Stop talking about her.

If she's really not worth analyzing, why analyze the analyses??

It seems to me that Rebecca Traister is essentially painting us all with the brush built for her: SHE apparently can't get enough of Jennifer Aniston, so we all must share her obsession, right? People have forgotten about Katrina victims but can't forget Jennifer? During "Friends'" primetime run, people spent more time with Aniston (30 minutes a week) than they did with their real friends? What kind of socially retarded idiots is Traister gleaning these examples from? Does Salon really think this is news or commentary of any real interest, or is this simply the work of a starfucker desperate to justify her existence?

It was bad enough sitting through the tedious "ultracommercial". Then I thought I had reached "Entertainment Tonight" or "A Current Affair". What has happened to my old salon. I detest this new Yahooish layout.

If I see Jennifer Astons' hamster mouth one more time or read another article about her I will assume the world has gone completely mad.

WTF?

Our Jennifer fixation? Speak for yourself Rebecca. I read Salon (at least I used to) for insightful commentary on the day's news. Maybe I should let my Salon Premium membership lapse and get a subscription to the National Enquirer so as to keep up with the antics of TV celebrities without the need to wade through three pages of drivel?

Come again? Whose Jennifer fixation?

Can we get some articles worth reading here at Salon?

Man of the year at GQ indeed. Yawn. All that column space down the drain. An article so boring that Jennifer herself probably would fall asleep reading it.

I would like to never read about Jennifer Aniston again, and I would especially like for Salon to get off the celebrity kick. I find you unreadable anymore.

Instead of a knee-jerk reaction to an article about a celebrity or a near-crazed attack on the author, I thought it might be nice for Salon and Ms. Traister to know that at least one reader got it and feels better off for having actually read the article. Perhaps not assuming idiocy or character malformation on the part of the author allowed me to better access her words. Or maybe accepting that celebrities, like it or not, shape our culture and understanding that their manipulation of our media is, at the very least, worthy of discussion did the trick.

At any rate, an excellent article on the predominant pop culture storyline of 2005. My impression is that Salon exists to help its readers better understand the world around them, and this article definitely succeeds on that count alone. And, after reading it, I still have plenty of brain cells left over for ultramercials and stories about evil Republicans.

WTF Salon?

Did I really just flip through two pages of this pointless posturing to post an e-mail about how dissappointing this article was?

And this after the young David Amsden's essay, with young Master David's arrogant 20something attitude of knowing everything there is to know about psychotropic drugs because he once dealt Ritalin to college students drivel made me sigh and wonder what was up at Salon.

Is this a bad side effect of Thanksgiving week? We get drivel?

How can I miss her if she won't go away?

On the evening of the November 8 US elections there was certainly too much Aniston. I was on vacation in California and I looked on my hotel TV for news of Arnie's eight propositions: exit polls, discussions, predictions, results...anything. There was none and no other news either that I could find. On CNN - I thought it was a 24 hour news channel? - was a vacuous interview with the ubiqitous Jennifer that seemed to last all evening.

In the end Arnie lost all eight, while Democratic governors won in Virginia and New Jersey. Hurrah! Was every American really more interested in Aniston? Surely not.

Jerry

I had enough of Jennifer Aniston as soon as I saw her picture on Salon's front page.

I hope this generates lots of clicks and makes it possible for Salon to keep doing the kind of fearless investigative journalism that I read it for, because I can't think of any other reason for this waste of perfectly good electrons.

Why is it that Salon readers are so fixated with the the essay, 'Our Jennifer fixation?' What is it that drives them to such disdain for an analysis of the celebrity of, well, a celebrity?

We just don't care that much, and haven't the tabloids (and a couple of other magazines) given us more than we need already? Isn't asking why we're so hung up on JA like asking why babies eat so much applesauce? Well, if it's getting spoonfed to you on tv and in print, people will respond, but jeebus, can't Salon realize that real grown-ups are maybe here for a more complex menu than strained peas and carrots?

I have a feeling that David Horowitz's term didn't last long at Salon because his column eventually degenerated into Self Indulgent Drivel (SID). Traister's material started at the SID level and has slowly crumbled its way into narcissistic self importance with a side dish of trivial.

You can keep promoting her material to Salon's front page at your peril. There are memberships on the line, and you should really consider putting your best foot forward.

Are we supposed to be offended that Anniston's angst over her breakup has followed pretty much the pattern that anyone else's, other than that it has been unwrapped for us in national magazines. How crafty of her and her "master publicist" ... how positively riveting for Salon to deconstruct it ... But it does seem to me to be much easier to apply Occam's Razor, look for the simplest explanation. She's really famous and probably pretty normal, by Hollywood standards; so we get fed, ad infinitum, the same story we'd get if it was an actual girl friend who went through a break-up, only it's entirely vicarious and hurts less. Tastes great, less filling, etc. The whole story could be done in a 30-second commercial ... and despite the media, writing this letter has taken more of my time than I've spent paying attention to Anniston in 2005.