As long as Gawker does not claim to be anything but an online magazine devoted to the ephemera of pop culture, that's OK. Hattie's Web is just a blog featuring whatever I think is worth writing about, and that's OK. What is not OK is this attack in Gawker on John McPhee.
Here is what I think of McPhee.
There are some parallels to the book I'm reading now, Annalena Mcaffee's The Spoiler.
Part of the problem is that purveyors of trivia have gotten above themselves. Luckily, there are still some serious journalists around. These Gawker people can't tell the difference between "serious" and "dull" and can't deal with long articles that demand sophisticated reading skills.
You never know, their article might lead to more than elitists finding him and reading his piece. :)
Posted by: Rain Trueax | January 19, 2013 at 07:09 AM
Everything I read in Gawker, I feel like they are making fun of themselves as much as the subject of the article. Like they don't have to be grownups.
Rain Trueax made a good point, because it made me go over to The New Yorker. I was sad I could only read the abstract of McPhee's article, because it sounded interesting.
Posted by: Maria | January 20, 2013 at 01:35 PM
Rain: To me the notion that The New Yorker is for elitists is pretty hilarious. After all, anyone can pick up a copy of the magazine and read it.
Maria: I think the value of his article is to writers who have problems organizing their material. It's both practical and entertaining.
Posted by: Hattie | January 21, 2013 at 09:41 AM
It's not who could read it, hattie, its who does-- and it's aimed at the literary elite or you disagree? Gawker may have introduced him to more than the 'New Yorker' would... but as was said above, not just anybody can read the whole thing if they don't pay for a subscription as is true more and more of online magazines and papers like the NYTimes.
Posted by: Rain Trueax | January 21, 2013 at 12:58 PM
Rain: Maybe aimed at high income college grads would be more accurate.The Kindle version is very cheap and has no ads. Right now I'm sitting in my comfy condo reading a chilling piece on Caracas in the latest issue.
Posted by: Hattie | January 21, 2013 at 01:29 PM
Like you need more chilling pieces to read? *s* And fine 'high income college grads.' but who have a certain interest level and that does put them in the rarefied atmosphere among Americans-- privileged is another term but you most likely wouldn't like it better. My point was some may learn who he is, what he does simply for Gawker teasing him that he can write something loose, stream of consciousness on his idea of non-fiction and be paid for it. Pulitzer prizes are part of how someone earns that. Gawker likely reaches far more than the New Yorker, he might've been thrilled they mentioned him-- depending on whether he aims to write for a limited audience or would like wider notice.
How cheap is very cheap?
Posted by: Rain Trueax | January 22, 2013 at 08:18 AM
The New Yorker can afford to pay for in depth long form pieces like the ones I just read in the current issue. When I have better computer access I'll write a post on the topic.
Posted by: Hattie | January 22, 2013 at 08:45 AM