Oh, hi.

Room-elephant acknowledged.

339 comments to Oh, hi.

  • Menno

    Hi Emily,
    Interesting article.
    Your creativity in writing deserves ink on paper.
    Travel some, meet new people, learn and exploit your talent and you’ll be ‘en route’.

  • I know that I’m comment 302 or something insane like that but I finally got around to reading my NYT mag yesterday and the article about you was phenomenal. You’re truly an inspiration and I LOVED reading the article.

  • Jason Autar

    You know it’s ironic we all think that technology some how helps us ease a burden in which we can be closer to people and share what really matters the most. It is very difficult to put an emphasis on what our being is, as this article illustrates what exactly is one’s being and how does one share that with the world? These are the mere complexities when we try to identify ourselves because the simplest things to define are the most difficult ones to explain. Can this be blamed on ourselves? Or is technology to be blamed, human beings have always had this infatuation with being and how technology affects us. Clearly illustrated in Emily’s article it goes to show how difficult being and technology are when they go hand in hand.

  • John

    Emily- I’ve often enjoyed your writing in Gawker (you used to execute my avatars, not that that’s the basis of an advice-exchanging relationship). I’m dismayed to see you in your current imbroglio. You’re obviously funny and smart, but be careful now.

    Denton, the Times et al are in a position to profit from you. Don’t let them pay you in cyber-fame. It has a short shelf life and resembles Camel Bucks, except it’s less exchangeable for valuable goods and services. In a couple of years, you could wind up being a gag-line shorthand for 2008.

    Get paid in cash, and if they won’t give it to you, move out west, get a job, get off the internet, drop off the radar, and write a novel. Good luck.

  • Dusty

    Loved the NYT Mag piece. After reading it, I realized it wasn’t even WHAT you were writing about so much as the way you were writing it. Wow. i really love your voice. Can’t wait to read more of your stuff.

  • Ray

    Well I’m here because I enjoyed your NYT article. I’m a former You Tube addict and some of you self-observations really hit close to home. I’ll probably continue to read if you continue to write.

  • Richard

    Great article Emily. I’d never heard of your blog before; my loss.

  • Bella


    I loved your article, and finally actually watched the youtube tv interview disaster from a year or two ago. Had I watched that (I dont’ watch anything like that on t.v….or Sex in the City either…) I would have thought you were a silly little fool. And maybe you were at the time. I love your thoughts about it now. I love how the tables turned on you and how you so transparently let the world in on exactly how they did and how that made you feel.

    Bravo to you!

    Josh sucks. Good for you for not telling the world about Mr. Right Now. Keep him for yourself!!!!

    Best wishes, Bella

  • I just read your NYT article via a BlogHer link & enjoyed it.

  • Do the Damn thing!

    Why am I responding to this? I have no idea. Throw a benefit concert for something you care about! Do something fun in the “Real World”. Spell sumthing rong.
    Pass it forward, your it!

  • Boricua in Texas

    I have to confess that, although I read it with interest, initially I dismissed your article as the self-absorbed ramblings of a twenty-something New Yorker. However, as a female from a prior generation who keeps a personal blog, I have been following the story with interest.

    Just now, I was reading your answers to some of the comments on the NYTM article. I find they are intelligent, illuminating and help frame a reading of your article in a different light. Yes, what you wrote is intensely personal. No, it doesn’t speak for all twenty-somethings or for everybody who keeps a blog. But by virtue of its specificity it shines a light on the experience of a generation who is growing up in an era of exposure and immediacy.

  • Carole

    I could never understand why attention seeking gets such a bad rap. What the hell is so wrong with attention seeking? My daughter (age 33) can grab the attention at a dinner party for 30 without even trying and make the meal MEMORABLE. If you have the talent to accomplish what you seek (attention) then you deserved it.

  • So, Emily. What happens next?

  • OK, so I’m 57 (yes! very very old!) and a Milwaukee journalist (yes! very very unhip!) who just started a weight-loss blog on my paper’s site, and everyone — and I mean everyone — told me to read your NYT piece.

    So I did. And I think you’re a fine, witty, honest, not-any-more-narcisstic-than-the-next-guy writer. Also, I now know a little bit more about what to “share” and what not to share in my own fledgling blog. Though if my beloved dog were to be diagnosed with cancer (nooooo!), by god I’d overshare, big time.

    Anyway, thank you for the great read and the helpful what-to-do-if-you-are-engulfed-in-flames advice.

  • Pvt Public, 122nd Internet Company

    Had heard of you and Gawker and that LKL-Kimmel tadoo but never really paid much attention to any of it… and now I’ve just read your NYTmag piece…

    Wow. Thank you.

    A couple of couple years ago I was all over the internet. And hated myself for it. Then I spent the next two years removing myself from the internet and Google. And now two years later I hate myself for having no trail on the internet.

    I’m going to spend June thinking about my extreme privacy v. my extreme openness, read The Future of Reputation, and come up a balanced plan. Surely, there must be a way.

    Thanks for the inspiration to live again digitally. And in the analog.

  • Jessica

    So I finally read your NYT article (ok, so I’m about a week behind), and just wanted to give you a written hug. I read Gawker religiously 4 or 5 years ago – before your time – but went cold turkey when I realized I felt like I need a shower everytime I logged on (not to mention that reading it did nothing to further *my* career!). It’s a shame that people can be as nasty as they are, but probably your insights wouldn’t have been quite as sincere if things were otherwise. Anyway, you are smart and cute and have a great future ahead of you. Don’t let the bastards keep you down.

  • Nath Jones

    Lovely. Particularly in that your article was recommended to me by someone, who I compulsively emailed for an extended period of time. I’m definitely an emailer, not a blogger. For whatever archaic reason, I still try to provide a target for dissemination.

    Privacy, intimacy, is not valueless, but it does seem somehow diminished in our cultural clime. It is not “what we want.” Who knows why, but this seems the case.

    Publicity, transparency, is valuable. So of course you did what you did.

    You were “doing what was right.” If you were a corporation with a balance sheet, you would be praised for laying it all out. The only reason you were “wrong” is that somehow the emotions we share are still considered intangible.

    But this is no longer true. We are constantly given symbol systems and modes of appraisal which are stamped with objectivity. By these standards emotions are (easily) quantified. Freud…Myers-Briggs…Dr. Phil…the High School Guidance Counselor brochure…the Facebook quiz. The tools are everywhere and easy to apply. We are standardized and cross-referenced by diagnosis. We know the exact outcomes of our interrelations before they ever begin.

    Yet this cross over, this commitment to enact the same system of values that are lauded in business and free markets into our relationships is resisted. Why? What is honesty if it is not revelation? What is trust if it is not knowing there is no emotional equivalent to double entry booking?

    We are our own actuaries. But how horrific that as we tabulate and figure and extrapolate the probabilities of our various forms of failure (dare we ever spend a moment exacting success), we somehow short-circuit our possibilities. We blithely live out the foregone conclusions that are probable. We do nothing. We are so glad to have to do nothing.

    I take no sides. I don’t think exposure is right or wrong, good or bad. But I do take serious issue with having to take sides.

    It is impossible to know what is best, right, wrong, good, bad, wanted, unwanted. We are not judges. But neither are we heedless.

    You are a processor. No more, no less. Life comes in, writing comes out. There is no reason to attenuate the life or the writing to achieve some desirable end–be it in the life, or in the writing.

  • Dear Emily,

    I just wanted to say how much I admire you and the path you explore.

    Take care

  • Gabe

    Thought you might be interested in knowing that this article was the first thing I ever read by you or about you. I had heard your name before and that was it.

    FWIW, your story is interesting and insightful. I reserve judgement about the morality of the whole thing.

  • I have just read your NYT article, and found it really thought-provoking and moving. (I wouldn’t normally read a 10 page online article so thoroughly). Thank you.

    I recall the Larry King interview and thinking that the host was unprofessional and irritating. It was obvious that you weren’t originally meant to be answering those questions.

    I look forward to seeing what you do next. I assume it won’t be on reality tv. (Although your story would make a great screenplay.)

  • Incredible. Seriously courageous work–and life. Keep on staying true to that badass self.

  • N

    amazing article in NYTmag- eye opening and thought provoking. well written. thanks.

  • Speaking of English and elephants, a prefered phrase may be “a white elephant in the room” the rare white elephant postules the credence of a given maliformity

    I have a concept for a book on creative English I mean to publish eventually on the strength of another book (as yet unpublished) _ _ _ I find intellectual modes in general fascinating

    please visit http://motism.blogspot.com for intellectual subject headings. I deeply admire your spare and concise format. I’ve discovered only recently how much it conveys in blogs and e-mails, against all conciliation with the nature of the aphorism

    Thank you for appearing in the New York Times magazine, it was the stimulus for this arrival

    I also intend to connect more deeply with the blogosphere. Let me know by e-mail if there is a means to join your blog network as a standard blogspot blog [there is similar formatting here]

    I’m likely to post elsewhere in this forum / statement area for the purposes of pontificating on an assumed opinionation _ _ _

    feel free (you or anyone) to write if you have comments on my websites. I get hardly any formal and critical e-mails, would do wonders for my web conscience

    Meaning well,

    Eucaleh Terrapin, aspiring artist, inventor, philosopher, and poet
    [highest accreditation an article in the Hartford Courant on blogs, owing to Phil Hall, popular reporter and columnist]

  • although it may be said the white elephant’s room is not the sphinxian litterbox

  • Chuck

    I understand what you’re going through, Emily. It’s like, Why motherfuckers gotta ask me how I’m doing if I’m alright, you know? When I’m starving and struggling, there still ain’t gonna never be enough lovin! And that’s a hard thing to face, I guess.

    But your story made me realize that I’m tired of ripping and running, dodging and ducking bullets…I know my time is coming, the walls are closing in…I wish I had a dad, but he left when I was ten. So, moms is all I had, and don’t get me wrong, she was there for me — until I ran away from the pad, and now she disowned me and she don’t claim me.

    So yeah, I know how you feel. Growing up is hard.

  • Jonathan Rappaport

    Hey Emily,

    Just came across your NYT article. Congratulations — go Blazers!

  • Jenni W. Reynolds

    Emily- I had never heard of you before reading this article. Thanks to a case of tendonitis in my wrist, I had some time to kill in the hand specialist’s office, and there you were on the cover of the only magazine that wasn’t featuring bullshit Martha Stewart-esque doilies. So, I picked it up and devoured it, intrigued. Indeed you’re a good writer, but I don’t believe that you believe what you say.

    There’s always a need in those of us who are admitted attention whores to keep whorin’ it up- it’s like alcoholism- you might regret what you did the night before, but you WILL pick up the bottle again. And the ‘net is just one big free mini-bar.

    Keep writing, stop lying- to yourself and your readers. The half-truths are entertaining, but you can do better than that.

    Best Wishes.

  • Ana

    I was a few weeks behind on reading the article, but just got around to it. Amazing how you made all these NYT Magazine readers more aware of blogging, to the point that they came out here to comment for the first time. Amen to that, and good luck with life.

  • [...] too into herself. But she’s a good writer (no small thing, since writing is her career), and even something of a literary heroine to some of the commenters on her blog).*** [T]he piece reminded me of much of the “new [...]

  • jigsawdiva

    That was a fantastic article in the New York Times magazine. Now I am one of those creepy readers who wants to be your friend. Your honesty and your way with words inspire me as a writer.

  • kate

    As a reader who accesses America online and on TV i can say that the American idea of “journalism” is … problematic. Look at that CNN clip again and see what assholes they are – staid white men who have lofty ideals about themselves – they were essentially attacking you because your version of “journalism” is not the same as theirs and they don;t like that, they don’t like new because they think it is dangerous (it is), but most importantly they don’t have a handle on it, no control. so they pull out he big guns, almost as revenge!

    it is as unethical to invite someone onto a huge channel and attack them (esp. without briefing them on the nature of the show) as it is to disect people online. i can’t believe the audacity of that panel ! – u should try and find a medium (not online – because you’ll find a more … judicious audience in papers ) to get that debate going .

  • A. Haight

    You are fantastic. I enjoyed the Times article. You just keep on doing what you’re doing and I’ll keep admiring you.

  • arthur

    I watched that CNN gang bang and it wasn’t a pretty thing to see. I think you were too hard on yourself on how you handled it. Admittedly you could have defended your position better, however it would not of mattered one iota to that mob. A wanna be celebrity, a hoodlum and a pimp. They were truly vicious.

    I think part of their outrage is rooted in the mythology that surround those who make their living feeding on the roaming herds of “celebrities”. Make no mistake, stalking is a serious crime perpetrated by very violent dangerous mentally deranged individuals. They do not need ‘gawker stalker’ to vector into their prey. They are extremely resourceful when it comes to doing what it is they wish. For those three buffoons to suggest you were endangering the lives of celebrities is inane and shows their utter lack of understanding about that which they are accusing you of doing.

    All and all you handled their ambush well enough considering the odds.

  • Melissa

    My father gets the NYT and has a stack of magazines he has not gotten into and this was the oldest, on top of his stack, of course. I am home for Thanksgiving and reading actual paper and ink stories on my down time was a goal this week. I loved your article and agree that oversharing is a problem. Your early symptoms of oversharing was fascinating and a lot like mine in my life. So I read your story like a precautionary tale and will watch out for any future desires to share a little too much and find other avenues of self-exposure. I will also keep an eye on your blog, so far I am liking it! Thanks for sharing and I hope things are better now… 6 months later! Oh and here I am back online again…

  • [...] herself who, after her NYTimes article, acknowledged the “elephant in the room” in a blog post. Isn’t there a contradiction here? Isn’t Jessica claiming that Gould is part of the [...]

  • [...] too into herself. But she’s a good writer (no small thing, since writing is her career), and even something of a literary heroine to some of the commenters on her blog).*** [T]he piece reminded me of much of the “new [...]

  • [...] a long time, I detested Emily Gould’s New York Times Magazine story, “Exposed”. I thought it was an overlong, [...]

  • [...] Gould acknowledged the “elephant in the room” at her own blog, Emily Magazine. [...]

Leave a Reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>