I don't have much to say about Emily Gould's article, other than to say that by Sunday, it'll be so over, with this much attention already, and that while there are valid criticisms of the piece, the umpteen NYT commenters seem to think there is something inherently wrong with writing about oneself. Don't read memoirs much, do they? Granted, they are different types of writing, and a book gives you room even a 7,000+ word article doesn't, but still. As for why they published it, if that's not obvious (readers!), then those people don't really get publishing do they? Also, it should be noted that even though she wrote a very personal piece, Gould also wrote an obituary for personal blogs.
This was my favorite part:
Knowing that the worst of my online oversharing is still publicly accessible doesn’t thrill me, but it doesn’t scare me anymore either. I might hate my former self, but I don’t want to destroy her, and in a way, I want to respect her decision to show the world her vulnerability.
Okay, second favorite (as in, ones I most related to):
I had made my existence so public in such a strange way, and I wanted to take it all back, but in order to do that I’d have to destroy the entire Internet. If only I could! Google, YouTube, Gawker, Facebook, WordPress, all gone.
So far this post from Shoot the Blog has been the most interesting and original:
When I went to read the piece (which will run in the magazine this weekend) I was struck by how Elinor Carucci those images were! Of course, they turned out to be by Elinor Carucci. But really, here is a photographer who delivers editorial imagery that is barely distinguishable from her own work. She and Gould even look alike. This pairing is kind of amazing:
photograph by Elinor Carucci for The New York Times
Elinor Carucci, from her series Closer, 2000
Labels: Emily Gould