"He's a total dork talking to these hypomasculine influencers... He makes them all look like idiots, and he's not even doing much...."

"There's something about 'the Louis touch' that makes it compelling. It's kind of how dorky John Wilson can make a documentary about scaffolding in New York City and I'm riveted...."

So said a TikTokker I love — Touré — and because I am John Wilson's biggest fan (I think), I watched the Netflix documentary "Louis Theroux: Inside the Manosphere":

With the comparison to John Wilson, I went into this Netflix experience with really high hopes, and these were not met. But it's not as if Theroux and Netflix had promised to be like John Wilson. Compared to John Wilson, Theroux is ferocious and macho. And Wilson doesn't go after people to take them down. He seems ready to love anybody and seems mostly to want to open up quirky new paths and to whimsically pursue them. By contrast, Theroux has locked onto some people he loathes and intends to take down. He's using a standard journalistic technique of seeming low-key and neutral. He's lying in wait. That's how you lie in wait. Now, that can be good, but I came away from the documentary disappointed.

So I went looking for some writing that would help me explore my disappointment. I chose "Louis Theroux’s Pointless Manosphere Documentary" by River Page in The Free Press.

"But since my cancer diagnosis, I’m beginning to empathize with Jesus at Gethsemane..."

"... Just as he’d gotten his life’s work going, just as he was planting the seeds of a new society, just as he was gaining followers willing to give up everything for justice and love, he found out he was probably going to die, at the age of 33...."

When has your life experience caused you to change which character you identify with in an old story?

Or is this a big sermon cliché? First, we identify with the sleeping disciples because blah blah blah but then etc. etc....

Eh. Maybe it's a big but great cliché. Let's have your examples.

I can't offhand think of any of my own, but I think of that mother in the BBC documentary we were watching last night who described her son as always identifying with the villain in the story and who gives — as her one example — Cruella De Vil. It's a power fantasy, and he doesn't seem to mind — mom says — that the character loses in the end. She probably thinks the BBC documentary viewer identifies with her, the devoted mother of a difficult child. Why would she have invited the documentarians into her home otherwise?

It's a cliché of documentaries to lure us into identifying with one character and then tempting, then forcing us to switch to another character. How else are you going to build narrative energy? And yet you invite these devils into your home. They seem so empathetic as you open up not just your house but your soul.

I said I couldn't  offhand think of any examples of my own, shifting from empathizing with one character to another. But now, in the context of that BBC documentary, I realize I do it all the time in blog posts. I get interested in one person, and I start writing, and I find — make?! — a narrative thread that ends up turning my empathy around. I'll bet there are over 1,000 examples of my doing that in this archive.

Perhaps you should turn against me. Perhaps I am the devil you've let into your house.

"America's Medicated Kids."

A 1-hour BBC documentary by Louis Theroux. I share Theroux's skepticism about medicating children, but I don't think he ends up explaining much about the problem in general. Instead of "America's Medicated Kids," a more accurate title would be "3 Medicated Kids in Pittsburgh." I do recommend this. Worth discussing.



ADDED: Next morning thoughts at the end of this post.