way anyone will ever find their work even remotely captivating.
So I question their ability to provide a nuanced analysis of a system, how we should speak, treat people, and react to what someone says or does. I sometimes think they're a bit obtuse because they're already successful, and their fear of being canceled stems from their fear of being held accountable for their actions.
And another reason I seldom touch upon this topic is the curious phenomenon of comedians, for example, who proclaim themselves as warriors against anti-free speech and wokeness. Oddly enough, their so-called cancellation frequently catapults them into newfound fame and fortune, including million-dollar Netflix specials. In my view, this entire scenario reeks of an internet-fueled illusion, overrun by loud, bothersome, and dull individuals who howl into the abyss for attention and profit. More often than not, they find it in the form of irate, nonsensical remarks that, in reality, warrant no real attention, thus perpetuating a vicious cycle of insecurity-fueled antics behind screens.
This irritation is not exclusive to one side—it's pervasive among both the would-be cancelers and those bemoaning their cancellation. For every right-wing troll, a leftist internet warrior is mudding the discourse for some BS virtue points. To me, everyone routinely engaged in this arena seems exceedingly irksome and lackluster.
Now... if at this point you are finding me irksome. Good.
Creative Conformist
So, my author in question, Elizabeth Gilbert, epitomizes a trend I've noticed. Successful authors often morph into influencers. They veer away from their creative roots, gravitating instead towards a brand-centric existence, emphasizing appearances, corporate alliances, and peddling a lifestyle. It's this shift that is disconcerting to me, as it appears to excessively commercialize creativity, thereby jeopardizing the authenticity of artistic expression.
It’s destroying any opportunity for authenticity in creative pursuits! We’ve replaced our consumption with representations and appearances! And this shift from creativity to commodification reflects exactly what I’m talking about, where the value of creative work is measured by its marketability and contribution to personal branding, rather than its intrinsic artistic worth.
The internet losers pushing Gilbert to cancel her publication are fueling the system of commodification.
Here's the thing I take issue with: Gilbert pulling her book made this entire story and how it was covered about cancel culture.
Would they have come for her in some sense if she had published? Absolutely.
There are many many people on the internet that have nothing better to do with their sad existence than getting meaningless and false ethical wins. And setting a novel in Russia should not be automatically seen as complicity in its political actions. Obviously. Literature often transcends current political situations, as it should, offering insights into cultures, histories, and human experiences that go beyond the immediate context of contemporary events.
Gilbert missed an opportunity to provide a further platform for critical engagement with these issues. Although I’m not saying her work in particular would provide a great platform for this, however, I’m always looking to promote the opportunity. Literature can and should offer nuanced perspectives that deepen understanding while fostering dialogue, rather than simplifying or fully avoiding complex geopolitical situations.
How many Ukrainians did Gilbert save by pulling her book from publication?
We are scraping away opportunities for interesting discussion and discourse in the name of living in a hollowed-out illusion. We’ve allowed an illusion to manifest in the form of creating a brand-safe image that aligns with prevailing societal norms, often at the expense of deeper, more provocative artistic expression. The fear of hurting a brand leads to a hyperreal space where the appearance of social responsibility overshadows the authenticity of creative content.
And I think it’s in this authenticity that we find the spaces and gaps that allow us to question the fabric of our society that creates a perception of social responsibility.
Linking this to the broader context of wokeness and woke culture, there seems to be an overemphasis on business and profit, potentially at the expense of producing art that is provocative, emotionally resonant, and intellectually engaging. Mainstream mass-market art, in its pursuit of conforming to popular or 'safe' narratives, often ends up being less challenging and more about reinforcing existing norms and values. This can lead to a cultural landscape where art is less about exploring life's complexities and more about providing an unchallenging escape, fostering complacency rather than critical thought.
I'm inclined to think that Elizabeth Gilbert's main worry wasn't about her book being outright canceled; it seemed more about the potential impact on her brand. Yet, cancel culture does weave into this narrative, as her choice was swayed by the backlash concerning the book's setting. This is maddening because we should be crediting consumers of art and information with the ability to develop a sophisticated understanding of what they're digesting. People ought to transcend their knee-jerk emotional responses and aim to delve into and grasp the complexities of various subjects.
I'm eager to witness the demise of this era where people are constantly swayed by every viral internet trend, craving ceaseless validation. While being sensitive to contentious topics is essential, the act of withdrawing a book due to prospective hurt feelings, particularly when it doesn't glorify the contentious subject, casts doubts on our capacity to interact thoughtfully with art and ideas. If we fail to reach a more refined level of critical thinking and nuanced understanding, what then becomes the point of creating anything at all?
Do not participate in promoting complacency.
Stay curious.