talking about charli xcx's substack

a needlessly in-depth and informal review of charli xcx’s substack essay titled ‘the realities of being a pop star’.

i find charli xcx’s substack - specifically - extremely vapid in a way that has made my opinion on ultra famous artists who choose to utilize substack to ‘display their humanity’ very depressing. there is a very weird feeling that i get when i read a note like this:

and it is a strange sort of dismay. maybe it’s just because i cringe really easily. i don’t know. i just feel that i can see the gears moving behind the machinery of celebrity relatability working and yet i still feel nothing.

charli’s job

charli starts out the essay by detaching herself from the reader by claiming that she does not see her life as a pop star as a ‘job’. she doesn’t explain why she believes this; instead, she pivots into a rebranding of herself as ‘more’ than just a pop star. she is an artist and a creative and an explorer of mediums. she has an impulse to deny her ‘job-ness’ and the category of labor altogether. one can use flowery language to distract the reader and yourself from the industrial nature of your ‘artistry’, but you are still being paid by the labels, the advertisers and potentially by the readers of your article. creativity does not emerge in a vacuum, especially at her level. it is odd to reject an idea of labor while addressing an audience whose relationship to you is precisely mediated through that labor and the consumption of what it creates. she seems to want the romanticism of the art without the reality of the worker, or even of the plethora of other workers who have made her image available to an audience.

the restaurant thing

in this paragraph, charli talks about the perks and the pleasures that surround stardom. the free shit and the drugs and the exclusivity. the exposure to music and experiences and the upper mobility into interesting spaces that most will never touch. she describes getting a backdoor entry into restaurants where she sees “the head chef (who probably hates you) and the waiters (who probably hate you too) as they sweat away doing an actual real service industry job while you strut through the kitchen with your 4 best friends”. this sentence in particular made me cringe. it’s an attempt at the rejection of privilege while feeling like an observation that is almost played for amusement. it is a gesture at the discomfort of privilege, yet is phrased in a way that seems to believe the acknowledgment itself somehow neutralizes it. i’m not stating that feeling ostracized from ‘real service workers’ is something that isn’t uncomfortable, nor do i think that unspecified hatred toward celebrities shouldn’t be discussed, but there is a shrugging of acknowledgment in her wording that feels more like flippancy packaged as candor than a real moral discomfort.

there’s a certain level of rejection and acceptance that comes with this level of stardom. at what point does accepting the experiences that put you at an abject disparity between others become a moral obligation? at what point does one stop and think about it? is that not a reality of being a pop star? instead of expanding on this, charli chooses to assume that these industry workers hate her and then justifies it in the next sentence by stating she also has the capacity to ‘feel embarrassed by how stupid the whole thing is’. embarrassment is not a reflection. what does her shame lead her to consider? what does it change? why was it included if not just as a performance of honesty?

fantasy and patriarchy

to be a female star is to subject oneself to a level of patriarchy that i am honestly grateful that i will never have to discover. i cannot begin to fathom the influx of opinions that she has to sift through everyday while also trying to maintain an impeccable image. the fantasy of a female pop star is very dependent on how she can react to, cohabitate with and manipulate the patriarchy in a way that keeps her sufficiently adjacent to the normal woman while also being somehow above it. this is obviously an awful way to live.

charli discusses this fantasy of her image and the consumer’s responsibility in perpetuating this. i do think this is an overstatement of the role of the consumer and their ability to influence an artist’s image. consumers do, in this present day, have a much stronger ability to form a para social or artificial picture of who an artist is and the meaning behind their art, but this downplays the billion dollar corporations behind the artist and the very obvious power dynamic the artist (at this specific fame level) has over their audience. it feels a bit like deflection and an avoidance of responsibility towards one’s public influence. like with any relationship between a creator and consumer, there is an illusion of intimacy there. the creation of an image made for the expectation of gaining capital cannot be done democratically. they are not made from an audience’s imagination, they are made from corporations and market research and very rich people. charli recognizes the fantasy associated with stardom through substack, which is a medium that furthers this very illusion. she still holds disproportional control, which is fine, maybe just something to think about.

still, i do think that charli’s breakdown of the contradictory nature of public opinion is harrowing and honest. she can’t be a ‘sex symbol’ without also being seen as a ‘whore’. she can’t be ‘anarchic’ without also being a ‘drug addict’. she wraps up this paragraph by reflecting on the public’s response to her substack, and then equates the negative attention surrounding her presence to a ‘small wave of people being annoyed I’d broken down the walls of my box they were determined to keep me in’ who believe she is just a ‘silly little idiot’. and while i am sure this is true for a certain demographic of disparagers, charli frames her distaste for the reaction to be solely on the consumer. she sees the sexism in the consumer rather than in the very industry that created her own fantasy-which she surely cosigned on. it feels like sidestepping a position in a system which she willingly cohabitates in. once again, deflecting personal responsibility.

she ends the essay by talking around a lot of the points i made in this one. she feels she does not understand the connection between moral responsibility and fame that is commonly perpetuated. she wants the “hedonism, danger and a sense of anti establishment” to remain in artistry and claims to not care if they “lie or play a character” to achieve a level of escapism. this directly contradicts her earlier assertion that “the fantasy is decided mostly by the consumer.” if the audience primarily shapes the fantasy, how can she then defend the artist’s right to completely fabricate an image without consequence? one cannot give control over to the audience and insist on creative immunity at the same time.

i don’t believe that charli has a good sense of the separation of fantasy and reality that has to coexist when one tries to have a direct relationship with their audience. it feels as though charli wants a relationship with her fans that allows them to see both the fantasy and the humanity of stardom while extricating herself from any social or moral responsibility that this fantasy can give. she enjoys the fun and the mystery and the disconnect but does not properly recognize her participation in creating an illusion. she ends the article with “To me that’s the point, that’s the drama, that’s the fun, that’s the FANTASY.” and then states, “Is it lies? Who fucking cares? In my opinion it’s just funny and cool.” she wants the aesthetic of honesty without any of the obligation that comes with being believed.

final thoughts

i don’t think that this is solely a ‘charli xcx’s substack’ problem. i think it is an issue that has damaged the ability of celebrities to seek both strict artistic freedom and a sense of connection with audiences. i find it ironic that these celebrities on substack never subscribe to smaller authors or engage with their audience yet so many of their writings are directly targeted at their audience and criticizers. it’s a one-way performance that feels very detached from the intimacy and honesty that they claim to be present in their work. it is only for them to speak; not to listen, be shaped or risk being a part of something of which they are not centered. the intimacy is aesthetic, very much not relational.

but i suppose if you read the comments on her posts you can very much see who these types of essays are made for, and it is clearly not for me.