<![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed - Gawker Comments]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed - Gawker Comments]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @heartbreakturnip:
Gosh stuckingoshen, do you mean people should blog about their intimate lives only when something serious and life-transforming has happened to them? That could let Siegfried Sassoon IN, keep Lawrence Durrell OUT and leave Spike Milligan wondering if he would have blogged if he could.

SarjanaGriffin

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @Maura Johnston: I remember you, too, babe. We met at some NYC nerd party once in like 97. xo Nice to know you're still out there.

LAkeywhore

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> i met emily once to discuss the possibility of writing a column for gawker. i liked her. A LOT. and i typically don't like women and they don't like me.

not long after that meeting, emily became good friends with julia allison and her talent quickly diminished.

emily is a damn good writer. she is someone who once knew how to command attention not because she was looking for it, but because she had something to say that just happened to be interesting.

i think that by befriending a fameball she started to become one. started to accelerate her career using the wrong topics as her platform. she should have waited a bit to seek approval and attention because she is one of the few ambitious and successful female writers in nyc today who can write about more than the relationship bullshit she wrote about in the times.

she can write about politics, art, literature. but instead she chose to go down the road that her unfortunate mentor laid before her.

thanks, jimmy kimmel.

ellagood

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> But this piece was so much better written than any of her private or paid blog posts! Who's the editor?

BScrivner

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> I just reread it. It was extremely well written, no matter the motivation.

karion

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @ ADismalScience: ::sigh:: of course (and sadly) you're likely right. point taken. it was morning, i had a red wine hangover, and i was vulnerable.

I recently had a conversation with a friend about web 2.0 and the level of self absorption that it inspires/cultivates what with the blogging and myspacing and facebooking and twittering and imeeming and last.fming and constant shouting of "this is me! these are the things that i like, and they are valid because I like them! let me show you how cool i am because of my personal brand associations! poke me!"

In any event, he listened to me for a bit, voicing my concern over what a shallow (and ultimately mean and nasty) culture we're creating, sat for a moment, and said "i don't have a problem with that at all." it was like talking to a fence post. mind you, this is also a person who has been known to twitter via cellphone while snowboarding, shopping, driving, etc. , so take that as you will.

sorry. my point? can we just turn the internet off for awhile? maybe just six months, and then give it another go?

as_per_usual

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @LAkeywhore: they were relegated to circuits. (RIP, circuits.)

signed,
btdt in '98

Maura Johnston

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @Yazz Flute: Actually, it was their second tagged comment. But point being, if you click on their Editor Selections link, the ones displayed there are remarkably more watered down than the 650+ other ones.

Yazz Flute

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> You are all missing the most offensive part. It's not even the piece itself -- it's the New York Times' web editors.

They decided that the first comment on Emily's article that was worthy of their "Editors' Selection" tag was comment #55, which began "This article was insightful" and was equally bland for its remaining two sentences.

This was their pick, after about 50 of the other 54 comments that came before it essentially blasted the piece as unworthy crap.

Talk about a weak spin job. There's no way that comment was representative of anything but the Times' weak attempts to conceal reader bile over the piece. It's as disgusting as their decision to make this a magazine cover story.

Yazz Flute

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> I am so sick of interviews about who is blogging/why they're blogging/yadda yadda, with all of these simpering, self-involved lazies. What about all the people who were "blogging" before it was called "blogging" in 1996, 97, etc, when it didn't involve seeing who could "out-meta" the next person? Justin Hall, elly, puce, jennicam, cyborganics, etc. Where are the interviews with those people? Nowadays, it's just this big disgusting popularity contest between all these girls and Jeff Jarvis and every other AOL-born idiot who discovered the internet in 2001. SO annoying. I miss the old internet.

LAkeywhore

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> I'm not sure why people find this article so cringe worthy. I don't think she threw Gawker under the bus, rather she dissected her often toxic relationship to the empire and the blogosphere at large. I don't defend many of her previous over sharing actions, certainly not the ones involving BFs and Lovers (like Henry and Josh) but, really, this is article is not that bad, nor pathetic, nor anything else. I think everyone is overreacting a little bit, especially on the NYT website.

kitkatsplash

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> It's weird, because until reading this piece, I never knew how similar Emily and Julia Allison were.

The difference is that JA's a better actress -- she claims hurt feelings when there clearly aren't feelings to begin with. (If there are, they're stuffed far, far down into a dark place nary a pink tutu or hair extension has been.)

JA wants to create a brand so artificial, so Fembot-like, as to remove any traces of the real her (there has to be one, right?) that ever existed.

Emily's clearly not that calculated; I think she got swept up in something much, much bigger than herself, thinking she was doing it for noble reasons and probably getting off on the attention. And she seems to be getting swept up again, which is unfortunate.

PrincessKashmir

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @Sailor: Sure,but "Ego Nemo"=best name ever

missdelite

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> Unheeded advice:

"Do Not Write a Bad [Magazine Piece] About Life At Gawker With Angst Or Even Waspish Humor"

[gawker.com]

The comments on the NYT board aren't all that surprising. What would you think if that was your introduction to Emily?

Seeräuber Jenny

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> all this hoo-haw about a gal who kisses and tells. My mom would say in her day that was called a floozie.

Streeter

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @AuntPenny: @mackintosh-toffee: Thx.

And in case I thought you all were being harsh. I just scanned the NYT comments and they make this look place look like an afternoon social. Says a whole lot about overestimating the quality of NYT readers.

sailor

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @Sailor:
No need to apologise to me either! I'm spazzing out today (professional pressures!) but really can't type at the best of times anyway. I'm from another generation too, which is why i get pissy about the youth over-exposing themselves. Perhaps it is just a case of different sides of the same coin?

Mackintosh-Typos

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @Sailor: No need to apologize! I'm in a totally good mood today. And most days. It's disgusting, actually. Inflection gets lost when one is typing anonymously. Insta-Fame and blogging about blogging amuses me. And all of us.

AuntPenny

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @as_per_usual:

If you hugged her, I'd imagine that a judgemental/praising blog post would follow describing your appearance, smell, hug style, etc. In addition, expect some ruminations regarding your place in her life and how that hug affects it. She might use aliases, but not necessarily in a manner that prevents you from being immediately identifiable.

Still ready for cuddle time?

ADismalScience

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> We make fun of Denise Richards exploiting her loved ones for camera time and cash, and earnestly analyze Emily when she does the same. What am I missing?

it takes a lot to laugh

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @mackintosh-toffee: Oh, that was a typo.

Sorry to you as well for same reasons as mentioned above. Tend to get too earnest about this shit, which comes from being part of another generation.

My bad, as you kids say.

Peace.

sailor

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> whenever anyone speaks of the mean spiritedness of gawker commenters, just redirect them over to that comment thread at the times. by comparison, we're nothing. i mean, jesus, i couldn't even make it through the first page, and at the time there were already 489 comments.

i'm of two minds on this one. first, i feel that emily knew exactly what she was getting herself into (and perhaps even went so far as to feel like she may deserve her subsequent evisceration as some sort of penance or atonement). second, i have to feel a little sorry/empathy for her, because i sincerely doubt that she in any way anticipated this level of bile and outright hatred. worse yet, she's consistently being called out as a sub par writer writing about a topic (herself) that has been largely declared irrelevant or without merit. ouch!

again, i can't help but feel that i'd just want to give her a hug, but, at the same time, this is equivalent to poking a tiger with a stick until it turns around and mauls you. in retrospect, not the best idea, but likely you had it coming.

as_per_usual

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @if_i_only_had_a_heart:
The sad and painful kind.

Mackintosh-Typos

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @Sailor:
You are soooooo right! Everyone knows that making typos is so the same thing as not being able to function at all in a language. You are so smart! And your argument that everyone is jus' jellus is such a cogent one.
Further to that, i think if you look that what is being criticalized here, you will notice it is the content and not the style. But nitpicking is fun!

Mackintosh-Typos

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @AuntPenny: Sorry. A bit overamped today because of client stress and counterintuitive medications.

Obviously, its just my opinion which means no more than anyone else's here. Probably less, especially when it comes to them newfangled internets.

Just have the nagging feeling that most are missing the point of the piece. And at 200+ comments and who knows how many page views and counting, hasn't it already succeeded on some level?

sailor

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @Kaila Hale-Stern: I kid, I kid. Of course the was the obligatory clusterfucky tumbl. We're contracted to do those (I kid).

But I've been waiting two years to employ the non-comment above in response to an appropriate Gawker post.

You'd be amazed how many people sign up on a daily basis just to inform us of their absent opinion. Glimpsing The New York Times commenters out in full force today has made me long for that ingenious discretion.

Kaila Hale-Stern

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> what kind of bloggery is this

if_i_only_had_a_heart

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @Sailor: Um, okay.

....As the Dude would say, "Well, that's just, like....your opinion, man."

AuntPenny

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> Call me a bottom-liner, but the only real thing I walked away from this thinking was, "so, when she stopped writing for gawker, she had the luxury of doing nothing and affording to do nothing in Brooklyn for at least 2 months?"

I remember when Emily resigned/quit and I just assumed she got a gig elsewhere. In fact I thought I remembered reading where it was she went to work.

SneakingThroughTheAlleyWithLalley

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @AuntPenny: Not when it's about blogging and self-absorption, two topics endemic to this group.

sailor

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @mackintosh-toffee: Dear friend of Illogic,

First, "criticality" is not the word you were looking for, more likely "criticism" was what you were groping for. The former implies a degree of some condition as in "critical situation."

PS. Might be helpful to learn the language before leaping into a thread criticizing someone's writing skills.

And at the risk of sounding redundant, the rest of your comment was so incoherent, I can't even comment on it.

sailor

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> No comment.

Kaila Hale-Stern

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @Sailor: I don't wish to be on the cover of the NYTM. It is possible to be objectively critical.

AuntPenny

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @TheLorax: ur absolutely right; people can write any drivel they please, but, outside of the internt, it's editors who decide to press "publish"

if_i_only_had_a_heart

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @BalknChain: ur comments re balk were spot on; he created the character of balk, with a strong consistent voice, that wrote well, was funny, and was also clearly separate and private from the actual person of balk, who is no doubt shorter / taller / louder / quieter etc than the narrator known as balk

i think that's called, uh, writing

if_i_only_had_a_heart

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @AuntPenny: No, it's the same thing as wishing you were the chosen one on the cover of the NYTM.

Any other insightful questions?

sailor

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @ian spiegelman: that's dirty fucking hippie to you pal and yes thanks

if_i_only_had_a_heart

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @ian spiegelman:
Goons? Yes. Also, demented hypocrites, whose fully consensual participation in precisely that which they bemoan-- immorality and irrelevance 2.0-- has rendered me speechless.

Which is a good thing. Because despite my posting this comment, my sanity pretty much depends on my knowing full well that what I think, or formulate, about trivial matters on the internet really doesn't matter. Being clear on that helps.

rosaluxembourgeoise

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @Unfun: Not so fast. I admit I'm insanely jealous of anyone whose portrayal in a major media outlet appears to suggest that their sheets are clean.

skahammer

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @Koreanish: But to what end, and for what purpose? For more attention and publicity, really. It reminds me of how celebrities say they want to take time off and be with their kids, and then they show up at the opening of an envelope. Or the kind of begging-for-love we make when we threaten to leave, or the Oscar soliloquy we want to deliver. It just seems so hollow to me. I finally read the whole thing....tried to, anyway. And I found, as I find with most things lately, because I've morphed into a little old lady....I found that I simply don't care. Everyone's talking talking talking talking and nobody's saying anything.

AuntPenny

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @Sailor: So any critique of supposedly newsworthy articles in the "paper of record" written by a blogger we're all pretty familiar with about a subject many of us think about often is thinly veiled jealousy? Mental note...

Unfun

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @devilishshsh:

This is not meant to be snarky, just a point of fact that needs pointing out occasionally:

There are quite a few accomplished writers, artists, designers, musicians and actors (and, goddamn, at least a million lawyers) who comment here, some of whom are very well known and have themselves been written about in magazines, to include the New York Times magazine. (If they haven't been written about personally, their work has been discussed at least.)

Anonymous commenters are not necessarily losers. For people who have to watch what they say in public because people pay attention, anonymous commenting can be a real relief.

But yeah, the other 80%? Total losers.

This has been your public service announcement. Back to your originally scheduled programming.

heartbreakturnip

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @ian spiegelman: Well said.

Especially loved the shout-out to relationships that are too "filthy and shameful" to write about on short notice...been there! (High five!)

skahammer

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @BadUncle:

Awesome! Fucking garden geek humor! I think I love you, but will not blog about it. Oh, I've just done it. Anyway:

What's the pH on her skin? Would you say her skin was loamy, sandy, or clayey? I'm thinking more clay, since it retains moisture and it appears she's got good skin.

But does she need to be staked?

I'll stop now.

heartbreakturnip

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @TheLorax:

Dear The Lorax,
I totally agree with you. On the one hand, i do feel like it is okay to be critical of the writer of this text in question, as someone familiar with the drama and writer's (failed) attempts to overcome (thus far). However, on the other hand, those ridiculous blowhards known as NYT commenter really take the cake. From the extreme criticisms of Emily for not having cured cancer yet, to the doe-eyed 56 year olds just familiarizing themselves with the internet now, the whole thing seems even more blown out of proportion than Gawker ever was.
And it is quite strange.
Yours,
...

Mackintosh-Typos

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @ian spiegelman: That's because they let anyone in who signs up.

Rebellitor

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @it takes a train to cry: I didn't see it that way. I saw it as her trying to understand herself in relationship to the way she lost herself inside of the panopticon of the Gawker Media/Blogworld craziness. She looks at how she was complicit, she has faith in the reasons she started blogging---and she has always wanted to be a better writer than she is now, which is the best kind of sincere writer. As to the self-merchandising, well, I mean, have you seen the inside of publishing now? Everyone is telling everyone to be a brand now. It's a little disgusting but we can't blame her for that. The source of that is much higher up in the culture. She's describing trying to survive on those terms, and suggesting that maybe no one can.

I think the comparisons to Joyce Maynard are inaccurate. I mean, does that make Josh Salinger?

Rebellitor

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> Dear absurdly harsh commenters of the New York Times:

The piece is narcissistic, yes, and trivial, yes. Please note: the author is 25 years old.

You will counter that by the time you were 25, you had opened 36 mosquito-net and chloroquine- distribution centers in malaria-afflicted regions, written 4 groundbreaking papers on sustainability, and discovered and licensed (free, of course) two innovative processes for sequestering carbon at low cost and at zero collateral effects. You had also identified 6 new galaxies and personally cured 10 schizophrenic teenagers by dint of your superb psychotherapeutic training and superior compassion.

Sadly, not every 25 year-old is blessed with your laser-like focus or drive, or your shockingly precocious talents. Some are young women and men who, while talented, to be sure, are trying to earn a living and prone to making errors, like most of us humans.

Consider instead the editors of the The New York Times, twice the author's age and holding professional stewardship of the paper of record in one of the most powerful nations in the world.

Dear Times readers,

Would it make sense to reserve your ire for them?

TheLorax

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @Clarence Rosario: Now I feel a bit complicit in all of this.

Clarence Rosario

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> Um holy fuck:

"Emily, I don't really know you any more than I know the people I see every morning walking the dogs," one of them wrote. "It's more of an imagined familiarity born out of reading your words for a year. But that took guts, all the way around. And I'm in your corner, inasmuch as a somewhat anonymous, faceless, nameless commenter can be."

Yeah, that was me.

Clarence Rosario

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @devilishshsh: ... much to the detriment of the nyt

if_i_only_had_a_heart

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @if_i_only_had_a_heart: Hippie!

ian spiegelman

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @heartbreakturnip: it *would* be interesting to see the nyt profile young people doing things like, oh, working for world peace, feeding the hungry, curing cancer ...

if_i_only_had_a_heart

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @mackintosh-toffee:
Signed, Also,
Someone who hates these teensy little comment boxes. Egad, "editing" ones brain drippings is next to impossible in these little babies.

Mackintosh-Typos

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @Sailor:
Dear Friend of Emily's,
Criticality does not equal envy. That is also an important lesson to learn in the process of self-improvement.
When something is put in public, people comment. Emily herself seems keenly aware of it. You take the good with the bad, and if you choose to still perpetuate the cycle -- ooops!
Signed,
Someone a fake internet commenter who stands in for those not wanting her mug and bullshit diary drama offered up for public consumption, but rather, OMG, the actual product of a mind a work (obvi not now).

Mackintosh-Typos

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @Nard38: F'ing hilarious.

fiveinchtaint

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @skahammer: At first, I was like, "Geez, I'm glad there wasn't an internet and that I wasn't working in media when I was 24!" And then I realized that yes, there was, and, yes, I was. But my relationships were so filthy and shameful I would never have written about them in anything but fiction. And only after a long gestation period.

I liked the piece, though. The Times commenters are a bunch of goons. They need some Ketch. Still, would've enjoyed it more if not for the Gessen factor looming crappily over the whole thing.

ian spiegelman

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @Nard38: Yes.

TheHonJudgeSmails

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @BalknChain: I could not agree with this more: Balk walked the perfect line.

Helman

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @Koreanish: Done and done. It's just that the writing of the article calls into question the lesson related by the article, and suggests the whole undertaking is one last, long pull on the teat of commodification of one's self, lovers and friends, tongue happily out as the milk drips down.

it takes a lot to laugh

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> show a little mercy, you freaks, perhaps you cannot accept the fact that she is in THE NEW YORK TIMES and you´re not. by the way, don't mind my mistakes since this comes from a foreigner, yes! your vitriolic culture is spreading around...

devilishshsh

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> I'm gonna go take a shot at reading it before commenting any less meaningfully.

See you guys when the Democrats are back in office.

Clarence Rosario

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @heartbreakturnip: Which shoulder is in the shade, and which gets more sun?

BadUncle

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> In my opinion, Balk knew/knows the perfect amount of personal sharing to do. Even his personal posts were written with removing himself as much as possible from the topic. The one about him seeing the accident victim was so moving, bordering on devastating. I might stand alone when I say I never wanted to hear about Emily, or Josh's, love life, but so be it.
It's all subjective.

BalknChain

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> Wow, so the upshot of this article is that Emily learned a lesson most people (at least I did) learn in High School.

Namely, keep your innermost thoughts and feelings, uh, inner. Not only to spare others in your life from hurt, but to spare yourself from the hurtful nature of others.

This seems to be a profound lesson that her generation missed out on, and only seems to be realizing now. I'm sort of dumbfounded that it's taken this long.

lionel-mandrake

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> I like this passage from page 2:
"No wonder we're ready to confess our innermost thoughts to everyone: we're constantly being shown that the surest route to recognition is via humiliation in front of a panel of judges.

But is that really what's making people blog? After all, online, you're not even competing for 10 grand and a Kia."

Rebellitor

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> I just meant the Heartburn reference as a general plea for fiction. I suppose you could put fiction up on a blog; I don't think it would conflict with Java or anything.

Carol Gardens

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> Lighting on this pic is nicer.

No snark.

Jack S

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @KarenUhOh: I agree. It would be awesome if everyone would take a break from their homework at Internet Mean school and just read the thing...

Rebellitor

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> this is so boring and such a dated topic. i only got halfway through and i actually have met the girl. i'm unimpressed with both her and the times for using this as a cover story for their magazine. give me a fucking break.

allswellthatendselle

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> Go Emily! Eat their hate for breakfast! Let it make you strong!

Rebellitor

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @Sailor: Is "envy" the same thing as "thinking someone is full of poo"?

AuntPenny

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @Carol Gardens: Isn't this story more like "Why Girls Are Weird," the chick lit by Pamela "Pamie" Ribon?

stuckingoshen

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @Carol Gardens: Nora Ephron's Heartburn?

That is so Web 1.0...or, what came before Web 1.0? I forget. (Syphilis?)

skahammer

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @Sigerson: It was supposed to be a little tongue-in-cheek, Dad.

Nard

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> [brianvan.tumblr.com]

BrianVan

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @KarenUhOh: Agreed.

To the rest: "Envy shoots at others and wounds itself."

Get over it. And Emily.

sailor

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> Gee, I missed a close italics thingie. Sorry.

Carol Gardens

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> FYI
Emily Gould is a google trend today.

HeatherFinkDeux

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> I think it's just so much more fun to write an extremely-thinly-disguised novel a la Ephron's Heartburn. You get to paint yourself as a funny, endearing and sympathetic character, make snide comments about how you ex would probably have sex with venetian blinds, make a shitload of money, and then have Meryl Streep play you in the movie version. Really, it's a better way to go. It's a little bit harder, though.

Carol Gardens

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @Nard38: You are laughably naive, kid. Go play in traffic and stay off my lawn.

Sigerson

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @Nick Denton: "I don't much like Emily." Wrong answer.

narnio

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> Is that what this all is about? Oversharing?

Geez, and all this time I thought it was about the prettification of literary promotion, a la Gessen.

But heck, if it's oversharing -- come on, everyone has friends who can't be relied on to keep secrets. They're not so hard to handle -- you minimize your personal revelations to them (not hard, since these folks are usually pretty narcissistic too), you avoid repeating the things they've told you, and you accept their collect calls from rehab after they alienate their last remaining friends and become alcoholic burnouts at age 32! I'm pretty sure this is all in the manual!

Another problem solved.

skahammer

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @RonMwangaguhunga: Blogga - please! You got a commie last week - [gawker.com] - but it's not showing up.

Lazy Susan

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @TheHonJudgeSmails: Very well said. Our generation is the "TMI" generation, but I don't mean that in the "we share too much information about ourselves" way. Rather, I mean that in our formative young adult years we were bombarded with so much information and developed so many varying viewpoints and styles that we are far too varied to be captured by one "voice." Maybe I just incorrectly assume other generations were more strictly dichotomous, but it seems to me that mass media and the resulting mass culture of generations past were literally and figuratively smaller and offered fewer choices. Our generation escapes simple classification. For example, you seem like a 29 year-old white male conservative lawyer who just wants lower taxes, a wife at home, and a yacht. But, you might actually be a 13 year-old female Thai sex slave who learned English from watching 1980s action films on the laptop you stole from an Australian businessman/customer. Or somewhere in between. I just don't think that possibility existed a generation ago. Back then, people were either a brain, an athlete, a basket case, a pricess or a criminal, right?

Nard

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @KarenUhOh: @Nick Denton: True. It's a nice piece. It's sad in all the right places, and revealing enough to provoke a nostalgia in me I shouldn't really have. That's a good piece of diary writing. And she's a very sweet person, foibles aside.

But I think we who've read her for years think she can do better. I think we all believe she's got a lot more writing talent sequestered behind the desire for exposure.

Also, Josh told her he was going on vacation with another girl when they were in bed together?! For shame, Joshua. For shame. That's uncouth. As far as couth goes, you're on the un side.

Pope John Peeps II

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @heartbreakturnip: I have a new hobby

xhack

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @RonMwangaguhunga:
The problem is that she is partially bright but extremely shallow and does not have very much perspective on anything. Plus she hasn't really done anything. Lots of people write about themselves but they also have interesting observations about other people, the world, etc. EG totally lacks ENGAGEMENT with anything except television shows.

Johnny_boy

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> Well... I am reading this article, and it just dawned on me that there are some intelligent well meaning people (like Emily) who honestly think of themselves as good (as in "not trash") and who really believe that it's somehow OK to publicize what their friends tell them in private conversations. It's not OK. I don't care what you job or passion is, or what is the "modern technology" or "new economy" or whatever. It is not OK.

If my girlfriend (if I had one) publicized what I said to her in an argument, not only would I break up with her, I would also consider her a bad person (which I don't for most of my exes). I'd be fine with her telling her friends what happens between us, but telling total strangers is not OK, and making it a matter of public record for everyone to look it up until the end of time is just... evil.

I suppose if you are doing this type of a thing and you know it's bad, and you tell everyone you meet: "look, I am a bad person who may publish everything you say to me", then it may not be too bad. But do you really do that?

And, I suspect, we may have a problem with the very definition of "bad". It's not bad just because it came back to bite you in the ass, it's bad first and foremost because it hurt other people, and the worst of all: it hurt those who trusted you the most.

I tend to feel sorry for people who set out to do business with their friends. Too often it smacks of trying to cash in on a friendship, when you have nothing else left to cash in on. Still, it's one thing when friends set out to do that together, but when you do it without your friends knowledge or consent, it's just the lowest crap that I can think of.

Niko Bellic

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @Nick Denton: Nick, with all due respect, that's just gibberish. Emily's clever, that's for sure, but she's not incisive, she's not a journalist and she certainly doesn't have a shred of objectivity. She would make an interesting subject of an article about the "topic of online narcissism" but she's not the best person to examine it. Not even close.

Sigerson

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @ADismalScience: Spot on.

karion

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> Hey Emily!

billybobnyc

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> Stick it to the man, Em! I haven't seen the Boomers this riled since 'Nam!

Lazy Susan

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> Zzzzzz.

That was agonizing in its profound boring emptiness. And sooooo long too.

It is shocking that all this so called "atonement" comes at the expense of further embarrassment for Henry. The one person not seeking the public's attention in this scenario. I suppose it fitting and nice that Mr. I Want To Be A Literary Fancypants Gessen is left out the trainwreck, as the "New Emily" keeps things private.

What is disheartening to me is how easily Emily lets herself get dickmatized. Shake it off, girl! You are better than that!

My personal opinion is that Emily needs to go away for a few years and come back with something real to put on the table. Until then, no more please.

I love how the not prone to overshare Doree has really bloomed into the serious journalist, post-Gawker.

There is a lesson here.

Mackintosh-Typos

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @fiveinchtaint: Only at Phases I and II, though. For Phase III, they put in 8-inch sanitary lines, instead of the required 6-inchers.

CaptainFantastic

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> Can't wait until Ian gets to this post.

skahammer

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> When an article's tag is 'Oversharing' how much does one really need to read?

ubermeme

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @stuckingoshen:

A very good point. To give one example, there are several very powerful blogs by young and terribly wounded veterans -- some very much opposed to the war and the administration, some ambivalent, some still gung ho -- whose posts about their lives, even the intimate and mundane details of their lives, achieve some greater effect because nearly everything in their lives now reflects or is refracted by their experience of war, loss, and first-person witness to the unraveling of nations and the struggles of people in other countries. These are not the only issues of our time, or the only events shaping your generation, but they illustrate how engaging with the world turns self-absorption into self-reflection and then, inevitably, plain old reflection. And that we could use a whole lot more of, I think.

heartbreakturnip

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @MisterHippity: @Nard38: My arse is the most uniquestly qualified. I'm going to sit on it for a while and then get back to you.

AuntPenny

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> It's always painful to watch an imperfect representative of one's own generation presumptively attempt to "capture" said generation.

Can't we do better, classes of 1998 - 2002?

TheHonJudgeSmails

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @MisterHippity: No, no, no!!! I AM uniquely qualified!!! My magic mirror just told me whilst I was completing my 100 brushes on the right side of my hair.

Nard

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @Nick Denton: "She's a distinctive writer and the topic of online narcissism is both interesting and one that she is uniquely qualified to examine."

Wrong. It's a topic that I am uniquely qualified to examine.

Moreover, once I have examined it, only I will be qualified to read and evaluate what I have written about it.

At that point, I'll let the rest of you know how it turned out.

MisterHippity

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> i cared until i got to the "fork and spoon" and "heartbreak soup" paragraph breaks.

thanks susan sontag.

mitchel_stevens

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @xhack:

Drinking is constructive if you're making bottle trees. Those little Chimay high-alky beer bottles look great on the dead dogwood in my front yard.

heartbreakturnip

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> Isn't this a lesson you're supposed to learn when you have a livejournal in college? Nice glamour shots, though. Truman Capote would approve wholeheartedly.

It would be nice if the New York Times would counter this piece with an article about 26 year olds doing awesome stuff. All these people are trying to voice my generation and they get little snippets, but nothing lasting as of yet.

stuckingoshen

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @ADismalScience: I don't disagree with this, but don't you find the whole situation/article pathetic in the "having a capacity to move one to either compassionate or contemptuous pity" sense? She is so young, and this article will be affixed to her forever. I did a lot of stupid crap when I was young and, thankfully, the internets weren't around to record it.

Helman

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @C.R.E.A.M.: @C.R.E.A.M.:

Re: your line.

"Seriously, not only was it not well written, it wasn't even written up to any kind of professional, adult standards."

All these negatives make my brain ache.

smithhimself

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @heartbreakturnip:

Oops, wrong shoulder. Her other shoulder has what I think is a camellia. But I've heard someone say it's supposed to be a magnolia bloom, and that I definitely do not see. I think the thing on her other shoulder could be a hydrangea, but some weird red one. (Never seen, but the shape seems right.)

Or a hyacinth. I'm overthinking.

heartbreakturnip

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> also -- most little girls have pink sparkly diaries. the new thing is being able to publish them

if_i_only_had_a_heart

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> Emily seems like a nice enough person, so no knock against her, but I just do not understand the compulsive need to blog intimate details about oneself. It boggles the imagination why one would not place an ironic distance between oneself and the astonishingly cynical blogosphere. Why not blog about issues or events and have readers get to know you through your take on the world? Without some ironic distance blogging comes off as self-indulgent, and then writing about the whole process on top of that compounds the overwhelming me-me-me-ness of it all. Anyway, I don't think the earnestness was fake, it just isn't something that can be sustained for 10 pages without all this backlash. That having been said: keep your head up, Emily, I'm rooting for you.

RonMwangaguhunga

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @BadUncle:

I was leaning toward an old-fashioned camellia, the kind that had the long yellow stamens, but I could be wrong.

heartbreakturnip

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @Bunsy: So many bloggers do what they do in SECRET. That's the scary thing. You just never know in this crazy city...

CodePink

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> What kind of asshole sends an email to her/his entire college, revealing a something personal about an ex? It's beyond dick-ish and more than a little mental.

BitchSetMeUp

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> this 10 page diary entry is profoundly dull

zzzzzzzz

i seriously hope that by the time my kid is old enough to blog, the kids will have learned that private is private and public is public

publishing one's diaries, well ... it's always been a risky business. it's just easier now

also, why no peen details. if you're gonna share ...

if_i_only_had_a_heart

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @it takes a train to cry: I don't buy it. There was oversharing on the blog, and now this is a long blarticle on the shame she felt about oversharing?

AuntPenny

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @ADismalScience:

Snap. Or, perhaps, Snappe.

Chaim Gnadelstein

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @KarenUhOh: Have to say I agree. I don't much like Emily: I think she's behaved pretty shabbily when breaking up with a boyfriend or a place of employment for that matter. However, the critics of this Times Magazine piece are too harsh. She's a distinctive writer and the topic of online narcissism is both interesting and one that she is uniquely qualified to examine.

Nick Denton

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> God almighty, I would never date a blogger. Or a writer, for that matter.

Bunsy

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> On the off-chance that no one has claimed Web N.O. for their own, please consider this my letter of intent. Emily, half of any profits from this are yours, ok?

TerseNursePornstein

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @ADismalScience: well put.

scroll_lock

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @Nic Fit: Look how well that strategy worked for Nabokov.

flipper baby

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> I just read Emily's self-effacing confessional/exercise in narcissistic control. It's too long. Maybe she should get a tattoo for her other arm that spells out Self-Referential and Highly Self-Regarding. If she moves on, though, what would she write about if she could not write about herself? Just asking.

bettysue

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> I am pleased to be a minor contribuor to the vitriol clearinghouse. Do you guys have a big sweepstakes where Ed McMahon comes to the house with a huge check?

Truculent

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> It sounds like Ms. Gould went through what alot of people go through in their 20s: questioning their career, their relationships, their values as an adult apart from the family you grew up in. You either work through it or you implode. Along the way you don't deal with it too well and you do some things that don't help: Emily shares her struggles with anyone that will read it; i drink. Neither is constructive.

xhack

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @ADismalScience: Considering she always seemed very pleased with herself.

NoDowdAboutIt

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> "I opened my eyes. "Don't delete it," I managed to say. "Just make it all password-protected.""

Nic Fit

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> She's beautiful. Oy!

TedCopacabana

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> Too. Much. Cute. Emily, dear, wake up, I made us egg muffins for breakfast and we HAVE to finish watching Stick It! I can't believe we fell asleep like that!

DavidWatts

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> I still think she looks like a boy.

Sigerson

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @belltolls: Pretty much. A bunch of Andy Rooneys trying to read nyt.com through bushy eyebrows. "Why do they call it taking a dump, when you're really actually LEAVING it?"

miasma-protege

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @Nic Fit: Printing a story that features your ex in a major publication as a means to announce that you're going to start respecting people's privacy does seem contradictory.

it takes a lot to laugh

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> This is the excuse I read:

"Maybe this wasn't as good an idea as I thought."

Fool me once, shame on me. I never get fooled twice.

This article is as craven a lie as Emily's victimhood, her fragility, and her personal shame. She may feel it, but it's dull and distant, like vestiges of emotions that she senses strongly should be there but are not.

It's chaff. Carnival three-card-monte personality construction, attempting to absolve the sins of the past to ensure a future. This article is one long attempt to justify a career in character assassination by the fact that she feels really, really badly about it now - all, of course, gift-wrapping her triumphant return to the media scene.

ADismalScience

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @KarenUhOh: Agree. Plus, for an incredibly long introspective magazine piece, it's quite well written. Except for the "creeps in a bar" line, of course.

flipper baby

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @Nard38: This is probably wreaking havoc on the plumbing at Del Boca Vista.

fiveinchtaint

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @In Other News...: Only one by you!

scroll_lock

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @it takes a train to cry: I guess she has totally abandoned that whole respecting Henry's privacy act as well.

Nic Fit

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @cassandra: @KarenUhOh: I'm almost done markering my shoulder and then I'll meet y'all out back near the foursquare for a smoke.

BeRightBack

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @fiveinchtaint: The comments over there are AH-mazing. I want to switch teams, but I don't think they will accept my semi-retarded little spurts of hilarity.

Emily, what pray tell, is the POINT of this? To blog about yourself or not? After 10 pages I have no clue what your conclusion is, all I know is that I feel bad for Henry.

BK_KT

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @NoDowdAboutIt: Surely you jest. Have you been reading an all-type version for the past ten years?

Also, folks, in general, remember it's the Times Magazine, the sales outlet for this sort of trendoid fluff.

artynimue1

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> I feel bad for her. I can't help it. And I miss her posts.

Helman

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> How many screen-grabs the main page of nytimes.com do think Emily's taken this morning? She's right next to New Fears on Long-Term Global Oil Supplies

CaptainFantastic

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> She has done a remarkably sensitive job of documenting the most recent dialectical turn in Habermas's Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. I say bravo!

Astrolabe

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> Martha? What's this blogging thing they are talking about? And why is this girl on a bed? Martha? The deer ate the tulips again.

belltolls

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @scroll_lock: Gusto ka mag blog?

In Other News...

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> In Sicilia, we call what's going on here tit for tat: Its only a matter of time before Josh comes back to point counterpoint her. Then she'll be fetal some more.
She shoulda chosen j-school.
Anyhoo: Gayker must solicit response from Josh -- and more pictures of his glistening naked body!!!

BooWahBabe

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @miasma-protege: Truly. I have no interest in what she does (aside from a general dislike of people who broadcast intimate details of their lives as a way to get attention/make a career), but I can't stand those who take her prominence as a personal affront or a disgrace to the writerly professions.

I don't much care for tattoos, either.

P.S.: You kids get off my lawn.

Sarcastro

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @Nic Fit: Yeah, fake-earnest is what I was getting from that: manufactured drama to entertain those darn Olds who still insist on a narrative arc.

it takes a lot to laugh

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @KarenUhOh: I'm with you, sister.

cassandra

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> That article is ten f*ckin' pages. I fell asleep after "Back in 2006, when I was 24..." First I threw up in my mouth, and THEN I fell asleep.

AuntPenny

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @EleanorRigby: Precisely my reaction. Thanks, Nick, for the speed link to the comments.

crotchety

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @BadUncle: that's hilarious

scroll_lock

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @In Other News...: Ha! I needed that laugh, beloved ION.

You forgot to add a kustom handbag! Gusta ka kustom handbag?!

scroll_lock

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> Ah, to be young, white, over-educated, and fake earnest in New York.

Nic Fit

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> totally in agreeance with lock-scroll. blech. move on.

Streeter

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> Good lord. It's not like she shit in their kitchens and peaced.

miasma-protege

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @BadUncle: That's some flowery prose comin' from you.

In Other News...

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> 10 pages!? i can only handle 200-word max blog posts.

EleanorRigby

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> Seriously, not only was it not well written, it wasn't even written up to any kind of professional, adult standards. Absolutely terrible. One of the worst things I've ever read in a print publication. Ugh. Shut up, blog-person.

C.R.E.A.M.

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @scroll_lock: Sorry Scroll... when I dream of Emily that's exactly what I dream. With more tattoos. And her left hand in a Vulcan Hand Salute. Wearing a Snorg tee.

In Other News...

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @fiveinchtaint: Yeah, it's getting nasty. I might drop a comment in there that Procter & Gamble is doubling the price of Metamucil, just to give their commenters a good scare.

Nard

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> I don't really care about any of this performance piece. I just want to know if that's a hyacinth tatooed on her shoulder. Because I'm a total gardening fag.

BadUncle

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> "Back in 2006" is today's "Back in the U.S.S.R.".

In Other News...

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> Ok, if I see ONE MORE infantile, self-absorbed unmade bed pic of any blogger whatsoever with the light hitting them just so and attached by umbilical cord to their GD laptop, my head's going to explode. It's not cute, not DREAMY, not introspective or revealing in any meaningful way.
/end of rant

scroll_lock

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> Someone claiming to be "Banksy" provided Comment #8.

The Comment editors over there must be wishing it was Monday already.

In Other News...

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> I thought the Times didn't do posed photographs?

NoDowdAboutIt

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> That picture neatly sums up what I do whenever I'm confronted with another article on the blog generation.

Chaim Gnadelstein

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> "They were creeps hitting on me at a bar."

I'm so happy to have been included...

narnio

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> I think this is Emily's oversharing opus, really. Perhaps now she will move on? I think so.

CodePink

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @hamburgerhotdog: "I hate Macs. I work for iTunes now."

CaptainFantastic

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> It's a fairly even-handed piece, I'd say. Don't see her trashing anyone in there, and the criticisms are mainly of herself.

I'm sure I'm convincing you all.

KarenUhOh

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> @fiveinchtaint: I suspect that's who got her in the front door through her own puff piece not so long ago.

A question--not meant as an attack--if Emily is so over Gawker and has renounced her time here, why is she writing on jezebel? It's not that far removed from those things she hates...

hamburgerhotdog

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> sleeping bloggy

miasma-protege

]]> <![CDATA[Emily Gould Exposed]]> Jesus. She's getting trashed over there. She's their JA now?

fiveinchtaint

]]>