It’s tough for me to feel bad for Emily Gould, the ex-Gawker blogstress and (TMI postergirl) who received the New York Times Magazine cover treatment this weekend. But I’m not sure if she wants us to feel bad, exactly. Maybe slightly dirty and overwhelmingly annoyed?
Gould’s article chronicles the rise and internet fall of a 24 year-old careerist boho in the Big Apple (named Emily Gould). The story is no doubt familiar to the trust-fund Brooklynite set: twentysometing is hired as a coffee-fetcher at a publishing house right out of college, parents subsidize apartment; twentysomething squiggles her way to associate editor position at said publishing house, parents continue to subsidize apartment; twentysomething dates youthful curmudgeon in noise rock band; twentysomething is drafted by snarky New York blog empire, breaks up with sheepdog beau, enters ill-advised office romance and chronicles her every last embarrassing thought on life, love and loft parties on blog(s). Who can’t relate?
[To be fair, I’m only assuming her parents subsidized her apartment; perhaps her ex-boyfriend’s noise rock band was really successful.]
The highlight (or lowlight?) of the piece is Gould’s recounting of her disastrous appearance on a Jimmy Kimmel-hosted episode of "Larry King Live," during which Kimmel takes Gawker to task for its shameless celebrity stalking. Gould comes across as amateur and ill-prepared, and Kimmel lets her have it:
It appears she was as unprepared for the backlash.
Gould’s article is an exercise in self-shadenfreude, a way to do penance for a litany of internet-related sins. Yet she simply seems narcissistic (we can smell our own) and hopelessly naive. Even more vacuous than the story, however, is the magazine cover, which captures Gould in bed, artfully tousled and tomboy titillating, flush from what we are supposed to imagine was a breathless entry about a recent one-night stand. Too bad her story is no more risqué (or interesting) than your average "Afterschool Special." Why does the Times persist in this trend-baiting bullshit? Was the hipster-librarian article not enough?
Or maybe I’m just jealous that she inspires more mean-spirited comments than I. Only you, dear readers, can address this gross inequity. So what are you waiting for? Get to flaming!