#too many words from someone in their spring mania lmao

[harvey-guillen]

Just out of interest do you have a problem with the Britney Spears circus album / tour

(It happened before the issues with her mental health / legal limitations I think)

I never engaged with it positively or negatively. She honestly wasn't as in-your-face omnipresent as TS (I was alive then and I didn't see ads about her every 2 min) and there wasn't as much of a meta culture of analyzing social justice implications in that era so it would have been surprising if it WAS something I thought much about then.

Now that I consider it, the nuances are different IMO even given that the conservatorship started the same year the "Circus" album came out. The effects of the conservatorship weren't felt immediately but would amount to exploitative forced labor so the circus reference is so retroactively fitting. Addressing this without that in mind as you asked, her period of highly publicized erratic behavior started before that (2006-2008 per the internet) and generated unprecedented public interest in her perceived behavioral dysfunctionality and public suffering. She and TS do share being papped relentlessly which I agree is a level of scrutiny most people can't take (look at Princess Di who was literally killed by it). But it's just a bit different when the source of the scrutiny is your public manifestation of what would be diagnosed as bipolar later vs it being about your work's intentional specific references to your personal life in a culture you created of easter eggs and puzzles. I am not stating it has inherent political consequences but the pattern of dissecting clues in an ongoing and consuming way is what QAnon is. I'm referring to the process, not the morals or the message. People like feeling like they have deep insider knowledge of an opaque situation based on their own intelligent analysis of a symbol system with hidden meaning. Even us antis do it because it's pretty irresistible in a culture based on meta, but we were kinda trained to do it by TS.

Please keep in mind as an old person I recall the music world as an industry where women like Britney had very little control over their image, marketing strategies, probably even wardrobe and styling. Britney grew up singing gospel music as a kid but commercial relevance required a Marilyn Monroe-eque image of a teen halfway between sensual womanhood and childlike innocence. She could sign huge contracts based on that image but I don't think her decision-making powers matched TS'. And I give TS credit for gaining control over her image, label, creative output and brand to a large extent as it IS a step forward for women. Like Liz Taylor signing a million dollar contract for Cleopatra and crafting her own contract stipulations.

But in Brit's case the public scrutiny circus about her progressive bipolar-influenced behavior is not one she created and ultimately it put her into slavery. If she were brand and brand manager at that time, designing and booking and adding dates to tours on her terms, speaking cogently about her marketing strategies, gaining control over every aspect of her business and seeming to do it with as much savvy influence as TS does, no, I doubt I'd love the circus imagery. I don't really care for it as a baseline narrative or metaphor for fame by itself. But if used I would like it to be in the hands of those who are marginalized. "The Greatest Showman" the film is a massive rewriting of history but there was something massively cathartic for me in seeing a pacific islander woman who is not just "Hollywood heavy" (like Renee Zelleweger as Bridget Jones playing 'fat' at a size 12) but actually plus size and also playing someone with genetic excess hair. PCOS gang (me!) found a bigger woman who falls under at least 3 categories of minority being the vocal backbone of the movie and the heart and soul of the diversity message undeniably compelling even when much of the historical rewriting was a hot mess and ick.

Taylor has been a victim of misogyny and I didn't mind when she spoke about it and it was truly the source of the criticism. But outside of that and in her billionaire era she is losing credibility with many when she goes for underdog status. Fame is a cage, I get that. Her parents are culpable for overly emphasizing her career and brand management from childhood. But when you set the tour dates, have unprecedented financial returns for them, etc it's hard to see the circus and public interest as not also being the source of much of your gain.

Britney's bipolar diagnosis apparently came at 2008 as well, same year as the Circus album. I am bipolar gang gang and I can't imagine having a sense of control of your life that would render the circus metaphor wholly offensive. She's beautiful and gained riches but everyone could see it cost her more than privacy and we were all worried. Taylor's control of her brand is the thing that separates them. In general, circus metaphors are a bit derivative tho.