So . . . what is actually up with Amanda Palmer recently?

[xiphias]

I know I've got people on my f-list who know her personally.

Has she been okay recently? I mean, I'm worried about her. I'm not being sarcastic here: to me, she's the woman who helped out folzgold with the fundraiser for Melrose High School, and also did a really fun concert at Arisia one year. I've not actually had a CONVERSATION with her or anything, but a bunch of you are her friends, or at least friends-of-friends of hers.

And I've liked her, not just as an artist, but as a person, from what I've known of her.

Has something shifted? She's put her foot in her mouth a few times recently, which is fine -- everybody does. But she's recently started just deliberately choking on said foot rather than, y'know, APOLOGIZING.

Look, if I said something like, ". . . donate money to something ironic, like the Klan", some of you would laugh. And a whole hell of a lot of you would say, "Ian, that was a real asshole thing to say," and then I'd say, "Um. Yeah. You're right. That was a real asshole thing to say. I'm sorry." And then I'd apologize, and you'd forgive me for having done something really stupid, asshole, and offensive all at once, because I would have REALIZED that I'd done that and I would be trying to change and do better in the future.

And she's now on the "spiral". The "Evelyn Evelyn" concept was kind of cute, but she and Webley made some rather stupidly offensive choices in creating their backgrounds. Still, they could have apologized, made some tweaks, and gone on -- as far as I can tell, the things that were offensive weren't things that were critical to the project. And that meant that people were already annoyed with her when she Twittered further thoughtlessly offensive and stupid and asshole things, for which she CONTINUES to get defensive. The more defensive she gets, the more she continues to do asshole things.

This process doesn't end well. It feeds on itself.

It CAN be stopped -- by the person who's getting defensive backing off, taking a deep breath, looking at what's going on, and apologizing. But that's really fucking hard to do.

At this point, there are people who are figuring that she's doing it on purpose -- that she's being offensive just for the sake of offending people. While that's possible, that just doesn't sound like the person that I've heard about through my friends.

Which means that one of several things is true: one, she IS that much of an asshole, and always has been, but managed to fool a lot of people in my extended friends group about who she is; two, that she's undergone a really severe personality change over the past several years; three, things are really fucked up right now and she's ACTING like an asshole out of defensiveness, ignorance, and polarization; four, something completely different that I haven't thought of.

They're all possible. Frankly, they're all about equally possible. But the one which I tend to lean to is option three. Because that's the one that I know is solvable, and, that, in fact, I'm good at helping people solve.

So: for those of you who are friends with Palmer, or friends with people who love Palmer, can you at least reassure me that she's basically okay? If she's being an asshole because that's who she is, and she's comfortable with that, then, fine. People can be assholes if they want. But if she's acting like an asshole because she feels backed into a corner and like she's being misunderstood and attacked -- I dunno. Maybe I can help.

Comments

[sinboy.livejournal.com]

She's not OK, she's Famous. Which means she's immune from criticism from anyone who doesn't matter. Which is all of us non famous people. She's not being offensive, see, she's being "provocative". Art provokes, right? Art isn't supposed to be safe. That's her argument. It's what she said about "Evelyn Evelyn".

[maggiebloome.livejournal.com]

You're pretty close to my take on the whole endeavour. I mean, when the whole thing started rolling, I was one of the people who emailed her going "heads up, I feel a little uncomfortable with this and I know a lot of people feel more strongly and are less likely to give you the benefit of the doubt, so if you have a good explanation now would be an excellent time to come out with it" rather than one of the people shouting about it on the internet. (To be fair to them, I don't think there was TOO much of that before she pulled out the whole backstory in a condescending faux-interview... nevertheless, I don't believe I was the only one who sent an email like that, and this was BEFORE that post, so she had to have known there were going to be issues when she made it.)

Anyway, yeah - before the whole thing exploded I assumed she was just being oblivious, and after I like you assumed she was acting like an asshole because she feels backed into a corner and like she's being misunderstood and attacked. Then when she went on Good News Week I started cringing because she'd obviously gone on the defensive and... I don't know what's happening now because I stopped following her on twitter, mostly because my feed was too cluttered and ninja gigs in Amsterdam were expendable, apparently a Ku Klux Klan joke? O.o

The thing is, and I am nowhere near to being a friend of hers, but my modus operandi for situations like this is to try and get inside peoples' heads... and I know this trainwreck. This trainwreck is what happens when you've had a bunch of people get really angry at you, and your options are a) you've done something bad enough for that many people to be that angry at you, or b) something about those people is worthy of dismissing their opinion.

And you choose b, because choosing a would mean feeling really really shitty, and from then on you're not quite living in reality anymore, you're living in the fantasy world that looks very much like reality except for the bit with the people who are angry at you in it. Because in order to convince yourself that you don't need to care what they think, you have to either convince yourself that they're beneath you in some way or that the thing they were accusing you of is not worth consideration, and in order to convince yourself of that you have to invent reasons why those things are justifiable, and... it kind of snowballs from there. There are worse cases, most of them in politics, but people do this all the time on a minor scale, so it can be hard to spot before it goes septic.

I don't know... what do you think can be done about it?

[nellorat.livejournal.com]

Then there's option c): You can be convinced that you did something wrong, but these people taking these approaches are not going to help you see what and why. The best way to handle that would be for both sides to back off. Which of course I don't see as a likely outcome here.

[maggiebloome.livejournal.com]

Well, exactly - most people are willing to believe they've made a faux pas, but the stronger the reaction against you is the worse you'd have to feel about yourself to accept it. Like I said, it's a common enough subconscious dilemma.

I still don't know how to break the cycle - you're probably right that disengaging for a while might help, but there's no way to impose a collective hate mail embargo :P

[nellorat.livejournal.com]

I don't think that it's only "the worse you'd feel about yourself to accept it." Sometimes when someone approaches me in a way I find credible, I can be convinced I need to make a major change, while someone approaching me in a way I don't find credible can't even convince me I need to change the color of my socks. Just because someone is right doesn't mean that person is convincing, at all to anyone*; and an approach or appeal can be convincing to one person but not to another. None of this has to do with the kind of subconscious avoidance you're talking about, which is why I stressed that it is a third option.

* In Religio Medici, Sir Thomas Browne says that he doesn't argue theology much because he's not very good at it, and he doesn't want people to think he's wrong just because he's not very convincing. That's at least in part a pose, but I like the idea.

[maggiebloome.livejournal.com]

ah, I see what you mean now. Sorry, I got confused because I was talking about two options that your subconscious can see when confronted with anger, and didn't realise you were talking about an objective third option based on what's actually happening. I mean, it's correct, but I feel like most people do not tend to think "these people are very angry. maybe they are right but are also going about telling me so in a very unconvincing manner."

[nellorat.livejournal.com]

No problem--I'm always happy to clarify & am glad I wasn't seen as nagging.

I don't know about "most people"--I have long accepted that I am an odd duck in many ways--but that was exactly my reaction to a big RaceFail debate I was in. Praying over it, I got the response, "You really do have something to learn in this area, but these people are not the ones to teach you."

And it doesn't have to be mystical. For instance, if your parents NEVER think anyone is good enough for you, then they become a useless source when it comes to telling if someone is REALLY not good enough for you. Someone who always thinks you should just suck it up and settle down would be equally useless. Both are true even if one side or the other is right--and one side pretty much HAS to be right (or at least more right than the other) in that one! And that's just ONE way someone can be right but not convincing.

Maybe most people don't adequately realize that it's hard to be convincing, and that being convincing can have little to do with being right. I've worked for a long time on being convincing in terms of fact and logic, but now I'm trying to address a whole different facet of reaching people where they are. It's all very, very tough.

One help in seeing truth in unconvincing people/arguments is the saying "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day," or "Even a blind pig finds an acorn every now and then."

[maggiebloome.livejournal.com]

Fair enough, I suppose it's variable. I'd wager that people are less willing to take that approach the more personally invested they are in whatever is being criticised, of course.

And yes, the manner-of-complaint was largely my problem with the whole Evelyn Evelyn drama as far as Amanda Palmer was concerned. It's quite hard to be useful with an issue like that, though, because a) if you're in any way percieved as basically just saying "don't be so angry" shit gets even worse than it started as, and b) you can never, ever, particularly on the internet, impose that kind of standard on the entire mob, which means even if a larger percentage of people argues more convincingly, you're still at the mercy of how much the person being criticised reacts to the portion of the mob that's not doing the rest of it any favours.

From which I'd expect cases like this to be resolved non-horribly mostly only when a) the person in question already has a framework like the one you described for approaching it, or b) someone they trust and respect is presenting the problem to them or at least willing to play devil's advocate.

Either way, from the point of view I started at, i.e. that of a bystander, this stuff we're discussing is all talk. Unless you actually are close to the person under scrutiny, the only thing you're really responsible for is whether your own actions are those of a person you want to be - whichever way that goes.

[aprivatefox.livejournal.com]

I don't know her personally - I've had the pleasure of a conversation with her after one of her shows, and have been very pleased that she's been so successful of late - but I don't think it's hard to empathize with her point of view. "One well-worded letter" is "a deluge of hate mail" when multiplied by the size of her audience, and "one fan saying they support you anyway" is "a chorus shouting "f**k the haters.""

She's said some really dumb and offensive things - but they've been a tiny proportion of the things she's said overall. In my tiny little blog, with my tiny little readership of mostly friends, I've been called out and slammed on the defensive so badly that I barely post. I can only imagine what the experience is on the other side of the big microphone, with something resembling fame, and the knowledge that her career as an entertainer obliges her to say something.

I don't think that she thinks she doesn't have to care what the people who are calling her out say. I think she thinks that she can't care what they're saying, for fear of losing her ability to say anything. I don't honestly think she knows what's going to offend people, and at this point her communications on the matter seem frustrated and worn; she's asked for the benefit of the doubt more than once - I don't know if she's progressed past that at this point.

I hope the spotlight moves off of those things, to be honest. I've seen a musician become afraid of offending her audience, and I saw that musician start writing things that were too bland to be any good. I'd hate to see that happen to her. I have problems with some of her work, and some of the things she's done - but I'm very happy that the work exists and I can talk about the things in it that I have trouble with. The alternative is a lack of art, and a lack of the thought that comes from disagreeing with the artist.

(Sorry for the length, but you're the first (only?) person I know who's talking about this who seems to actually want to talk about it, and I'm a fan of her work with a lot of empathy for the difficulty of her position right now.)

[nellorat.livejournal.com]

I think you're right that it's almost impossible for us to imagine the qualitative difference that comes with the increased attention one gets with even a small amount of fame. I write about Stephen King sometimes, so I read and think about this. I'm very, very glad I'm not at all famous.

[adrian-turtle.livejournal.com]

I don't care about Amanda Palmer's music, and don't know her as a person. The community connections between me and her don't feel strong enough for me to care about her more than I care about some stranger ranting on the Red Line. Nevertheless...I wanted to say that I am impressed by your compassionate approach to the situation.

[chanaleh.livejournal.com]

I am impressed by your compassionate approach to the situation.

+1.

[bluepapercup]

Agreed. Not a fan of her music at all, but she's still a person. I appreciate your take on this, Ian.

Amanda Palmer's ambition will destroy her

[(Anonymous)]

Amanda Palmer's relentless quest for fame has led her into the waiting maw of Scientology. Amanda Palmer is marrying into one of the major international Scientology families and her Scientologist fiancee Neil Gaiman just gave the cult another $500,000.00 through his business partner Mary Gaiman in 2010 after donating $35,000.00 in the fall of 2009. Gaiman is the vitamin heir of scientology and you better believe that they are dealing with Amanda Palmer as we speak. Scientologist believe that accountability is low on the the tone scale and to never defend and always attack. Scientology accounts for every change in Amanda Palmer... if you want to save your friend, you better find out more about it... fast.

Re: Amanda Palmer's ambition will destroy her

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I have no reason to suspect that Neil Gaiman is a scientologist. If he is, I have no reason to suspect that he has any sort of disturbing relationship with the religion. He seems a perfectly sane person to me, on the occasions I've encountered him.

Re: Amanda Palmer's ambition will destroy her

[(Anonymous)]

Gaiman continually gives money to Scientology. In fact, Neil Gaiman is a Scientology underwriter. If you think you can give hundreds of thousands of dollars to Scientology, even funding their silly "super powers" centers, be listed in Scientology journals as a patron and a Scientologist in good-standing, then you are either Neil Gaiman pathetically patrolling your own press or possibly have a brain malfunction. Gaiman is a scientologist and so is Palmer, if you are not that means you are a wog and Gaiman will lie to you.

Re: Amanda Palmer's ambition will destroy her

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Can you provide a citation for this claim?

Re: Amanda Palmer's ambition will destroy her

[(Anonymous)]

Neil Gaiman is a Scientologist and is underwriting Scientology. The Scientologists list Neil Gaiman in the Cornerstone Newsletter along with Mary Gaiman, as contributing $35,000.00 in 2009. Being listed in the Cornerstone Newsletter means you are in good-standing with the cult.

In 2010, Mary Gaiman was awarded the "Gold Humanitarian Award" for her contribution of $500,000.00 to Scientology. This is significant because Mary Gaiman continues to be Neil Gaiman’s business partner in The Blank Corporation, which is now Neil Gaiman's Scientology front and how he pays the cult.

Gaiman is also the "Vitamin Heir" of Scientology. The Gaiman family owns G&G Vitamins which reaps 6 million a year from selling The Purification Rundown Vitamins.

Gaiman's two sisters, Claire Edwards and Lizzie Calciole are not just high-ranking Scientologists, they are the head of RECRUITING and the head of Wealden House, the Scientology stronghold in East Grinstead. These two cannot associate with Neil unless he is in good standing.

Amanda Palmer would not be allowed anywhere near this royal family of Scientology unless she was also a Scientologist.

Re: Amanda Palmer's ambition will destroy her

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Just so you know, Anonymous: I consider you crazy. I mean, Gaiman is a friend-of-friends of mine -- I don't personally know him, but I know folks who do.

[(Anonymous)]

Just so you know, xiphias. You sound like a Sea Org stooge. Gaiman's underwriting of Scientology is clearly documented. He is continually listed in Scientology's own magazines. Lots of Scientologists and ex-Scientologists know Gaiman only too well.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

"Sea Org"? I don't know what that means. And you're not sounding less crazy.