S-Town podcast shouldn't have been made

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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