I saw this post go by when several friends posted it. I was taken back by the title of the post, and would have dismissed it as a cheap grab for attention were it not for the fact that the friends who had posted it are very smart, thoughtful people. So I read the post. And was annoyed enough that I ended up writing more in response than would have fit as a comment or a post on FB.
So here’s what bothers me about this piece.
One, there is the asshole-y tone of the piece. Contempt. Scorn. It’s almost like, “Well, here’s someone who’s big and famous, so I can be scathing of them.” Why? They’re people too. Yes, I get that they have a certain kind of power, but their having power doesn’t give you carte blanche to be a jerk.
Two, there is cheap reasoning in the piece. So, the writer points out that Aamir Khan hung out with some activists in preparing for a role in a movie, and then didn’t hang out with them any more. Okay, and? I mean, he’s an actor. This is his job. He’s not an activist, and he’s not pretending to be. It’s okay to say, “I think such-and-such cause is important; I will do a little bit to support it or to shed light on it, but I will not make it my primary battle.” We all do this. So many of us donate to certain charities, or “Like” certain “heal the world” posts on FB, but we don’t give up our jobs to go work in those organizations, do we? So why should Aamir?
Three, the “analysis” is deeply biased: the blogger lists some “good things” that Aamir Khan does but dismisses them (“all good,” or “… all that is fucking expected from an actor in the first place”). On the other hand, when he lists the “bad things” that Aamir Khan does or has done, the blogger stays with that thought and unpacks it, as in his take on the Aamir Khan versus Chetan Bhagat anecdote.
The dismissal of Aamir Khan’s commendable behaviors undermines the blogger’s credibility as a voice of reason. He writes, “But all that is fucking expected from an actor in the first place. Just because ours is a hare-brained industry, doesn’t make someone a goddamn Socrates.” Really? I don’t know about that. The fact that it is a hare-brained industry that allows, even encourages, actors to be hare-brained, makes it commendable that this one person chose to stand apart from it. And… what the hell does it mean to call someone a goddamn Socrates? Aamir Khan doesn’t style himself that way, and this “shorthand” use of “Socrates” to mean “wise person” is misguided and misleading.
“Aamir Khan tells the nation not to litter. Aamir Khan tells the nation to be nice to foreigners. Aamir Khan tells the nation to be nice to foreigners.” Okay. And what is the problem with that? They are good things that Aamir Khan does, but because the blogger is intent on showing what a “pretentious prick” Khan is, he (the blogger) leaves these sentences hanging as if there were some obvious “bad” thing in there, and leaves it to the reader to imagine what that might be. Lazy writing, and lazy thinking.
The blogger does this repeatedly, listing examples of “good things” that Aamir Khan does, but giving them no weight and even dismissing them with a strange, uncalled-for condescension:
- “Aamir Khan is a socially aware star. How? Because he blogs about issues.”
- “A star like Aamir Khan talking about issues that we Indians never bother to speak about, is commendable. Kudos.”
- “His logic was, the youth of the nation today talk in that manner. If you can not stand such language, please don’t watch the film. All good.”
Now, I totally agree that it is idiotic to comment on something without knowledge of that thing.Did Aamir Khan deny Chetan Bhagat’s intellectual property rights without having actually read the book? If so, that’s terrible. Not to mention stupid. Did Aamir Khan comment on the AIB roast without having actually watched it? If so, that’s also a dumb move—intellectually dishonest but also really dumb from a PR perspective.
Here’s the thing: no one’s perfect. Some are more flawed than others. Some, we can argue, have greater responsibility because they have positions with status, power, visibility and reach; to these people we grant less leeway. It’s far more shocking when a pillar of the community is caught having an affair than when a random friend of a friend does, for instance.
But the main problem with this piece is the heavy-handed, attention-seeking headline—(“Oh my goodness, this radical blogger is saying something astonishing and going against the grain; let us read this blog post at once!”)—coupled with the cheap malice of the writing—(“aging douchebag”).
There is the convenient partial pulling in of evidence when it suits: The blogger quotes Russell Peters (“Also, like Russel Peters said, you are an actor”) but clearly doesn’t pay attention to Peters’ full sentence: “[Aamir Khan] is an actor; not even a real artist.” The blogger goes on to say, “But just like [Aamir Khan] is an artist…” So what is going on here, does the blogger agree with Russel Peters or not? Or only partly? It’s not clear. See above: lazy writing, and lazy thinking.
A much more effective way to handle this, a more nuanced approach, would have been to build the argument thus:
- Here is an actor who sets himself apart by putting a lot of effort into his work
- Here are various “good things” that he does
- Given all that, it is surprising/ shocking/ saddening when he does dumbass things like [the Chetan Bhagat incident] or [commenting on the AIB controversy without having actually watched the thing].
- Conclusion: hey Aamir, you have power and reach so please kindly do good things and refrain from doing obviously idiotic shit kplsthx.
I’m not interested in taking sides on whether Aamir Khan is all that and a bag of chips or not. But I do object to cheap-ass writing that, because of its cheap-ass attention-grabbing tactics, manages to propagate shoddy, shallow thinking.
This cheap-ass writing is really a shame because I get the sense that the blogger generally has interesting things to say, and has a following because of it. Dear blogger: please carry on being thoughtful and calling out general bs, and please stop with the cheap tactics and shoddy thinking, kplsthxbai.
Not Even The Rain 