Daily affirmations of a word mercenary
Ok, so I must comment on Emily Gould’s recent NYTimes piece, Exposed, in part because I really enjoyed it and in part because people keep sending it to me.
I read the piece expecting to hate it — as some of you know, I have a knee-jerk frustration response to the microcosm of media in New York. I just get irked that someone can pee in a jar and drink it in New York and suddenly it’s world news with a six figure book deal and a reality show and we’re all fascinated because did you see that? Someone in New York peed in a jar and drank it!, while meanwhile you can have an entire small town of collective urine drinkers in, say, Michigan and no one notices or cares. I’m talking about things like the Save Karyn book here.
Despite going in with this bitter perspective, ready to hate Emily Gould for all her New York media myopia, I actually came out of the article with deep sense of compassion and empathy for her. I related to many portions of the article, for instance her relationship with Gawker commenters:
It wasn’t quite friendship. It was almost something deeper. They were co-workers, sort of, giving me ideas for posts, rewriting my punch lines. They were creeps hitting on me at a bar. They were fans, sycophantically praising even my lamer efforts. They were enemies, articulating my worst fears about my limitations. They were the voices in my head. They could be ignored sometimes. Or, if I let them, they could become my whole world.
I also had complete deja vu around trying to explain to a therapist the weird kind of microcelebrity that blogging can provide:
“It’s important to remember that you’re not a celebrity,” [my therapist] told me. How could I tell her, without coming off as having delusions of grandeur, that, in a way, I was? I obviously wasn’t “famous” in the way that a movie star or even a local newscaster or politician is famous … but I had begun to have occasional run-ins with strangers who knew what I did for a living and felt completely comfortable walking up to me on the street and talking about it.
Andreas has been with me many times when people have walked up to me on the street and talked to me about my blog or my job or my book or whatever, and I asked him to read the article. “It might help you understand me and my weirdnesses better,” I said.
After reading it, he looked at me and shrugged. “I guess I understand why you relate to it,” he said. “But the woman who wrote it is completely insane. You are not insane.”
I had to explain that no, Emily Gould is not crazy. She just got hit with the whole blog fame thing way more suddenly, on a much larger scale, and when she was younger than me. I started blogging when I was 25, and it was a much smaller blogosphere back in 2000. I was able to make my mistakes in oversharing, overexposure, and unmitigated egotism in a smaller pond, without the entire New York media world and Jimmy Kimmel staring at me. In some ways, blogging and I grew up together, so by the time I was doing national television, I’d already had lots of media training … a luxury Emily Gould didn’t seem to have. I also developed some personal boundaries before I had thousands of daily readers, a luxury Emily Gould also didn’t have.
But Andreas isn’t alone in his response. It seems like only a certain kind of blogger has enjoyed the article (my blogger/media compatriot Brittney Gilbert commented “This mirrors my own experience in so many ways that it is frightening”) while many others see Emily Gould as crazy or sad. My author friend Michelle was like, “Does it seem pathetic and weird to you? All those Gen Yers wanted to be web-lebrities?”
I had to answer that, uh, nope: didn’t seem pathetic and weird at all. Or rather, maybe it was pathetic and weird, but I totally related. I guess that’s the thing: if Emily Gould comes off as crazy, then you haven’t experienced the weird mind-fuck that is the neurosis soup of blogging, privacy, exposure, and the intoxicating feedback loop of online commenting. Is it sad that so much of a fragile ego can be built on comments from strangers on the Internet? Probably, but I dare you to ignore dozens (or hundreds!) of people telling you every day how awesome or awful you are.
Anyway, the article is well worth reading, to see which side of the fence you come down on. Do you relate?
Hey there. I'm Ariel Meadow Stallings, a native Seattleite who's written my way up and down the Left Coast. Electrolicious is where I post daily randomata, but I also write for a living. My first book, Offbeat Bride, was published last year.
You're reading a page from the archives. Check the homepage for current content.
brittney
May 27th, 2008 at 9:46 am
I really need to address this. I also need to be really cautious about it, because the need to comment on the article is not as great as my need to not open myself up to viciousness. I think you know what I mean.
Good for you for writing this. It’s good, and something I am going to keep thinking about.
Molly
May 27th, 2008 at 9:46 am
The fundamental piece missing from this essay and related discussions is how lonely and alienating it is to work as a digital creative (I consider bloggers/writers for web part of this group). It is not only not pathetic, it is absolutely essential to extend yourself to other people–whether they are strangers or not–because it is a basic human need. Gould briefly touches on how little face-to-face contact she had with people on a daily basis, and how alone she was in a large, apathetic city, and I think this is sort of the modern condition. If you add to that a job that demands most of your time, isolating you from direct interaction with other people, it is very easy to become an oversharer and narcissist who craves constant reinforcement from other people.
Brenda
May 27th, 2008 at 9:46 am
I thought it was way better than it could have been, or even should have been. A lot of the negative commentary I’ve read has sort of cherry-picked from the article, pointing out things she was clearly highlighting as mistakes in the piece as examples of how much Emily Gould sucks, which, even if you think it’s myopic or narcissistic, it misses the point. I could definitely relate, it’s as if I never learned to turn the filter on after I started blogging in undergrad, and then got internet famous.
robin
May 27th, 2008 at 10:00 am
I didn’t send this to you but I totally thought of you while I was reading it and wondered what you thought.
I’m with you — I don’t think it’s pathetic at all. I think she does a great job of describing the strange dynamics and relationships of this world, particularly the bizarre relationship that can develop between bloggers and commenters. They are complicated and hard to explain to “outsiders” (as your talk with Andreas demonstrates).
Equally hard to explain to outsiders is the kind of “internet fame” that you and others have. I thought at one time that I wanted that kind of fame. Gould talks in the beginning about how she felt like she finally had an area in which her social quirks were assets … That’s how I felt at first, that maybe the blogging world would invert the real world; my flaws would become strengths, and instead of being a boring introvert, I could be someone special, who stood out, maybe even sort of famous … It was a very exciting and very seductive thought.
When I started blogging in 2002 it was still a pretty small pond (though growing fast) and I felt like if I played the game right, blogging about stuff that would draw readers, and making connections to other more “famous” bloggers (via comments and private emails), I could be internet-famous too.
But I had to finally admit to myself something I’d known all along: I am not an oversharer. I could never bring myself to write in the way that draws lots of sensational attention.
So I feel relieved, because I have not overexposed myself, but I also always felt a little disappointed too.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Helen Jane
May 27th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Well spoken, Ariel and commenters.
I relate more to your point about having made my mistakes when the stakes of blogging were smaller.
I also thought the oft-maligned Penelope Trunk had some good points to make about writing about writing about one’s relationships.
http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/.....ily-gould/
Ben
May 27th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Throughout the article, I kept thinking ‘why didn’t she just turn off comments?’ and then the question kept being answered the same way: because of her addiction to attention/reinforcement, regardless of whether it was positive or negative.
As a result, I wanted to feel sympathy. But she kept admitting, unapologetically, that she enjoyed publicly belittling people, including people she knew. Even if the source of this behavior was some sort of projected self-hate, I can’t give her a pass here. It might sound shrill, like the “don’t dish it out if you can’t take it” cliché, but she was working for Gawker of all things. What other outcome was she expecting from this vicious cycle?
And if it even needs to be said, this is one of the key things that separates people like her from you - you’re not mean and you haven’t based your career on being mean. Even when you say snarky stuff, you do so in a very kind, often self-deprecating way that says a lot about your quality and character. The exceptions? Genuinely stupid bitches/bastards that need to be taken down a peg, and even then you’re nicer than you have to be
I’m not saying that the absence of clothing on emperors shouldn’t be pointed out by those in the know, but really - why does she travel so far down this road, suffering such junkie-level highs and lows, and then bemoan that the outcome feels empty and unsatisfying? She’s in therapy, but doesn’t listen to the therapist who tries (fruitlessly) to tell her that she’s living in her own navel.
The argument with Henry at the beginning of the article comes *so* excruciatingly close to the point - the danger of “compulsively seeking gratification from strangers at the expense of the feelings of someone I actually knew and loved” - and then is never satisfying revisited. Instead, we get more navel gazing: “I’m willing to let that blog exist now as a sort of memorial to a time in my life when I thought my discoveries about myself and what I loved were special enough to merit sharing with the world immediately.” For fuck’s sake - Henry wasn’t arguing that her life wasn’t special! He was trying to get her to recognize that *his* life was no less important, and should have been given more respect. Ultimately, she left Henry for someone more like her, who was able to put up with this sort of behavior (at least until it was ratcheted up a few more miles).
I kept hoping that she’d have the proverbial moment of clarity by the end of the article, but alas, no: “Don’t delete it,” I managed to say. “Just make it all password-protected.” I recognize this tactic. It’s when the friend attempts an intervention, and the junkie says “Don’t throw away the needles; just hide them.”
Even as she finally discusses drawing personal boundaries, the closing line says it all: “I still think about closing the door to my online life and locking them [comments] out, but then I think of everything else I’d be locking out, and I leave it open.” This is the alcoholic who thinks they can still drink every now and again.
There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with putting your life out on the web. But you have to decide how far you’re going to go based on the (somewhat unclear) potential consequences and just roll with it. Occasionally someone as mean as Emily shows up as a troll, and it hurts if you let it, but life goes on. You can legitimately cry foul on such folk when you are not Them. Gould, however, *is* Them, and wonders aloud why her kin are so unkind to her. Whatever.
minijonb
May 27th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
you’ve just outted thousands upon millions of collective urine drinkers in Michigan. thanks. thanks a lot.
= : - )
sam
May 28th, 2008 at 4:58 am
I am actually surprised that you are defending this girl. It seems to me that as a writer who contributes to the world more than JUST your personality, you might find the idea that someone could make a career entirely out of over-sharing just the slightest bit offensive. I respect creative (and web) professionals for what they do, if they are actually creating something. If they are just showing up and removing their personal filter, that isn’t creating anything except more words that don’t mean anything. A commodity with which the world is overrun.
Ariel
May 28th, 2008 at 6:29 am
Sam, I’m not sure that I’m defending her — just saying I relate to her shortcomings.
Alyce
May 28th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Ben, I think you made some really good points and articulated some of what bothered me most about it (the article, not her).
Do you remember when Gawker was invite only comment privileges (and before that no comments at all)? There were terribly smart, funny, snarky remarks made all the time. It was like a cool kids club on the web. There was a time when I would have been really drawn to that.
And I can also relate to being lured into something morally questionable (working for Gawker; trashing someone you love for gratification from an adoring public).
I know this is an example on a completely different scale, and I’m not sure how to explain it. I used to tell stories in such a way that it required tweaking reality. A phrase here, an anecdote there. All in an attempt to make the story funnier. I did this often at the expense of family & friends.
A coworker met my husband at a holiday party some months after she had known me and heard my stories, and was surprised to find him an intelligent, hilarious, kindhearted person. Apparently, I made him out to be a bit of a dunderhead. I like sitcoms. Dunderheads are funny. The result of my trashing was merely shame and embarrassment. Emily’s has been public ridicule. And maybe one day shame and embarrassment…
brittney
May 28th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
*you might find the idea that someone could make a career entirely out of over-sharing just the slightest bit offensive*
Interesting comment. Does this apply only to web writers? Do people like David Sedaris who share their personal stories also warrant this sort of admonishment?
sam
May 28th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Brittney - good point. It made me clarify what I mean. While I’m sure someone will take this as a slight against web writers, I’m going to say that I think David Sedaris specifically is a better writer. Maybe not better than all bloggers ever (surely it is not even possible to judge such a thing since there are so many!), but better than Emily Gould. When you take your experiences and turn them into something more (like humorists or confessional poets or songwriters, etc. do) it is different than just blankly laying out some not-so-savory facts about yourself. Even taking some of the bloggers out there who do make a career out of “over-sharing”—their stories are entertaining or enriching because of the skill with which they write. If the over-sharing isn’t accompanied by that skill then I think it does more harm than good.
brittney
May 28th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Whether Gould has that skill or not is completely subjective. So you don’t think she’s a good writer. That doesn’t make her any less of a writer, and so I’m not sure why she should be held to a different standard, except that she is a blogger, and bloggers are easily disparaged.
My point is this: Writers have been sharing things about themselves and those closest to them for centuries. Proust was an oversharer of the highest order. No one considers him a narcissist in the same way that Gould is seen as one. And sure, she’s no Proust, but the topic they choose to explore is very similar.
Not sure I have a concrete argument here, but it seems many are railing against the medium in the case of Gould’s NYT piece, whether they realize it or not.
yelahneb
May 28th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Brittney, I would respectfully have to disagree - for the most part, Gould is being criticized here in regards to the quality of her character, the things she said, and the impact it had on her friends and lovers; the medium by which she did so isn’t so much the point.
The fact that she eventually had such a large audience isn’t what made her an unpleasant person - it simply compounded what was already there, creating an emotional feedback loop that she apparently became addicted to. Her vitriol was there pre-Gawker, pre-Exposure, and she says so herself when she delights in the idea of finally getting paid for it: “I felt liberated — finally, a job where I could really be myself!”
I doubt that Proust would have been nearly as popular if, instead of musing upon themes of space, time and memory, he had instead dedicated himself to bitching about how fat, drunk and/or ugly he thought everybody was.
amy
May 29th, 2008 at 6:55 am
Ben, I mostly agree with you, but I think it’s a bit ironic that you chose Proust as an example. What makes Proust a lasting writer who still speaks to us today are indeed the great themes he tackles — space, time, memory, etc. But what made him popular enough to even be considered for canonization is EXACTLY that he wrote about how snobbish, boorish, or small-minded his contemporaries were (and occasionally how drunk and ugly they were as well). It’s not obvious to us, because we aren’t familiar with his society, so we only see the universal themes. But what made Proust a fashionable writer of his day was not his themes but his cattiness — everyone had to read him to find out if he might be talking about them or their friends.
Greatness and popularity are two very distinct things. The sad truth is, without base popularity, no one will ever have the chance to notice a writer’s greatness.
kirsten
May 29th, 2008 at 9:40 am
I wound up really liking this story, too (and of course, I thought of you, Ariel). One of the benefits of a life examined (aside from the dangers of narcissism) is that you can see where you fucked up, as Emily appears to have done. I identified with a lot of what she wrote, and I think it was well-written. I think it makes sense to continue to read comments (selectively) because we all appreciate feedback about what we do. She just gets more of that than most of us, and anonymous feedback can get ugly pretty quick (as I know from my course evaluations as a professor). And it’s no use gloating over her come-uppance, she knows that she did wrong. My favorite part of reading the article is that she wasn’t so much apologetic as contrite and circumspect. I expect to see much better from her in the future.
Ben
May 29th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Amy (and Brittney, in retrospect): fair enough. It would probably have been more accurate if I had said “if he had instead dedicated himself *solely* to bitching about how fat, drunk and/or ugly he thought everybody was.”
Kirsten: I kept hoping she’d show some measure of lucidity to the cause/effects of her situation. That’s one of the most frustrating things about her behavior - at the conclusion of the article, she remains stuck on the idea that it was the *act* of ‘oversharing’ that led to her hardships, rather than a measure of the sorts of things she chose to share, and her intentions behind sharing it.
Susan Mernit
May 30th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Ariel–this is a great post! I learned alot from it, and from some of the commentators–thanks for such wise insights.
SolShine7
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:30 pm
The Internet is really changing things. Thanks for the link to the article and sharing your thoughts on it. It makes you pause and think about the whole blogging scene.
S of 52 Faces
July 9th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
I hate what she stands for…but only because I’m slightly jealous.
no black ink. » Blog Archive » puerile.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:01 am
[...] the blogosphere was all abuzz over this story from the New York Times magazine (see here, here, and here, for starters), revealing former Gawker editor Emily Gould to be as petty, self-absorbed/involved, [...]