Room-elephant acknowledged.
|
|||
Oh, hi.339 comments to Oh, hi. |
|
||
|
Copyright © 2024 Emily Magazine - All Rights Reserved. Site design by What's That Cat |
|||
|
|||
Oh, hi.Room-elephant acknowledged. 339 comments to Oh, hi. |
|
||
|
Copyright © 2024 Emily Magazine - All Rights Reserved. Site design by What's That Cat |
|||
Never heard of you before I randomly came across this.
everything rang true and all too familiar.
oh the heartache livejournal has caused in my life damnit!
thank you.
Emily,
I just finished reading your NYT article and found it very interesting. I’ve never read anything on gawker but I was captivated by your story just the same. I hope you’re able to find a middle ground somewhere.
It seems like most of your “friends” from facebook have given you a resounding review on your “article” in the NYTM.
I read it and actually felt sorry for you. There is so much more that you can actually do with your life….and actually be a positive contributor to society. Have you ever thought about tutoring an adult who is trying to overcome illiteracy? Or how about reading to an elderly person who can no longer read? Really, there is so much that you can do and get personal satisfaction from. Reading your story only highlighted that your journey hasn’t made you one bit less narcissistic, self involved then when you broke up with your boyfriend to start another relationship in which you (once again) trampled on the sanctity of a intimate relationship.
Bottom line, GROW UP! (and do it in private!)
Emily, I am sure I am older than your mother, but I remember being lost in my twenties. It can be a terrible time and you captured some of the skin-crawling awarenesses with brilliance and pain.
I don’t live anywhere near NYC and do not have your existence–career, tatoos, luminous eyes or gorgeous skin, but I remember having to come to terms with being ordinary. I eventually married an interesting and extraordinary man and discovered living small was nothing such.
I also discovered the way one feels about one’s children fills the hole–who knew? I discovered you fall in love with your children every day, in that heartstopping, go anywhere–do anything way usually reserved for the dangerous ones that you should run from.
I thought your article was amazingly written and gave me a sense of a world that I did not know about. I was a surprising choice from the NYTimes, but it felt very New York, and I read every word with interest.
I wasn’t sure where to comment about this–I looked through the article to see how to email and finally settled on this–and still may do a letter to the Times.
Raw, real and relevant–a cautionary tale for our overexposed, overwired undernutured children.
hahaha, the BEST part about the nytimes comments is all those people telling you you are petty for broacasting your life on the internet and caring about it, broadcasting their idiotic complaints on the Internet AND CARING ABOUT IT.
fuck eastern religion and all those people. they obviously dont write for nytimes magazine. BUT their comments are a wonderful accompaniment to your article, which highlights the stupidities to which Internet-commenting is suseptible. LOLLLZ
Dear Emily,
I shit you not: I was at Franny’s in Brooklyn on Saturday night and overheard four different conversations at four different tables (not counting my own, mind you) talking about you and your article in the NYT magazine this weekend. I would guess that there are probably between 12 -14 tables in the restaurant, so (counting us) that means about 1/3 of the people there were talking about you at some point in the evening. And truthfully, that number is way off, I’m sure, due to the fact that I am not the bionic woman and was not able to easily eavesdrop on all of the opinionated, know-it-all hipsters within my immediate proximity. So I’m going to bump my estimate up to 50%.
But this was just one little ole restaurant in Brooklyn. Add to that the 8 bazillion comments the story generated (waay before it was even published), the 9 trillion reactive articles about your article, the Twitter Tweets, and Gawker’s virtual liveblogging of the whole darn thing as it unfolded.
Holy. Mother. Of. Christ.
I would imagine that your email inbox must be over-fucking-flowing with “Emily Gould” google alerts by this point. E-v-e-r-y-b-o-d-y is talking about you…like, a lot.
True confessions: before this weekend, the thing I remembered you most for, was posting the picture of yourself in the sparkly red bathing suit. Your “self-involved” posts and battles with nasty commentors do not ring a bell with me at all, but I distinctly remember that bathing suit shot. Mostly, I guess, because I think that voluntarily posting a picture of myself in a bathing suit is something I would only consider if someone removed a big chunk of my brain with a melon baller and then made me it eat with my bare hands. And that’s still a big maybe. So, posting that pic…and flipping us all off, made me kinda love you back then.
For the record, I read all 7,937 words of your article on Friday and thought it was a really astute, well written take on one person’s experience dealing with the bizarre world of blogebrity. I thought that you were fairly upfront about mistakes that you felt you made (and clearly: mistakes were made), showed some growth through the whole process, and all the while gave us all an inside look into a segment of the media we are all, obvs, insanely obsessed with. As such, I guess I’m a bit confused why everyone and their brother are:
1. Angry at the NYT over the fact that your article was 7,937 words AND got the cover.
2. S-e-r-i-o-u-s-l-y pissed at you for “going on and on” about yourself in article that was supposed to be all about…uhm… YOUR experience.
3. Ready to burn you in effigy over the fact that you overshared about your own romantic life on your Heartbreak Soup blog (ok, I do agree that this was not a good idea, but it seems like you agree now too and are kinda sorry it ever happened–at least the way it did, so WTF??).
4. So utterly fucking offended by the idea that bloggers tend to enjoy writing about themselves and being self referential…and that you clearly did too (NY Magazine: “we promise you: Some bloggers are able to write about things other than themselves”…uhm, ok? And?).
Mostly I guess I’m just utterly perplexed by all of the venomous hatred and anger this is stirring up in everyone…especially vis-a-vis the idea that you don’t deserve anyone’s attention (which is exactly what all of your haters are serving to create more of by talking about you, ad nauseum).
You may very well be “a piece of shit” “cunt” in real life (as Mark, May 25th 2008 so eloquently posits on your blog comments at 5:18pm above), but I think I probably need to spend way more time with you than 7,937 words in a NYT Magazine article in order to reasonably come to that conclusion. In the meantime, I’m sticking with my original assesment: bathing suit badass.
Happy Memorial Day,
me
Oh internet! Not since the invention of the mirror has a technology enabled such narcissism. My cure for you – travel the world without an internet connection for a year.
I’ve only been blogging for a year, and on a sort of specific subject not related to my personal life (re: classical music in Bangkok.) When I was in high school, around six years ago, LiveJournals, or “LJs”, were just becoming a big thing, and there was this weird phase when a few people all of a sudden were writing about their family, their depression, their eating disorders, their crushes, and linking to it in their IM profiles. In some cases, school officials got involved, in others it was more simple: friends were lost, you were gossiped about mercilessly. I could never understand why those people had chosen to “overshare” in such a public manner; I thought they must be either in serious need of help or just desperate for attention. But obviously this isn’t a fringe, emo-high schooler tendency anymore, as the proliferation of Facebok, MySpace, Blogger and the like have shown.
You’re NYT Mag. piece was a gripping read. There really isn’t any point in criticizing it for what it doesn’t say, but I do feel inclined to voice that for whatever reason, I was expecting more of an analysis (sociological/psychological) of why people create public personas via the internet, what “oversharing” can mean when the subject is less romantic and more dangerous (e.g. eating disorders, suicidal), and what this all says about society today. Once all of the hype over the Magazine dies down, I think a lot of people would be curious to hear what you have to say about blogging and society beyond your own experiences, because they certainly have prepared you to make such insights.
Looking forward to reading more of your stuff now that I know who “Emily Gould” is…good luck.
I live in NYC but ignore Gawker et al, and have thus have never heard of you until now. I think your rise and fall story says something about your generation and your quest for attention and recognition combined with tools that make it simple to share every detail. I’m glad you’re sharing.
So Emily,
What do you think about blogging about a slice of one’s life, without revealing the blogger’s true identity and personal details of said blogger’s life?
What if there was blog where no one gets shredded, and dirty laundry wasn’t aired? Would it be interesting? Would there be any value?
I’d be interested to hear what you and others have to say.
Marge
http://www.yarmarge.com
Just read the NY Times piece and now I get it. I never understood why anybody blogged or, more importantly, why anybody bothered to read strangers’ blogs. How do they have the time? Why should I care about a stranger’s love life? I always have something more interesting to do. But then, I’m 54, and I’m not into oversharing. I better understand the need to blog now: the need for recognition and attention – and the high from getting a response. I get that rush when I find a relative on ancestry.com.
Maybe that’s the difference between being in your 20s or in your 50s. Anyway, you are a terrific writer and I enjoyed it. I told my 65-year-old husband to read it so he would get it, too.
hi emily, the nyt story came at the exact perfect moment for me, a rather junior blogger of a certain age. thanks a million!
I’m an oldtimer, though internet aware and I found your article in the Times really interesting. I left young adulthood like 20 years ago, but I found myself thinking back to those years and kind of being grateful that we didn’t have personal blogs or IM. Life was complicated enough. Still is, just different.
Anyway, I watched the you vs. Jimmy Kimmel and the two other self important assholes. I loved your natural reactions to Jimmy’s hypocritical protestations. You might not think it, but you killed them.
Emily, this is what happens to you when you venture out past your clique of yay-saying toadies who think every self-absorbed pearl you drop is genius. There is a wider world (yes, of grownups) that now sees you for what you are – a mean-spirited, vicious narcisist. The vitriol is earned, and you deserve it. You’re neither a good writer nor a smart social observer. You’re a sad little nothing, whose hour upon the stage is already waning, thank goodness.
As Joseph Campbell once put it:
“If it’s in your nature to be (e.g.) nasty, then be nasty – but – make it for *for* you.”
In other words: while you can’t deny your essential nature, you have the power within you ro decide when it is prudent to put that essential nature front and center in the world, and when it is prudent to hold it back. You clearly didn’t know the difference before, and from the NYT essay it is fair to say the jury is out as to whether you have taken or will take this little nugget of wisdom to heart.
Hi Emily,
I read your article online a couple of days ago and just wanted to say that I think you’re doing just fine. I’ve made mistakes like those you describe, though admittedly not online. I can’t comment to the public embarrassment factor that you’ve gone through, but I could identify with a lot of the rest of it.
I have no platform from which to judge you, so I won’t. I felt that the tone of your article made it clear that you have learned a lot about yourself and about the oddly bipolar online community.
I just wanted to say that I was impressed by your article and am glad you’re keeping your head up and marching forward. Just keep on rolling, you’re doing fine.
Never read or written a blog or a reply until I read your NYT magazine article today. Took me excitedly back to my 20’s and 30’s long before the Internet but when we had the same problems of falling gloriously in love and then breaking up and then falling back in love once or twice with the same woman and then moving on. I don’t think there is such a thing as oversharing. It just used to be done privately (subject to the occasional gossip) but now quite different with the Internet. As one who has spent a lifetime in therapy, I share all the time as it is good for the psyche and the soul. Good luck to you as this won’t be your last time in the spotlight. May love and happiness climb into your heart and remain.
Hi,
Wow; I’ve just spent the last five hours on you. I’d never heard of you before this morning when I finally got around to reading this weeks magazine. Yeah, I know, kind of slow but it is a holiday. I’m very curious to know what your take is on the firestorm that you seem to have opened up? Was this what you wanted or envisioned? Personally, I enjoyed your writing and locution. I think the canard about this being a work worthy of the NY Times is a non starter. Feeble glad-handing about the ‘issues’ of the day must, preforce, give way to discussions of the life that we are all living. blah blah blah
cheers, my dear!
Michael
Oh, and if you have a great recipe for roasted chicken, I love to have it!
[...] an example of this problem in action: a blogger gets on the cover of the New York Times magazine, Emily Gould. She talks about how her boyfriend hates that she blogs about him. Of course this hits close to [...]
Hi Emily,
Was generally aware of you in the past but the Times Magazine article brought it together for me in a much fuller way. Where did you go to college? Some of the blogs included in the article could have been almost really short well …. short stories. You see clearly and write well……and seem to have managed to preserve a sense of humor about you (while at the same time being prepared to look very deeply and honestly into your core and share it with others).
Forgive me but…………the cover photo of you was nothing short of ASTOUNDING…….particularly your eyes. You are one hot, seductive and talented worman!! If I had been your boyfriend, I would have forgiven you
!
Happy blogging and living!
Wow. I’m astounded at the things people will say sometimes.
Also, I hope the irony of these people taking the time to read your article and then your blog and comment that they hate you and you’re a waste of time isn’t lost on you. Sit back and have a chuckle over that one…
Me? I think you’re lovely. Keep up the good work.
An absorbing, warmly personal read, from an imperfect, very human and highly interesting character.
Thanks for sharing,
David
nice elephant
[...] not. (Check out the comment on her personal blog from David Williams, a 69-year-old dude who compares her piece to the “new journalism” of the 1960s.) While I’ve been stunned by the cruelty of some of her past Gawker posts, I’ve also [...]
The NYT article was very eye-opening for me. I don’t know much about blogs and blogging, but I do know good writing when I read it – and honesty and sincerity. You are an inspiration to any of us out here who struggle with writing about ourselves and our lives, no matter the venue.
i had to read your times article twice. not because it was so informative or so well-written but because i had a suspicion that you employed the first person pronoun to lead off every paragraph. this is not entirely true but the employment of the ‘i’ is rather consistent, n’est-ce-pas?
there is an ‘i’ in ‘blogging’ after all.
but does everything have to be so obvious? both in your newly disavowed will-to-blog and also in your prose? (did you take a course in ’sex and the city’ screenplay 101?) i’m not sure what the point of your article was but i’m sure that you’ve figured it out. or so you’ve written.
last week there was an intriguing article in the times magazine about john mccain’s conscience. weeks before that there was a challenging piece on the moral conundrum of living ‘green’… and now the moral and social conundrum of a blogger as written by the blogger herself. brilliant.
an elephant in the room? more like a coked-up monkey.
disavowal. hypocrisy. a denial. a denial.
ha ha. found this on the times readers’ comments:
stop polluting ,find another job
— phil, 11935
I read the NYTM article (it was wonderful by the way), and if it makes you feel any better, I’ve never heard of you
.
I’ve also discovered that the folks out there on the Internet can’t get to you if you turn the computer off. I just go outside and let them yell in their little bubble while I enjoy the day. I picture their lips moving while they angrily shout words I can’t hear… “What? What’s that? I can’t hear you! I’m outside walking around a beautiful lake!”
And the jokes on them becuase they’re all inside, angry (or should I say angry inside?) making some big comment I’ll never see (probably like you’ll not see this one for you).
but anyway, when the sun goes out in five billion years, no one is going to see what we put out on the world wide wasteland.
Cheers!
Curtis
I stumbled upon your NYT Magazine article today and wanted to tell you how much I enjoyed it. For what it’s worth, I think you’re a fabulous writer.
For about three years, I had a fairly successful blog. Well, maybe not that successful–I mean, I was in high school at the time, but I had several readers and regular commenters and was pretty proud of myself. It was really easy to write about anything and everything–and then, one day, it just stopped. I just wasn’t able to do it anymore. It was weird. I have now graduated college and recently I’ve been trying to get my blog mojo back, if you will. It hasn’t been going all that well, but your article really resonated with me and made me feel a wee bit more inspired. So, thanks, and rock on.
Hey Emily,
I read your piece in the NYT’s Magazine and I totally loved it. I was riveted, especially with your descriptions of the compulsion of blogging, and the the urge to post. You’re an excellent writer, please keep writing and always go back to it, you’ll just get better and better! I love bacon too, and you’re totally right, bacon is just like “potato chips made of meat”. I couldn’t stop laughing over that one.
You’re cool and also a hotty, you’ll find someone better than Henry and Josh. Don’t let any of the idiotic comments from hateful and spiteful fools get you down either.
Rock on!
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
outlaw most bloggers
license all the rest
monitor their writing
.
Philosophy of Liberty Cartoon
.
Help Halt Terrorism Now!
.
USpace
.
Your article came across my path by pure accident. I thought your shared experience seemed somewhat interesting, if not a bit enlightening. Maybe the most surprising part is how you seemed genuine and sincere, well, at least until I compared it with your video clips on youtube. I was horrified to watch you and that cavalier attitude on LKL—that will be difficult to escape.
I’m not sure what motivates you or even what it is that drives you, but all I see is a wake of emptiness. This makes me feel sad because it’s so evident that you possess talent and God-given gifts. I just can’t figure out why you squandered such precious ability on meaningless pursuits.
As a stranger that didn’t expect to cross your path, please know I intend to pray for you; specifically that God will do a good work in you, even within your life. John 8: 1-11
Kindest regards,
Lane
This message is for Emily Gould. I am unfamiliar with Blogs, and this is the only way I hope a message will get to you.
I read your article in the New York Times magazine Sunday, and it broke my heart! I am not from your generation, and I do not feel the need to ‘let it all hang out’ when it comes to my life. But I admire your braveness at being completely open to the world.
Good writing! Thank you for a wonderful article.
MP
Margalit
Emily, I was blown away, really, by your NYTimes piece. It was not only extremely well-written, but you are gaining some serious insight into your process, a level of self-examination which takes tremendous courage. For those of us in mid-life and beyond who have not yet been exposed to the cultural phenomenon of personal blogging that has taken such a strong hold for your generation and younger folks, you have given us a deep taste of the layers involved and the ethical and social dilemmas one faces as one tries to “connect” both in person and then through the internet with others. Thank you for the inspiration to begin my own writing, and my best wishes to you on your continuing life’s journey. Christine
I just finished the article in the NYT. Yes you are a good writer. You sort of put yourself through the wringer. Your article is a travelogue of a rather extended mind trip. Isn’t that what all the great writers write about? Well that’s the kind of stuff I like to read about and that’s what I write about in a private journal I keep. That’s the difference between me and you. I keep that stuff private. I’d be mortified if the reasons my wife left me were posted on line for everyone to read. I tell my friends, “During marriage counseling she said all of these horrible things about me. Of course they are all true.” But I don’t get specific. That’s just me. Anyway, you are a very good writer and maybe it’s time to move on to another topic. Ever read any of Alice Munroe’s short stories? I’m a fan of short stories and I think Monroe’s are very well crafted. Also, one more thing, the photos of you in the New York Times are beautiful. I’m afraid I have yet another magazine I can’t throw in the recycling bin.
Yes, I agree, “Moderation in all things.”
NYT Magazine – wow! What’s next?
I loved the article.
That’s all.
If nothing else, you’ve inspired the thousands of bloggers with similar narratives to think about how this all happened, too. For better (or apparently) for worse. But nice work.
What intrigues me most of all is the fact that so many negative commenters continue to thrive and feel justified in their thriving. Here and everywhere. Why do they do it? How does this make them feel better? I don’t get it. If you don’t like a blog or an article … don’t read it. Talking about your hatred of this or that blog or piece seems … self-indulgent. But oh well, I dunno. I’m a blogger. I used “I” a lot in this comment.
hey emily,
don’t let anyone get ya down–this was a terrific short-form memoir. you are an outstanding writer. as others have said, i’d love to see you take on assignments that go beyond your own life. you have the writing chops—take on small corners of the world as insightfully as you have yourself.
i started reading yer article on my iphone while munchin’ on a panini at press cafe on 5th ave in park slope
finished the article while sittin on the can at home two days later
it was very entertaining. the whole thing reminded me of college where everything was so big and imperative and serious. then you leave school, look back and realize none oh that small shit mattered..haha
crazy bloggers, you all need naps and snacks …
hey, i hope you’re taking this all okay. not going to divulge my opinion of you or the article, but i connected with it on a more minor level as a 20 y/o who’s gone through a lot of internet.
but basically…you’re a person, too, and i hope the criticism isn’t getting to you too much. obviously it’s struck a chord.
I really related to this phrase: http://twitter.com/gwalter/statuses/820692908
In between pulling weeds and spying on a mama robin perched upon her nest of four perfectly-formed pastel-blue eggs, I read your NY times essay and the (at last count) more than 1,150 comments it attracted over the weekend. Two things struck me about many NYT’s readers: 1) They are nasty and vile and quick to insult and lash out as long as they can do so anonymously; 2) They do not understand that “Exposed” is a first-person narrative, an essay, a story of What I Did and How I Learned From It.
I also noticed some tried to pit Your Generation against My Generation. While I am more Their Generation, they do not speak to or for me. Having worked at a public university for eight years while raising my own two teens, I think I can appreciate more than many how much those in their teens and ’20s can–and do–teach me.
You are a talented writer with a great voice. I look forward to reading much more of your stuff.
Emily,
After reading your NYT article I found myself with a very unsettling feeling. It’s the same feeling I get when my girlfriend has been watching The Hills, the credits are rolling, and I realize that I’ve been watching too! It is a feeling that I can best describe as an uncomfortable combination of dread (for the future of humanity) and intense sadness.
Yes, I feel sad for you. It’s like you’re a teenager without the protection of actually being a teenager. I wish I could just tell you to grow up, but it’s clear that you don’t know how. No doubt your time at Gawker stifled (halted?) your progress but it certainly isn’t guilty of all of your shortcomings. You’ve used your talent on endeavors that only bring misery and emptiness to your life and others.
You have a gift in the ease with which you can write. In fact, I’m quite jealous. I’m also incredibly disappointed about how you’ve managed to waste it on self-indulgence and pettiness. Your NYT article lacks any real insight and your self-proclaimed Gossip Girl obsession only suggests that you have learned nothing from your experience. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if you wrote the entire article with the specific intent to sway public opinion (and of course, attention) in your direction.
WON’T GET GOULD AGAIN
http://www.yarmarge.com
you and josh deserve each other. it’s a shame you broke up.
I loved the NYT piece- I’m so glad you’re back up and I think you’ll be great really soon. Please keep on writting and give us some great stuff to read about.
I blogged about your NYTimes article, Penelope’s response to your article, and why we have a growing desire to share ourselves online. I posed a question there for you – because I genuinely would like to know.
http://exponential.steelbuddha.net/2008/05/27/indecent-exposure/
Hi Emily,
I loved your article. I admit I was curious and also read Josh’s article in the Page Six Magazine. (Okay, so I am an insomniac okay?)
I think his comment here (the one early on from a dick named Josh, was that him?) was mean spirited, immature and unnecessary. I love how the two of you have invited the world into your break up. I mean that without sarcasm. Who does that? It allows outsiders to see two very viable sides of a conflict, and that is valuable for all of us since when we are deep into it we tend to only think of each other as “evil”.
Anyway, Emily, I think those weenies leaving hate mail on the NYT site take themselves too seriously. What’s with all the narcissism criticism? Hasn’t anyone every heard of a personal journey narrative before? How do you write such a thing without the word “I”?
I love how you write. You really draw us into your mind and your personal journey. I never “met” you before but am glad I did now.
Take care,
Bella
Your article was well written, interesting and valuable commentary on the benefits and perils of maintaining an online presence in the internet age.
It has caused me to stop and reflect on what I reveal online and for what purpose.
You need a very thick skin to put yourself in the path of self righteous, mean people who like to hurl digital rocks from the safety of their anonymity.
Given the obvious downsides, the question is what are the benefits? Is it worth it?
At first I didn’t like your confessional too much. It seemed self-absorbed and not very important. But I have to be honest with you – The New York Times Magazine’s longish “thought pieces” these days are written in a style that succeeds at being both hauty and vacuous at the same time. I never read those NYTM tomes all the way through, but I did read yours. And while we know we’re supposed to judge writers by the quality of their work and not the length of their comments (so to speak), the fact is that you struck a nerve, and it shows.
Writers have always tattled about personal details of their private lives and burned bridges in the process. It just a lot easier to get published now. And a lot easier to see that you’ve been written about.