It seems to me that we have a problem in Cyberspace, perhaps as a society in general. We’re too sensitive. I know, we’ve made great progress in trying to understand our fellow humans, but I suspect a lot of folks swung a bit too far on the feeling pendulum. Recently, OFW offended a few folks with the Rack’s format and theme. We were accused of all sorts of nasty things, and collectively referred to as sick fucks. People are really creative when it comes to name-calling. Go vocabulary!
But OFW’s trials are minor compared to others. I just read an article that had me shaking my head and asking “What’s the big fucking deal?” New York Times contributor Andrew Goldman’s reply created some hoopla with his reply to author Jennifer Weiner’s Twitter criticism of his interviewing style.
While I understand his tweet is annoying, assholey and rude, what’s the big deal? Was there a need for the messy pile-on that followed? Personally, I think not. However, I am aware that I’m in the minority when it comes to such things. I just think there are bigger and better battles to fight. A smartass replying to criticism isn’t one of them.
Margaret Sullivan of the NYT examined the issue and had this to say:
Is it ever acceptable for a journalist to ask a successful woman if she has slept her way to the top?
If he does, and a female reader criticizes him for it, is it a forgivable offense for him to suggest that she is complaining only because she wishes that she, too, could have had that opportunity?
Can you believe we’re talking about this in 2012?
And that the journalist in question writes regularly for the New York Times Magazine?
It all began when Jennifer Weiner, a former newspaper reporter who has written nine best-selling novels, read Andrew Goldman’s latest “Talk” feature in last weekend’s Times Magazine.
The interview was with Tippi Hedren, the actress who starred in “The Birds” and is the subject of a new HBO movie that takes up her relationship with the director Alfred Hitchcock. Mr. Goldman, a freelancer who regularly writes the “Talk” feature, asked Ms. Hedren if she had ever been tempted to help her career along by having sex with directors.
For those who don’t have time to chase links, it all started on Twitter, when Ms. Weiner criticized Goldman’s interview with Tippi Hedren, tweeting:
“@jenniferweiner: Saturday am. Iced coffee. NYT mag. See which actress Andrew Goldman has accused of sleeping her way to the top. #traditionsicoulddowithout”
Well of course, Ms. Weiner was less than thrilled with Goldman’s reply:
“@jenniferweiner sensing pattern. Little Freud in me thinks you would have liked at least to have had opportunity to sleep way to top”
Uncalled for yes, but this is where I get kind of baffled. New Yorker TV critic Emily Nussbaum joined in, to let Mr. Goldman know he was out of line, and he did what any human being under attack would do, he defended himself. I’m not saying his reaction to the original tweet was right or wrong. I’m not sure he didn’t add to his trouble by continuing to reply, but I can’t say I wouldn’t have done the same in his shoes, even if I’d said something equally as assholey and knew I was wrong to have done so. I suspect I’d have told them to put on their big girl pants and get over it. Of course, such comments are received differently between women.
I strongly feel that if someone decides to offer criticism of another person on a public forum like Twitter (particularly if the critic is a public figure like Weiner), then it shouldn’t surprise anyone if the person being criticized responds. Did he respond correctly? Well, his comment wasn’t the smartest, but I don’t feel it was meant in the way it was taken. He definitely should have thought that one over before hitting “send” but my take was that he was being funny. Answering something negative with humor is something I get. Some of us do that. Sadly, it’s often misunderstood, and I think Goldman should have considered that.
The lesson? Be careful who you criticize and think long and hard before responding to your critics. Why? Because people are waiting for you to offend them.
You don’t think so? Top Gear’s Jeremy Clarkson, who I expect to be brutal every time he opens his mouth, was “finally” censored by the BBC. You can read the full account provided by the Independent, here. Now, I didn’t see the episode, but in Clarkson’s case, I agree that his commentary (as it was reported) is mean and all the things they said, but it was nothing new. Why curb his humor now? Why can’t he say those things all of a sudden? The platform in which he said these things was entertainment. Was he serious? Maybe. Maybe not. But why are we getting our panties bunched over it? Where’s the line? Who are we allowed to offend and who do we tiptoe around?
Is this sensitivity of the general population a new thing, or is it that the Internet just offers more opportunity to take offence? Have we always been a bunch of pussies? The Internet makes shitstorms and bandwagoning damn easy for folks who need a bit of extra attention, and I’m disheartened to see it’s only getting worse because folks have realized that being offended is a great marketing tool. In most of the cases I’ve mentioned here, this is probably not the case, but among the mongrel writers I run with, shitstorming as a marketing tool is becoming far too common. One can never be sure if social media is helping them sell books. We can’t be sure that anyone even reads our message or gives a shit about how awesome we are. No one has perfected the marketing formula for books, and I suspect no one ever will. That’s because people change, trends change, attitudes change, and what works this year won’t work next year. One thing you can be certain of is that shitstorms get noticed, and they’re not hard to start. Speak out about something, use a few hot button words or issues as fuel and voila! La shitstorm.
It’s amazing to me that it works, but it does. People (in general) are easily offended. They LOOK for offense. They wrap themselves up in it and snuggle into its cozy righteousness. Need more evidence? Well, there’s also this which sounds really familiar. And, after sharing the link on Twitter, which I shared because I interpreted the article as saying that people are too quick to be offended, a tweep who had no idea who I was or what I knew or my political point of view, or even if perhaps I was an Australian now living in Canada, attempted to tear me a new one. This only proves my point. They were offended that I, a Canadian, would dare comment on Australian politics. I had no right to “insult” the Australian Prime Minister because I was not from that country. Do you see where I’m going with this? I shared a link. Period. So…what’s offensive about that?
Do we not have enough drama in our lives with waiting in agony for the next season of Republic of Doyle to start? Do we really have to create more?
Apparently we do. As I read these articles, I started thinking more about what we’ve been seeing recently with fake reviews, authors behaving badly and whatnot and I wonder if any of us truly mature beyond high school. I’m including myself in this. I’m not perfect by a long shot, but I do try to think before I act, and before I log onto Twitter to hotly declare that my tender feelings have been hurt. Why anyone would attack others to promote themselves under the guise of personal offence is something I don’t understand. It doesn’t matter that you look like a giant asshole when you’re doing it. Bandwagoners don’t care if you act like a snotty little brat, they’ll join your party. They want a cause and they’re happy to help you out.
And the Internet provides a perfect platform. You take a bit of selective truth-telling so folks can fool themselves into believing they have all of the facts, wrap in explosive themes and accusations that create a cloud of crap around an essential nonissue, and then that issue can be blown out of proportion without a soul questioning its validity. The result: You fire the emotions of the target audience and get the desired response. Writers are good at that because that’s what fiction is all about. We target emotion and push buttons to draw the reader in. Sadly that’s also how you load up a bandwagon. People like to be part of a group. I mean the alternative is to be a target of the cool kids, so let’s join the biggest, loudest group and stay safe, man.
There are better ways to get people talking about you and your book. Acting like a fucktard is not one of them. Trying to damage the reputation of a decent person by blowing a non-issue up into a “noble cause” is not what professionals should do.
We all know controversy sells. Doesn’t matter what you’re peddling, controversy sparks discussion, gets your name on people’s lips. When they start talking about you, they start thinking about you. One thing leads to another and they find themselves checking out your goods. Maybe they want to support you or maybe they want to discredit you. It’s not like it matters. It sells either way, right? Exactly.
I guess my point is that we all (in the publishing industry and beyond) need to stop acting like spoiled brats and realize not everything is about us. Stop resorting to tearing people down to make ourselves look/feel better. As a society, we need to chill the fuck out and get over ourselves.
Login/Register to leave a comment, or Login using or
Post Comments
Carlos Cortes Monday, 22 Oct 2012 02:48 PM
You beat me to it. I followed the exchange between Jennifer Weiner and Andrew Goldman, and was saddened to witness his lynching. As you rightly point out, many people are eager to be offended, often in a bid to rise above their insignificance and bask in the dubious limelight of a shitstorm. A couple of weeks ago we had a taste of a similar antic with the affronted interviewee in The Rack.
I also agree with Sue; hitting a key is a damn easy.
Was Andrew out of line? I don’t think so. Twitter is not The New York Times, but a space where people drop thoughts as fast as they can text them. Someone took a poke at him and he snapped back. I don’t need any Freud in me to imagine my reply had I been in his shoes. In my opinion, his comments were personal not official.
The corollary from the disgraceful affair is that no one who writes in a public medium is entitled to give a piece of his mind if attacked.
To ask someone if he or she has “slept”—I’ll go along with the euphemism so I don’t run afoul of language zealots—all the way to the top is a reasonable question. Why? Because anyone with an IQ over 80 is entitled to puzzlement before the parade of talentless people crowding the political arena and the arts.
Post Comment (Required)
2000 Characters remaining.
Abuse Report (Required)
2000 Characters remaining.
Susan Elizabeth Curnow Wednesday, 17 Oct 2012 11:11 AM
I believe part of it is, as I have said before, how easy it is to push a button and the supposed annonimity many feel sat behind a computer screen. Those who would not normally walk into a crowded room beside their peers feel enabled to say how they feel to a screen. Same as writing something on your blog. I mean, only you can see it, right?
There is also the sad factor that social media has made computers even more addictive. Not switching it on, just getting your jollies from how many 'likes' and comments one may receive or how many friends one can add.
To get those likes and follows and friends, a person has to make noise. It doesn't have to be good noise, just that it is loud enough to echo.
If you had seen some of the comments on internet newspapers about what happened to Rich you would have been more than angry. People sit in their little paradises 'presuming' they know other people. They take a solid fact, like the fact Rich was in Afghanistan and 'presume' he committed suicide because of course he had PTSD and because he and his wife weren't getting along.
I am using this as an example only to show that they took those facts without digging any further and without knowing the people. Only what they had been told by media who are masters at that game.
I have written stories where someone has written a review citing the underlying message I never wrote. But *they* saw it there and maybe I had written something in there subconsciously. Didn't offend me, just intrigued me. I only get incensed by reviews when someone has got real facts confused with fantasy. Would I respond? I doubt it. There again, the conundrum with writing is that you write to share and if someone doesn't like it for what you believe are the wrong reasons it must be difficult to sit on your hands.
Monday, 22 Oct 2012 02:48 PM
You beat me to it. I followed the exchange between Jennifer Weiner and Andrew Goldman, and was saddened to witness his lynching. As you rightly point out, many people are eager to be offended, often in a bid to rise above their insignificance and bask in the dubious limelight of a shitstorm. A couple of weeks ago we had a taste of a similar antic with the affronted interviewee in The Rack.
I also agree with Sue; hitting a key is a damn easy.
Was Andrew out of line? I don’t think so. Twitter is not The New York Times, but a space where people drop thoughts as fast as they can text them. Someone took a poke at him and he snapped back. I don’t need any Freud in me to imagine my reply had I been in his shoes. In my opinion, his comments were personal not official.
The corollary from the disgraceful affair is that no one who writes in a public medium is entitled to give a piece of his mind if attacked.
To ask someone if he or she has “slept”—I’ll go along with the euphemism so I don’t run afoul of language zealots—all the way to the top is a reasonable question. Why? Because anyone with an IQ over 80 is entitled to puzzlement before the parade of talentless people crowding the political arena and the arts.
Post Comment (Required)
Abuse Report (Required)
Wednesday, 17 Oct 2012 11:11 AM
I believe part of it is, as I have said before, how easy it is to push a button and the supposed annonimity many feel sat behind a computer screen. Those who would not normally walk into a crowded room beside their peers feel enabled to say how they feel to a screen. Same as writing something on your blog. I mean, only you can see it, right?
There is also the sad factor that social media has made computers even more addictive. Not switching it on, just getting your jollies from how many 'likes' and comments one may receive or how many friends one can add.
To get those likes and follows and friends, a person has to make noise. It doesn't have to be good noise, just that it is loud enough to echo.
If you had seen some of the comments on internet newspapers about what happened to Rich you would have been more than angry. People sit in their little paradises 'presuming' they know other people. They take a solid fact, like the fact Rich was in Afghanistan and 'presume' he committed suicide because of course he had PTSD and because he and his wife weren't getting along.
I am using this as an example only to show that they took those facts without digging any further and without knowing the people. Only what they had been told by media who are masters at that game.
I have written stories where someone has written a review citing the underlying message I never wrote. But *they* saw it there and maybe I had written something in there subconsciously. Didn't offend me, just intrigued me. I only get incensed by reviews when someone has got real facts confused with fantasy. Would I respond? I doubt it. There again, the conundrum with writing is that you write to share and if someone doesn't like it for what you believe are the wrong reasons it must be difficult to sit on your hands.
Post Comment (Required)
Abuse Report (Required)