A Gawk at the Emily Gould Story
Forgive the bad pun in the post-title. I have had too much coffee.
So, I'm helping a colleague with a class tonight and she emailed me this morning suggesting this article as a discussion piece. Up until now I had never heard of Emily Gould probably because I stopped reading Gawker a long time ago (no particular reason, just that I get out of the habit of reading sites/blogs sometimes). Gould was an editor at Gawker (which is a celebrity NY gossipy blog) for some time apparently and the NYTM article details her personal experiences in the industry (for it is an industry and then some) and her personal life at the time. The article is called 'Exposed: what I gained - and lost - by writing about my intimate life online.' Rachel Sklar at The Huffington Post responds with accusations of narcissism. This exchange is really interesting to me. Sklar's piece quotes multiple sources admonishing Gould (and in part bloggers in general) for navel-gazing, for taking up space in a publication where more 'important' ("brilliant" and "closely-researched") news should be. News that is not about the personal, that has cultural relevance. News that is produced by someone who does not include pictures of herself in a "metallic bathing suit". If you are interested at all in blogging then I urge you to read the original article, Sklar's response, some of the Gawker comments, and also go over and watch the video of Gould's appearance on Larry King where she is questioned by Jimmy Kimmel (irate following accusations on Gawker regarding his behaviour) among others.
It really bothers me that a story like this can be described as being of no political significance. As far as I'm concerned that betrays not only a lack of imagination but a rigid adherence to patriarchal principles of what is important news and what is trivial. What is personal, what has to do with relationships, what is feminine is all too often dismissed as being irrlevant, soft, fluffy, silly .... That an individual story offering (as I see it) fascinating insight into the experience of sharing (and making) oneself online is irrelevant is laughable to me. Web 2.0 technologies are changing (have already changed) the way that news is made and distributed. The exposure of personal writing is HUGE part of this. The vast vast vast majority of blogs online are personal diaries and an enormous number of bloggers (not all of course by a long shot) aspire to the kind of exposure Gould has had for her personal writing. Look at all the bloody books available to show you how to profit from your blog, how to gain exposure, how to market yourself through your blog. In this arena Gould's story is not only relevant, it is important.
Also, Gould is criticised and mocked for discussing the drawbacks of personal/intimate writing in a personal/intimate piece. I am willing to bet (and I am not a betting woman) that if a disaster relief worker, or a pearl diver, or an explorer wrote about the dangers of their work they would not be so lambasted for continuing to do the work. However, when the dangers of the work are emotional rather than physical it is somehow easier to devalue the risks, to write them off as selfish choices rather than brave ventures. Somehow, I also suspect that when the worker is a woman it might also be easier to do this (as our work is often framed in terms of (selfish) choice rather than contribution or vocation). Certainly, there is evidence to suggest that women bloggers face more abusive commentary and personal threats than their male counterparts. I'm not saying that there aren't bloggers out there who write selfishly and thoughtlessly, but I feel that to completely ignore the bravery of the kind of vulnerability involved in personal writing (especially in an environment where it is often so reviled) is to reinscribe that prejudice and hierarchy over and over again. Sklar sniffs at Gould's use of the "well worn lens of her own experience" towards the end of her post which leads me to the questions I'll finish with here - don't we all wear this lens in one form or another? Even if we don't foreground it as much as a writer like Gould does. Do we still really believe the myth of objectivity?
So, I'm helping a colleague with a class tonight and she emailed me this morning suggesting this article as a discussion piece. Up until now I had never heard of Emily Gould probably because I stopped reading Gawker a long time ago (no particular reason, just that I get out of the habit of reading sites/blogs sometimes). Gould was an editor at Gawker (which is a celebrity NY gossipy blog) for some time apparently and the NYTM article details her personal experiences in the industry (for it is an industry and then some) and her personal life at the time. The article is called 'Exposed: what I gained - and lost - by writing about my intimate life online.' Rachel Sklar at The Huffington Post responds with accusations of narcissism. This exchange is really interesting to me. Sklar's piece quotes multiple sources admonishing Gould (and in part bloggers in general) for navel-gazing, for taking up space in a publication where more 'important' ("brilliant" and "closely-researched") news should be. News that is not about the personal, that has cultural relevance. News that is produced by someone who does not include pictures of herself in a "metallic bathing suit". If you are interested at all in blogging then I urge you to read the original article, Sklar's response, some of the Gawker comments, and also go over and watch the video of Gould's appearance on Larry King where she is questioned by Jimmy Kimmel (irate following accusations on Gawker regarding his behaviour) among others.
It really bothers me that a story like this can be described as being of no political significance. As far as I'm concerned that betrays not only a lack of imagination but a rigid adherence to patriarchal principles of what is important news and what is trivial. What is personal, what has to do with relationships, what is feminine is all too often dismissed as being irrlevant, soft, fluffy, silly .... That an individual story offering (as I see it) fascinating insight into the experience of sharing (and making) oneself online is irrelevant is laughable to me. Web 2.0 technologies are changing (have already changed) the way that news is made and distributed. The exposure of personal writing is HUGE part of this. The vast vast vast majority of blogs online are personal diaries and an enormous number of bloggers (not all of course by a long shot) aspire to the kind of exposure Gould has had for her personal writing. Look at all the bloody books available to show you how to profit from your blog, how to gain exposure, how to market yourself through your blog. In this arena Gould's story is not only relevant, it is important.
Also, Gould is criticised and mocked for discussing the drawbacks of personal/intimate writing in a personal/intimate piece. I am willing to bet (and I am not a betting woman) that if a disaster relief worker, or a pearl diver, or an explorer wrote about the dangers of their work they would not be so lambasted for continuing to do the work. However, when the dangers of the work are emotional rather than physical it is somehow easier to devalue the risks, to write them off as selfish choices rather than brave ventures. Somehow, I also suspect that when the worker is a woman it might also be easier to do this (as our work is often framed in terms of (selfish) choice rather than contribution or vocation). Certainly, there is evidence to suggest that women bloggers face more abusive commentary and personal threats than their male counterparts. I'm not saying that there aren't bloggers out there who write selfishly and thoughtlessly, but I feel that to completely ignore the bravery of the kind of vulnerability involved in personal writing (especially in an environment where it is often so reviled) is to reinscribe that prejudice and hierarchy over and over again. Sklar sniffs at Gould's use of the "well worn lens of her own experience" towards the end of her post which leads me to the questions I'll finish with here - don't we all wear this lens in one form or another? Even if we don't foreground it as much as a writer like Gould does. Do we still really believe the myth of objectivity?
posted by georgia at 9:07 AM
2 Comments:
Hi Georgia, these are good points, all. My point in posting on this piece was to shade in some of the backstory - definitely not to devalue the personal perspective nor Gould's story, just to point out where it may have left things out or glossed over, and provide a few links to background posts showing how Gould conducted herself online. It is up to the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. I would note, though, that this is not a matter of sexism - that's something I'm really conscious of on my blog, and something I monitor fairly vigilantly. Nor is it a devaluing of the story in terms of what it says about the phenomenon of blogging or living life online; one of the failings of the piece, as I saw it, was its utter failure to draw any larger conclusions that applied beyond the author (others echoed that point). Also, vis a vis Gould on Kimmel, my initial reaction to her performance was positive, and I posted accordingly; I felt that Kimmel broadsided her with a personal agenda and she responded genuinely in the face of Kimmel (and other guests) misstating Gawker stalker at some points and hurling invective at her in the process. Also, earlier this year when Nick Denton posted a lengthy item about Gould's various interlocking romantic hookups, I wrote supportively of her in chiding him. It's not personal, and I made a point in my post of speaking of Gould's talent and previous good work. This was my reaction to what she wrote and where she wrote it, based on my awareness of the larger context surrounding her story and the usual standards of the NYT magazine. When I wrote of the "well-worn lens of her own experience," I was referring to how often she self-referenced in her posts, and continues to do so in blogging work done currently, which is something you wouldn't know from the Times piece. Thanks for reading though!
Rachel, thank you so much for taking the time to read and respond to my comments. I appreciate the additional detail and will (now that I find myself so interested in this story)certainly take time to look through more of the discussion online on this (if you can point me to specific posts that would be wonderful but I will start doing some searching myself nonetheless). I think that your criticism of Gould's failure to connect her own experience with any wider cultural/social observation is one really common to much criticism of blogging. And, I admit that it's not an entirely empty complaint. However, I also feel there is value in the narrative as it stands (my colleague used the story very successfully as a discussion piece in a technology and society class last night). Perhaps the more extensive theorizing might come later for Gould or perhaps she is content to leave this discussion with her readers (who seem to have been more than willing to pick it up).
One of the students in our class last night suggested that perhaps Gould gravitated more and more towards heavily personal posts on Gawker because of her experience that those posts garnered the most views and responses. I thought that this was an important observation - that she was pushed towards personal revelation and at the same time (and now, later) reviled for it. I think it's important to look at the context of her experience - at celebrity culture, at blogging, and to think about how a culture where attention and exposure are both sought-after and (when negative) at times perhaps terrifying.
I appreciate your concern regarding sexism. I, too, monitor myself constantly (in conversation, academic work, my thoughts) and am surprised by just how often (what I see as) sexist assumptions slip through. I do find the reception of Gould's article (and I'm not pointing specifically to your piece here)to be heavily gendered and I wonder what the response would be if she were a male writer. Do you think it would be different? Actually I wonder if the NYTM would have run the story if she were a male writer (and certainly if the photographs would have been arranged in the same way).
Anyhow, thank you again for your response and as you can see I have more questions than I do answers on thsi. I really appreciate the more detailed back-story to your piece, and I'm looking forward to reading about and thinking about this a lot more.
Best,
Georgia
Post a Comment
<< Home