“Rank” for sure
I’ve had an on-again, off-again relationship with New York for years — never had a complaint with them as an employee, but as a subscriber, whenever I let my subscription lapse, it was because of a story like this, which misjudges just how much “but Hamptons table-jockeying is important” demographic pandering the reader base can bear. I always come back to it, because the writing is ordinarily very good; Vanessa Grigoriadis’s pieces drive me nuts — she tends to do this faux-New Journalism thing that tries to universalize the personal but winds up reading as self-absorbed — but her editors just need to take a stronger hand, because she’s a good writer.
But the socialite article, my God. My reaction does have an “I am neither rich enough nor in possession of adequate free time to give a crap” aspect to it, but it’s not like that sort of subject matter is a rarity in New York, and usually, the reporter gets me to give a crap even if I will never have anything to do with these people and have no genuine investment. But it’s kind of a non-story about a possibly-faked email which thinks it’s pantsing the socialite scene, but the socialite scene kind of pantses itself, simply by existing; the article is confusing, boring, and reluctant to draw any conclusions, and the layout is a mess — a big chunk of white space at the end, garbled first-drafty sentences the proofreader didn’t fix, et cetera. I mean, I don’t really care what Tinsley Mortimer and her ilk get up to, but I had looked forward to dish, at least.
Contrast that with the story in the same ish about the panhandler and his 100K payday from the city — cleanly written, knew what it wanted to say. I think “The Number-One Girl” probably just got rushed to press a week before it was ready, but I also think a book that regularly recommends baby clothes that cost $300 in its shopping section opens itself up to charges of irrelevance when a piece as narrowly cast as this one looks and reads like the college paper.
Tags: city living publishing
I’m glad i’m not the only who couldn’t follow the socialite story. I think there is an interesting story in there about the glorification of wealth/conspicuous consumption, but they didn’t write about that really.
Word.
I read that socialite article last week, and I think I was also just looking for some fun dirt. Instead, I needed a diagram to keep the secondary ‘lites straight, and was left feeling a bit depressed.
I have similar feelings about New York (which I subscribe to) and that article. The idea was basically gross, as is that scene, but it wasn’t ultimately revealing enough to justify the splashy front cover. On a layout front, I was bothered by including the photo of the blogger behind Park Avenue Peerage when he wasn’t mentioned until after the flip to the back. I just kept waiting for an explaination of who this person was and how he related to the story.
And can someone tell me why I continue to read The Look Book when it only makes me angry?
I stumbled across this story a few weeks ago (not this specific article) and, of course, had to read about it, because I’m a sucker for a story about famous socialites who are really only famous in one tiny sector of Manhattan. It’s usually because I want to know why they’re famous and why I should care. Also…..dirt! But I still don’t get what the fuss was about.
The only dirt, as far as I was concerned, was young Olivia Palermo’s pseudo-lapdance on the reporter, followed by her thoughtful question, “I’m not hurting your wanker, am I?”
Socialites indeed.
I’m really confused by the article. Is it about the people who ran the SR website? Is it about the site itself? Or, is it about the people that they profiled on the site? Then there was talk of a different site? Can someone tell me what the actual point of the article was? Like who or what was actually being profiled?
I couldn’t get past the fact that her boyfriend put on driving gloves to drive his…Miata. HIS MIATA, you guys.
I couldn’t get past the fact that he put on driving gloves AT ALL.
I’m just waiting for “ripped from the headlines” Law & Order episode on all this.
Or have they already done it?
Seriously though — as awful as this story was, it pales in comparison to the nightmarish NY Mag article that made me cancel my description (http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/2917/). Evil.
At any rate, in this issue the whole socialite non-event is way overshadowed by the self-important pronouncements of the hateful Tom Ford.
Well: Grigoriadis. This one pales in turn in comparison with her foray into the world of high-profile yoga, or whatever that was supposed to be. She consistently presents as so very tiresome, and I don’t think the subject matter she’s assigned helps her, but still.
I went to college with Vanessa. She is, in fact, at least three times as tiresome and self-absorbed as you imagine, and I think her editors do their best to conceal it.
Seriously. She made a Friendster profile that openly stated that one of the driving questions of her life was “to be Lily Bart or not to be Lily Bart?” Yeurgh.
I like Vanessa Grigoriadis.