
S-Town podcast shouldn't have been made - cjCamel
http://www.vox.com/culture/2017/3/30/15084224/s-town-review-controversial-podcast-privacy
======
istjohn
ARTICLE CONTAINS SPOILERS! (This comment does not)

Having listened to S-Town, I strongly disagree with this article. The article
itself is far more equivocal than the click-bait title suggests. Yes, S-Town
is an intimate probe into a person's private life, but the subject is dead.
S-town is careful to protect the privacy of the living. Any remaining concerns
are far outweighed, in my opinion, by the value of a poignant exploration of
the human condition that resolutely affirms the dignity of the eccentric
subject.

~~~
greenpizza13
Dude... not cool. Pretty big damn spoiler right there in your comment.

~~~
istjohn
You're right, my mistake! Totally unintentional.

------
torgoguys
I listened to the whole series the day it was released. The author of this
article seems to be under impression that John B cares about the deeper and
deeper exploration of his life that you witness as you go on in the podcast.
As explicitly addressed within the podcast when they started diving into
certain topics (you know it when you reach it--those who have heard the series
will already recognize I'm trying hard to avoid _any_ spoilers here) he
doesn't for practical reasons and as a matter of philosophy.

I've been a big podcast fan for quite a while and never quite understood the
huge hype for Serial. Don't get me wrong, I think Serial is good--maybe even
great--however S-Town deserves whatever hype comes its way. It is a
masterfully told audio journey.

~~~
wflynny
I binge-listened to the podcast over two listening sessions, so I imagine that
is a modest endorsement for how interesting and engaging the podcast is. That
said, while I disagree with the article's title, some of its sentiments
regarding the last three episodes resonated with me.

The most cogent among them is that I did feel a sense of invasiveness when the
podcast took the hard turn to dive deep into John's personal life. Unlike the
author's criticisms, I think this arises from the combination of unexpected
and unsatisfied expectations; unexpected expectations due to the sharp turn
away from a linear plot and its primary subject; unsatisfied expectations
because the story, probably inherently and by no fault of the producers, left
many questions unanswered regarding the original plot. Perhaps this feeling of
invasiveness is intended so the listener feels more invested in or connected
to the intimate details of John's personal life that shaped his character and
his flaws, but that feeling is nonetheless instilled in the listener.

I deeply enjoyed listening to the series in full and think that others should
listen, but I can't say I don't have many lingering questions. I can
understand how the mix of unanswered questions regarding the initial story and
the possibility of perceived guilt for intruding into the man's personal life
could leave a sour taste in the mouths [of] some, perhaps sour enough to title
a [critique] scorning the podcast's creation.

Edit: [grammar]

~~~
torgoguys
My parent post notwithstanding, I think you hit the nail on the head. I agree
that it sure felt invasive while I was listening! It only feels less so to me
on reflection.

------
alphonsegaston
I listened to the entire podcast and felt that, while more successful overall,
it suffered from the same problem as Serial: the belief that being an urban
liberal is sufficient perspective to describe people marginalized from their
cultures.

It was obvious as Reed tried to medicalize John B's behavior and pigeonhole it
into a heteronormative context that he was reducing him in a similar fashion
as the townspeople, who despite his resentments, he obviously felt more
kinship with. It's probably an inescapable narrative bias, but as someone from
a similar background as John B (albeit in the rural north, not the south), I
couldn't help but feel this was about making everything digestible for the
kind of audience Reed represents.

~~~
qq66
Even as a city dweller I agree with you. Reed does not understand the rural
person's ability to live a seemingly self-contradictory life, to "contain
multitudes," an ability born out of necessity as rural dwellers depend on each
other individually to an extent that city dwellers do not.

------
framebit
In episode 5 or 6 (hard to keep track during a binge listen) Brian Reed has a
brief moment in which he describes his reasoning for digging into parts of the
subject's life. I'm realizing as I'm writing this that I can't echo all of
them as it would be a major spoiler, but he ends very poignantly.

I think there's a big difference between S-Town, which to my ears was
masterful and balanced, and Missing Richard Simmons which crossed some ethical
lines of privacy and respect.

------
Taylor_OD
I enjoyed the podcast a lot but I got a very odd feeling while listening.
(spoilers if you havnt listened) It almost felt like after John got a big time
reporter to interview him and gave him enough interesting things to run with
he was fine finally killing himself because he knew it would be reported on
and he would have the legacy he always, seemingly, wanted and potentially
deserved.

It worries me that other eccentric geniuses will follow suit or that it at
least opens a door to a type of journalism that I don't want to think about.

------
dankohn1
I just finished listening and the podcast (spoiler) reminded me of nothing so
much as the concept of the Speaker of the Dead from Orson Scott Card's Ender's
Game and sequels. This is a religion/calling of people who learn everything
they can about a dead person, try to solve their mysteries, and then tell an
unbiased but sympathetic account of their life.

I thought the podcast was extraordinary and highly recommend it.

------
singularity2001
go ahead and listen to it. it definitely should have been made.

~~~
cjCamel
I submitted the article but as there are spoilers in it I can't read it, as
I'm half way through the series!

------
tptacek
I'm a couple episodes in, but suspect this Vox article is really of the form
sometimes referred to as a "Slate pitch": a deliberately contrarian take meant
to attract attention, but not really to sell the author's true perspective.
How else is Vox going to write about one of the more universally acclaimed
podcasts of 2017?

~~~
MartinCron
I don't think that is the case. I felt exactly the same way about s-town about
halfway through. Too uncomfortable and invasive.

------
treyreynolds
It's hard to write a coherent argument for or against the points made in the
article without spoiling the podcast. Suffice to say, I'll join the chorus of
voices saying that it is an entirely worthwhile endeavor and you should listen
to it.

~~~
MartinCron
And, as a counterpoint (without spoiling anything), if it starts to feel
uncomfortably invasive and exploitative to you, you should just stop
listening, as it only gets more and more so.

------
loteck
I agree. The podcast was sold as a murder mystery, and it is not. It is an
exploration into the personal life of 1 man who likely suffered from serious
mental issues. It trades entirely on his personal tragedies, and also flirts
with legitimizing his rantings without exposing them to serious scrutiny.

I have no doubt listeners found it enlightening and engaging. A probe into any
of your lives could yield similar "intrigue."

Ethics and standards exist not because salacious personal stories aren't
interesting, but because they tend to harm people.

------
hashkb
This piece made me want to... have to... hear the podcast. Far from
discouraging.

