Great review of the story, an adjunct to my own perspective about the same ol’ tired narrative of “crazy woman, poor man”. Sure wish the feminists would speak up about this one.
I was a kid when "Tears in Heaven" came out, and people criticized Eric Clapton for exploiting his child's death to make a song and a buck. It was so strange to me, but the world takes all kinds. This column takes me back.
Eh, we don’t think the alleged real Martha is crazy because Gadd told us so. We think she’s crazy because she has made literally hundreds of Facebook posts about the topic since the show began, and that is not the mark of someone who’s well.
Often people can be the facilitators of their own victimization. Like Donny with his mentor. People call it Hollyweird for a reason. I’ll be skipping this series.
Kat, got to be honest, this story was kind of awful. Why not do some leg work? Were there criminal charges filed, civil suits, testimony in court under oath about what happened in this situation? Did I miss that part of the story? If not, why is Netflix telling this story in the first place? Throwing up your hands and saying who knows the truth is not conducive to the concept of Journalism. Journalism exists under the presumption that the truth, however difficult it may be to find, is out there. Maybe find out what the truth is in this case for a follow up story?
I watched “Baby Reindeer.” It was an engaging meditation on identity (who are we? What do we want to be? What are we willing to do to be that?), trauma (abuse in a variety of forms, both at the hands of others and by our own hand), belonging (a romantic partner, a member of a family, a professional community), and the impact of small acts. It was a good show. Did the “real” Martha get a raw deal? Maybe. Is the person who came forward the real “Martha?” Maybe. The truth is, we don’t know the truth. At the end of the day this is a story, true or not. It was told in a way that some people liked (clearly) and some didn’t. And, as is so often the case in the media memesphere, lots of people who didn’t see it at all but have lots of opinions about it, anyway.
*[Some Asshole pulls out his soapbox and swallows, hoping to hide the booze on his breath, then begins to speak]: I don’t like basketball. I mean, I utterly despise the sport. Real men, as far as I’m concerned, play hockey, and basketball just eats up real estate and TV time better spent on the rink. Thus, I opted not to read the article on the Knicks….
Does this mean that article didn’t appeal to other readers, or that the particular interests of Some Asshole on the Internet should garner the full and uncompromising focus of the entire FP staff? Of course not.
Some readers apparently feel the same about pop culture as I do about Urban Tree Hockey, which is cool. What’s odd, however, is the idea that someone knows they won’t be interested in an article because they don’t like the subject matter (it’s not exactly a deceptive headline) but chooses to spend their own time, of their own accord, both reading and responding to that article, complaining that it’s somehow the fault of the author or publisher that their time was wasted.
[Some Asshole stumbles off his soapbox like Joe Biden trying to ride a bike]….*
Unsolicited lecture out of the way….
I, also, don’t much care about pop culture - at least, not since Guns N’ Roses broke up. I’ve never watched Baby Reindeer and, after reading the article, I’m even less interested in it. I am, however, a failing artist and a dutiful student of the human condition. The deeper focus of this article, “[is your story] even about you anymore [once it’s been put on display]? Or is it about a character who just sort of looks like you?” is a compelling one.
There are three general factors that contribute to the value of any piece of art: The concept the artist means to convey, the artist’s ability to convey such, and the audience’s perception of that artwork. When it comes to the legacy of an artist or the endurance of any of his works, that third leg carries an outsized influence despite having no creative agency of its own. They need not and may never know what the artist’s original intent was, the viewer will paint it with their own values, biases, and desires; the artist may consider a piece his greatest failure only to witness it become his most lasting impact on the world.
“Is it even about you, anymore?”
No. The moment you place your work on display, you immediately cede control of it. It is the last step of creation - whether you’re a god, a parent, or an artist - your creation takes on a life of its own, beyond and without you. If it doesn’t turn around and kill you, you’re already doing better than the gods.
“Or is it about a character who just sort of looks like you?”
Not even that, fully. It’s a living facsimile of a snapshot of a self-portrait, with some Frankenstein bits added in by every actor, crew, and audience member involved in the project; hell, I’ve never even watched the show and it’s stolen a bit of my soul, now, too. If you and your self-styled character still look the same, you’re living life wrong.
Thank you. The number of people in the comments section of every article who seem to believe that their particular $5/month entitles them to have their interests and only theirs catered to 100% of the time is…something. Nobody’s got a gun to your head. If you’re not interested in a particular article, go read something else.
Here's another take: a man who has been victimized gets to tell his story for once. Too often men are portrayed the monsters and not the victims. Perhaps he's fighting back from "Believe all Women."
The more I read Kat’s articles the better I like her and her viewpoints
Great review of the story, an adjunct to my own perspective about the same ol’ tired narrative of “crazy woman, poor man”. Sure wish the feminists would speak up about this one.
I was a kid when "Tears in Heaven" came out, and people criticized Eric Clapton for exploiting his child's death to make a song and a buck. It was so strange to me, but the world takes all kinds. This column takes me back.
I watched it. I don't know what the big fuss is about. I found it depressing and boring.
I enjoyed this insightful article.
Interesting that internet detectives have sought out the "real" Martha, but not the sexually predatory producer.
Not true - "they" DID.
Eh, we don’t think the alleged real Martha is crazy because Gadd told us so. We think she’s crazy because she has made literally hundreds of Facebook posts about the topic since the show began, and that is not the mark of someone who’s well.
Not to mention all the lies she was caught in during the interview.
Often people can be the facilitators of their own victimization. Like Donny with his mentor. People call it Hollyweird for a reason. I’ll be skipping this series.
I read this but have never heard of this show nor will ever watch it. Also don’t know what Everything is copy means after all this.
Now for an actually good show: BLUEY!!! so much more interesting to cover.
Kat, got to be honest, this story was kind of awful. Why not do some leg work? Were there criminal charges filed, civil suits, testimony in court under oath about what happened in this situation? Did I miss that part of the story? If not, why is Netflix telling this story in the first place? Throwing up your hands and saying who knows the truth is not conducive to the concept of Journalism. Journalism exists under the presumption that the truth, however difficult it may be to find, is out there. Maybe find out what the truth is in this case for a follow up story?
Watched a couple episodes, started feeling like a peeping tom. No thanks.
I watched “Baby Reindeer.” It was an engaging meditation on identity (who are we? What do we want to be? What are we willing to do to be that?), trauma (abuse in a variety of forms, both at the hands of others and by our own hand), belonging (a romantic partner, a member of a family, a professional community), and the impact of small acts. It was a good show. Did the “real” Martha get a raw deal? Maybe. Is the person who came forward the real “Martha?” Maybe. The truth is, we don’t know the truth. At the end of the day this is a story, true or not. It was told in a way that some people liked (clearly) and some didn’t. And, as is so often the case in the media memesphere, lots of people who didn’t see it at all but have lots of opinions about it, anyway.
*[Some Asshole pulls out his soapbox and swallows, hoping to hide the booze on his breath, then begins to speak]: I don’t like basketball. I mean, I utterly despise the sport. Real men, as far as I’m concerned, play hockey, and basketball just eats up real estate and TV time better spent on the rink. Thus, I opted not to read the article on the Knicks….
Does this mean that article didn’t appeal to other readers, or that the particular interests of Some Asshole on the Internet should garner the full and uncompromising focus of the entire FP staff? Of course not.
Some readers apparently feel the same about pop culture as I do about Urban Tree Hockey, which is cool. What’s odd, however, is the idea that someone knows they won’t be interested in an article because they don’t like the subject matter (it’s not exactly a deceptive headline) but chooses to spend their own time, of their own accord, both reading and responding to that article, complaining that it’s somehow the fault of the author or publisher that their time was wasted.
[Some Asshole stumbles off his soapbox like Joe Biden trying to ride a bike]….*
Unsolicited lecture out of the way….
I, also, don’t much care about pop culture - at least, not since Guns N’ Roses broke up. I’ve never watched Baby Reindeer and, after reading the article, I’m even less interested in it. I am, however, a failing artist and a dutiful student of the human condition. The deeper focus of this article, “[is your story] even about you anymore [once it’s been put on display]? Or is it about a character who just sort of looks like you?” is a compelling one.
There are three general factors that contribute to the value of any piece of art: The concept the artist means to convey, the artist’s ability to convey such, and the audience’s perception of that artwork. When it comes to the legacy of an artist or the endurance of any of his works, that third leg carries an outsized influence despite having no creative agency of its own. They need not and may never know what the artist’s original intent was, the viewer will paint it with their own values, biases, and desires; the artist may consider a piece his greatest failure only to witness it become his most lasting impact on the world.
“Is it even about you, anymore?”
No. The moment you place your work on display, you immediately cede control of it. It is the last step of creation - whether you’re a god, a parent, or an artist - your creation takes on a life of its own, beyond and without you. If it doesn’t turn around and kill you, you’re already doing better than the gods.
“Or is it about a character who just sort of looks like you?”
Not even that, fully. It’s a living facsimile of a snapshot of a self-portrait, with some Frankenstein bits added in by every actor, crew, and audience member involved in the project; hell, I’ve never even watched the show and it’s stolen a bit of my soul, now, too. If you and your self-styled character still look the same, you’re living life wrong.
Thank you. The number of people in the comments section of every article who seem to believe that their particular $5/month entitles them to have their interests and only theirs catered to 100% of the time is…something. Nobody’s got a gun to your head. If you’re not interested in a particular article, go read something else.
Here's another take: a man who has been victimized gets to tell his story for once. Too often men are portrayed the monsters and not the victims. Perhaps he's fighting back from "Believe all Women."
I hadn't heard of Baby Reindeer, and I certainly have no interest in watching it now.
Better that the Free Press publish far fewer days of the week or month, if necessary, then publish stories like this on. This was trivial nonsense.