Source of book: NetGalley (thank you)
Relevant disclaimers: none
Please note: This review may not be reproduced or quoted, in whole or in part, without explicit consent from the author.
And remember: I am not here to judge your drag, I mean your book. Books are art and art is subjective. These are just my personal thoughts. They are not meant to be taken as broader commentary on the general quality of the work. Believe me, I have not enjoyed many an excellent book, and my individual lack of enjoyment has not made any of those books less excellent or (more relevantly) less successful.
**Trigger warnings for this review, references to hate speech and sexual assault**
I… honestly have no idea how to rate this book for NetGalley purposes. I think I maybe hated it? Which had nothing to do with the book and everything to do with me. I honestly kind of wish I hadn’t read it, or I’d had the guts to stop reading it when I realised it was (unintentionally and non-maliciously) taking me to a bad place. I’m even wondering if I should be reviewing it because I don’t know how to separate evaluation of the book as … as, well, a book, from my reaction to it. But I guess I’ll give it my best shot and we can figure out if I’m too compromised after.
So. Conversations with People Who Hate Me: 12 Things I Learned from Talking to Internet Strangers is written by the guy who played Carlos from Welcome to Nightvale, and takes its inspiration from a podcast he did—and which I listened to a little bit—called Conversations With People Who Hate Me. The podcast is a series of, I guess the best word is conversations, with a carefully selected cross-section of people who had previously sent Dylan Marron hate messages down the years. And the book explores the context that led him to create the podcast in the first place, the process of creating of it and, as the title suggests, what conclusions he reached as a consequence of both. The final chapter gently unravels the process of writing the book itself, as Marron has to overcome the overwhelming self-consciousness that I believe all liberal-learning, marginalised writers face when they approach the task of putting down words: what happens if I get cancelled for what I’ve said here. Although I do kinda wish somebody had told me before that I was allowed to just wrap up a book I’ve written by worrying about the public reaction to it. Might have saved me a lot of anxiety.
Look, I’m being uncharitable. This is a well-written, well-structured, undeniably unusual piece of work. I appreciated the artistry of it as a text: the engaging style, the careful way Marron guides us on a journey with him, the effortless way he blends anecdotes and personal reflection with reflections on other texts and pieces of research. There’s some obvious-if-you’ve-thought-about-it-for-more-than-two-seconds but still illuminating considerations of the way social media keeps us isolated, not in the usual “online bad, meat good” sense that this debate tends to get reduced to, but how profit for the organisations that create platforms in this space is driven not from communication but controversary. And I’m sure there are readers who aren’t me who will find the book genuinely inspiring, thought-provoking, and hopeful.
There you go. Four or five stars, thumbs up, good job, grab this if it sounds like the sort of thing you’re interested in. That probably sounds dismissive but is not intended to be. The book is sure to speak to some people, probably many people, and you may very well be one of them.
I, however, am not one of them. And, to be completely truthful about it, I can’t tell if that’s down to pure defensiveness because I don’t want to talk to, or really think about, people who hate me. To give Marron due credit, he goes out of his way to make his book non-shamey about this: he mostly roots his analogies and applications to small issues of everyday life (like his neighbours who weren’t putting out the recycling properly) and he acknowledges very explicitly the potentially overwhelming emotional labour that is engaging with hate (although let’s be clear hate is a complex term in this context: people who are dicks to you, especially on the internet, especially if you’re some variety of public figure, however small in my case, probably necessarily don’t *hate* you in a personal way and shouldn’t necessarily be conflated by people who send literal death threats to marginalised people). Although, I can’t lie, that just made me feel worse, because I am more privileged than Marron and a lot more privileged than many of the people who opted out of his conversations-with-haters project. So, y’know, maybe I’m just some kind of wilting violet who can’t cope with the reality of a job in the public eye: albeit in very minor job as a bare speck in said eye.
I mean, don’t get me wrong, I am beyond fortunate. I can literally remember the separate occasions on which someone has told me I deserve to be raped, which is not the case for … most women of any sort of profile operating in internet spaces. Err, I mean because they get too many to keep count. I think I’ve only had … one or two actual stalkers. I have an assistant who keeps the file of the people who have contacted me in threatening or worrying-seeming manner, which allows me to keep a certain distance from the reality that this is something that is happening to me. And while living through multiple public shamings has emotional costs, they’ve never been big enough or I’ve never been important enough for them to impact my life in any significant practical way—which, again, is not the case for people less protected by privilege than I am.
All of which is why I felt uncomfortable with the book and uncomfortable with my discomfort. Because I can’t tell if I just happen to have rational disagreements about how we exist in a polarised world than some guy who wrote a book about how he personally exists in a polarised world, or I’m looking for excuses because he made me feel bad about me. Because here’s the thing, I can recognise that the “people who hate me” (again asterisks around the term—Marron himself doesn’t quite manage to come to peace with it in the chapter where he discusses naming the podcast) are human. Because a lot of them are on social media, I can—if I want—find out quite a lot of humanising information about them: the things that upset them, the name of their cat, how they feel about their mother, whatever. But I think for me, for my well-being, I need there to be clear blue water between acknowledging their humanity, which I’m happy to do, and letting them preoccupy my thoughts and take up my time, which I’m not. And I find myself wondering what a conversation (which Marron believes to be a form of activism) actually achieve here, even pre-supposing any of these people would be willing to talk to me in the first place?
Because, honestly, I think that it comes down to for me: having conversations with “people who hate you” is good for one thing, and one alone. Which is creating buzz-generating podcasts. I don’t think it would, for example, help the space I kind of exist on the margins of become a more inclusive, less hostile, less hateful. The one thing I have learned over a decade of existing here is that emotional safety is best ensured by maintaining careful spheres of absence. Not through a willingness to converse.
Basically, the points of contention I have with Marron’s ideas come down are these:
One: he calls his “conversations with people who hate me” a social experiment. I think too much reality TV has made me incredibly resistant on principle to anything labelled an experiment, social or otherwise. Because experiments, you know, have rules. And something isn’t an experiment if you manipulate the outcome: which is not to say that I think Marron should not have vetted the people he interviewed (his safety is, of course, the most relevant factor here) but his project is a social experiment in the way Love is Blind is a social experiment. Which is to say, good TV and not very much else.
Two: he comes back a lot to the idea that “hurt people hurt people” – which was the manifesto that got him through the shitty treatment he received while putting himself through university working catering jobs. I mean, I’ve been there, I’ve done that myself – as in, I have worked shitty jobs where I was treated shittily. And, once again, we’re faced with my potential failures of empathy because while I believe it is important to remember people are complex, nuanced and damaged in ways we aren’t privy to, the fact is some people are just dicks. And people who make an on-going habit of treating wait staff poorly are just dicks. Especially because there are plenty of people in the world who are complex, nuanced and damaged in ways we aren’t privy to, who may also have oppositional political views to us, who do NOT treat wait staff poorly. Like, the problem here is not that wait staff need to cultivate in themselves radical empathy to survive the ill-treatment they receive from customers, it is for there to be broader cultural shifts in the way we perceive its appropriate to treat wait staff. And I know the latter feels unchangeably vast whereas the former is something one person can do on their own without the backing of either the government or the capitalist infrastructure upon which all these dynamics are built, but it’s still making the person with the least power do the most emotional work. Which is already happening physically and professionally because they’re currently waiting fucking tables.
The other thing I particularly dislike about the “hurt people hurt people” mantra is that it’s … um. Wrong? Because, while, yes, cycles of abuse are a thing, anyone who has ever been involved in any sort of work related to abuse survivors will tell you that, in actual fact, hurt people get hurt. It’s a godawful thing to talk about, but if you have been abused, you are more likely to be abused in the future. And maxims like “hurt people hurt people” entering the public discourse are actually genuinely harmful to abuse survivors because they, once again, centre abusers in narratives of abuse, over the people directly harmed by that abuse.
Three: For Marron, the success of Conversations with People Who Hate Me are two people with opposing views, one of whom might have called the other a slur on the internet and suggested he kill himself, being able to put aside the need to debate or score rhetorical points off each other and find spaces of mutual empathy. And, y’know, that’s all great. I’m sure it felt really nice. But, like, you can do that that with pretty much anyone, as long they’re not so actively hateful they’re trying to legit murder you. And even though Marron makes the point that empathy is not the endorsement, it still brings you perilously close to this Trumpian “good people on both sides” space where you’re exchanging heart-warming anecdotes about your childhood with someone who fundamentally doesn’t believe you have the right to exist. And, obviously, you’re not going to solve someone believing you fundamentally don’t have the right to exist by arguing with them. But I kind of personally feel social interaction has hit its natural limit when one of you is so-so on the whether the other person should be alive and happy and have access to the same civil rights as everyone else. At that point, it doesn’t matter if your mum bought you the same kind of biscuit when you were eight, y’know?
Four: I think what a lot of this comes down to for me is kind of … okay. You know there’s an episode of The Simpsons where Homer accidentally makes friends with a guy called John who turns out to be gay. When Marge tells him this friend (who I think is voiced by John Walters?) is gay, Homer freaks out and is only reconciled with John after John saves him from being torn apart by berserk reindeer (it’s The Simpsons, don’t ask). Anyway, after John and Homer are reconciled, John says: “I won your respect, and all I had to do was save your life. Now, if every gay man could just do the same, you'd be set.” And I kind of feel that’s where Conversations With People Who Hate Me ultimately leads us: possibly you can make a single bigot (sorry, nuanced, complex, more damaged than we are privy to human being) empathise with a single marginalised person (or, in the case of one painful to read about example in the book, one single sexual abuse survivor) but only at the cost of the emotional equivalent of “and all I had to do was save your life.” Several times Marron notes how the people he talked to were happy to have talked to him because normally expressing views hostile to the lives and safety of particular marginalised groups got them shouted at by members of that marginalised group. Okay, I have phrased that unfairly. The thing is I’m not disputing that this was positive for Marron and positive for the people he spoke to but, from a certain perspective, isn’t Marron just essentially establishing himself as “one of the good ones” at the cost of absolutely everybody else who doesn’t want to practice radical empathy towards the very people who are making their lives worse in the world they live in?
And now I’m legitimately scared that I’m going to become the one who tried to cancel Carlos from Nightvale. I do not want to cancel, nor do I want anyone to cancel, Carlos from Nightvale. He seems like a nice person and we have several life experiences in common, although I would definitely not want to be his neighbour because then he’d apparently send me passive-aggressive notes about my recycling that I would be required to respond positively to in order to provide an illustrative example for his book.
What this all comes down is: Conversations with People Who Hate Me: 12 Things I Learned from Talking to Internet Strangers is a good book, in abstract terms of bookness, and I’m sure there’s going to be a lot of people who get a lot of it (I mean, just look at the pull quotes). I just think, for me, I think there is a problem in the world where being treated shittily on a mass scale feels like such an unsolvable, unchanging problem that we are sometimes forced to turn being treated shittily into a virtue. This is the whole principle that underlying the book—a principle that, to give Marron credit, he interrogates articulately and engagingly from several directions. It’s just not a principle I personally connect with and which made me curl up in the foetal position under my desk. Which is not, by the way, an invitation to empathy. It’s just my reaction.