Skip to main content

If you aim to respect someone, pay them fair attention (6 March 2009)

Re: "Looks like I hit a nerve. Interesting. But not surprising." (Jeffrey J.)

Jeffrey J., You're commending Vanessa for supporting Platrow's blog, but on that subject, Vanessa, after assuring us that it was only "cultural fascination that drove [her] to read her project" (and not, say, genuine curiosity born out of a respect for Paltrow), offers QUALIFIED praise -- she "found SOME of it to be genuinely useful" -- while still pointing out her ridiculousness ("Despite eye roll-inducing recommendations"). She then quickly slips into a more serious engagement with exactly why "it's not all that hard to understand the 'haters'," and terminates with a fearful vison of Paltrow et al.'s vacuous celebrity culture meming their way, en total, into our resisting but hopelessly permeable brains.

Making Paltrow into a meming, channeling worm is not high praise for her, I assure you. In fact, the whole essay could be seen as an example of the kind of "flak" you believe a woman celebrity will receive when she "overstep[s] [her] [. . .] bounds." If you take women writers as seriously as you pretend, surely you would have noted this, surely you would have evidenced some sign that you were really paying attention to Ms. Richmond's writing while you "read."

You're not generous to Vanessa, nor to others you pretend to want to commend. For grouped amongst your trolls was certainly me, and quite possibly Bailey -- that is, two men who noticed Vanessa dissing Goop, and made an effort to offer more enthusiastic support for Paltrow's efforts.

If in the future Vanessa writes an essay on Goop or its equivalent where she doesn't spend so much time covering her ass, and goes for a more involved exploration of how "useful, helpful, interesting" it all is to her -- maybe even daring not cutting/undercutting all such good stuff (off) with a "that said," maybe even daring to suggest she found herself "inspired" -- then please do praise her efforts, while rolling the rest of us into some kind of troll-sandwich -- she and we would deserve no less.

Link: Is the Future of Journalism Goop? (The Tyee)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...

The Conjuring

The Conjuring 
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it, but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the affordments of that time are going to make them have to work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from 2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...