Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
TinaS1
Published Letters: 780 Editor's Choice: 21
I could see that the article was facetious the first time I saw it, so I did "get it", I guess. But there was so much shrill self-hate and loathing in it that was still evident, and it lacked self-awareness to the point that it just wasn't funny.
It was like watching a drunk person puking out all their darkest and most revolting secrets, loosened up by the alcohol into saying things they wouldn't ordinarily say. The "humor" of the piece supposedly freed the author enough to do this, with chilling results.
It failed at being genuine. It failed at being satirical. It was simply really badly done.
It was poor writing.
The Times probably published it in the first place just to set off a shitstorm. If that is the case, they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, so expect to see more of these "opinion" pieces in the future.
News isn't going to sell newspapers any more, but scandal will, it seems. If you have no scandal, create one with some poor slob of a woman who will hate on herslef for money.
That's all it's about.
yearn to know--what they were trying to accomplish, how it went so spectacularly wrong, and what the hell they were freebasing when they did this.
Why can't you get it?
Nobody wanted to pay the bill for this pretentious crap.
People have a right to be upset when they shell out money and are delivered a vastly inferior product.
Nobody hear has said that they read and scrutinize every column, whether or not they are interested. Nobody here has said they are trying to censor opinions/writing they disagree with (there is PLENTY on Salon I disagree with).
But when reading columns in which we are interested, we want at least, to see passable writing and a certain level of professionalism and critical thinking.
Agreement has been universal that KOF doesn't even attempt to meet that standard, that it is lazy and sneers at its readership, that it did NOT demonstrate a minimal level of professional achievement.
Like the article on how "women are stupid" over at the Washington Post, you just sit there and wonder "how did this substandard piece of grafitti scrawl get in there?"
So, no it's not a matter of being self-righteous, unless you think it's self-righteous to complain to KFC when you get a fried mouse in your bucket of crispy wings.
What if KFC answers: Well, heck, it's all meat, ain't it? If you don't like it, just don't eat it! Hey, having a bucket of wings with a fried mouse in it is better than having no wings at all, ain't it? It's not like that mouse in there is going to KILL you or anything...! Jeez, you're just a busybody, complaining about a mouse in your chicken when you could just choose to ignore it....
Are any of these acceptable responses? Of course not.
You pay for something, you expect it to be of a certain quality. This cartoon wasn't, to a degree that was horribly grating. I'm glad Salon has finally killed it. It was awful. Even you are not arguing that it was good, except "ironically". Why are you interested in seeing it continue?
That's my question.
I feel the same way about Jennifer Aniston that you do about SJP. I could never figure out her appeal. She is thin in a hard-looking flat kind of way, has stringy hair, and a terribly grating voice. If I were a guy I could never be attracted to her.
I don't remember the actress who played opposite Tom Cruise in the last Mission Impossible movie, but anyway, I was in Europe at the time, and the cast posed near the Coliseum in Rome for pictures, and I was shocked....the actress was a skeleton! She looked great on screen, but in life she was so bony that even her kneecaps stood out. I wondered how she had the energy to do the job and finally understood how people say that actresses faint on sets--she looked like she would!!
Also, I live in a resort area and many years ago someone who worked at our small airport was on hand when Victoria Principal (sp?) arrived for a stay at the height of her career. The airport worker was surprised. he said she wasn't pretty, and looked "very washed out"..."not the kind of woman I'd ask out, actually".
Finally, when I was in Bangladesh in 1995 and I met Bibi Russell, the famous model from the 1980s. Now don't get me wrong, she seemed like a nice person and all. I have no doubt she worked hard in a career that doesn't favor non-white women and she was not a tall lady, which I'm sure didn't make it any easier. BUT....she looks totally different from her pictures. She did not stand out one bit; you would not guess she had been in the beauty profession.
Makeup, cameras, having the right cheekbones, and above all being skinny, skinny, skinny...and these days computer enhancement...oh, and did I mention being skinny? Is what it takes.
I don't worry about the magazines or the movies. You only need to see the real life women who work in the industry once or twice before you understand thoroughly that the whole thing is based on fantasies and outright lies. I am not against beauty products. I use them. But those women do not "really" look like they do on camera. They just don't. They understand that, too. I think the disconnect between what they "really" look like and what people expect them to look like is very isolating for them.
You can't emulate Vogue models or top actresses because, in a certain very critical sense, they don't exist.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
