Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Monday, September 27, 2010

Gawker Doesn't Get It: Part 167

Posted by on Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 3:28 PM

Feature-CLICK.jpg
For me, the best part of this whole Gawker-Stranger-Tao Lin adventure is that I'm learning about all sorts of corners of the blogosphere. I think I've found three or four neat blogs that I now follow religiously. The newest one is Techyum, which has some fun commentary about the Great Blog Battle of Last Week:

This past week Gawker called out those “rain-soaked latte zombies” in Seattle for their cover story on Lin, by Lin, and in doing so managed to step in a big squishy irony turd, which is gonna be tough to get out of those point-toed goth shoes you New York vamps always wear.
...
What leaves Sacramento so bewildered — and here I speak for my re-adopted hometown of Manure-Huffing Coke Zero Werewolves the same way Gawker seems to speak for the Big Apple whenever suckerpunching Seattle — is that this is apparently now a grudge match. I don’t know where the irony starts and where it ends.

This much is absolutely true: Tao Lin's feature has inspired so much bloggy fun.

 

Comments (22) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
I know The Stranger is taking glee in all the blathering, but the truth of the matter was shown out in the NYTimes Book Review on Sunday:

"In place of narrative momentum and escalating complexity, the book offers passiveness and anomie. In attempting to explore boredom, Lin Recreates boredom. In attempting to write about obsession, he embraces narcissism. If this was his goal, mission accomplished. But the achievement is a low-hanging fruit, and its rewards are limited. By the time I reached the last 50 pages, each time the characters said they wanted to kill themselves, I knew exactly how they felt."

Ouch. If your asking me I'd say you put too many eggs in the Tao Lin basket (or... hamsters?). But that's seems to be the way when you guys let your friends write for the paper.
Posted by maybe not so great on September 27, 2010 at 3:46 PM
Will in Seattle 2
Never forget, when it comes to zombies, Fremont is not just the Center of the Universe, it's the Zombie Capitol of the World (as certified by Guinness World Records).

We know zombies. Tao seems to think he can mock our zombie credentials, but we just look at him and think "Brains".
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on September 27, 2010 at 3:49 PM
Dougsf 3
I don't totally get it. So, Time ran a cover piece on this dude saying he's the best, and The Stranger was all "no way, that dude kinda sucks", so The Stranger mocked it with their own cover featuring a local author they totally like. Then Gawker—does Gawker usually comment on literary matters?—started up with the provincial insults (again!), and ya'll are running with it 'cause, like, you know, they're bigtime, er... somethingrathers, and you got their attention.

Am I close?
Posted by Dougsf on September 27, 2010 at 4:02 PM
tjc 4
It's like watching your parents fight. Please, stop it mom & dad! I love you both!
Posted by tjc on September 27, 2010 at 4:02 PM
Canadian Nurse 5
@3: It isn't just that Time did the story, it's the fawning and nonsensical way it was written. This piece illustrates it well.
Posted by Canadian Nurse on September 27, 2010 at 4:09 PM
gloomy gus 6
A lot of hyphens in play here.
Posted by gloomy gus on September 27, 2010 at 4:14 PM
7
Hate to squash the beef, but Gawker's Richard Lawson (the one who wrote the Stranger-bashing post) admitted that his Gawker post was a joke. Check the comments section.
Posted by coolsundays on September 27, 2010 at 4:18 PM
Will in Seattle 8
HHOK.

God, this is so 80s.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on September 27, 2010 at 4:45 PM
josh 9
It was so painfully obvious that Richard Lawson's Gawker piece was a joke that I can only hope that this is Paul's attempt at generating some sort of Internet crippling meta-ironic performance piece.

Although, let's remember that it doesn't really count as "blog battle" if only one side's fighting it and that there are only losers in Internet fights.
Posted by josh http://www.sciencevsromance.net on September 27, 2010 at 4:45 PM
10
Whatever. Tao Lin is annoying, and Gawker is just superficial pap. And I do mean "pap" not "pulp".
Posted by OAK on September 27, 2010 at 4:48 PM
11
What's really incredible is that this has been going on since last week, I didn't know who the fuck Tao Lin was before it started, and now that I know I don't fucking give a shit.

But the blogerati are waving their indie cred dicks around about it for over a week. Damn.
Posted by K on September 27, 2010 at 4:50 PM
Dougsf 12
@5 - Thanks. I wasn't even aware of the tone of the original piece. Yet somehow, my only takeaway from all this is that bloggers are really in love with the blogosphere, which I guess makes sense.
Posted by Dougsf on September 27, 2010 at 4:59 PM
13
@12: Yeah, it's been a circle-jerk for a long time now. I think the only people that read Gawker nowadays are other in-crowd bloggers.
Posted by K on September 27, 2010 at 5:03 PM
Will in Seattle 14
I used to catch Gawker, but that was years ago. BTDT.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on September 27, 2010 at 5:25 PM
15
This is vying for Least Interesting Topic Ever on Slog, right up there with Charles' 700 part series on Amanda Knox, the two month long Avatar hypefest and the "French intern" thing.

Adults don't read Time and I would never have heard of Gawker if it wasn't for it getting mentioned on Slog all the time.
Posted by Peter F on September 27, 2010 at 5:42 PM
josh 16
I know it's cute to say "no one reads Gawker" or "I haven't heard of them", but their network traffic suggests otherwise. http://www.theawl.com/2010/09/gawker-med…
Posted by josh http://www.sciencevsromance.net on September 27, 2010 at 5:48 PM
elenchos 17
I guess you can declare victory if you can convince anyone to think they have to say that Tao Lin's writing doesn't suck donkey dicks lest they appear to not "get it".

The NYT book review is an example of the many book critics who to indeed "get" what Tao Lin is playing at and they judge the result to be utter crap.
Posted by elenchos on September 27, 2010 at 7:39 PM
18
BRRRAAAAAAaAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNSSSZ! need more brains.
Posted by QuakeRugger on September 27, 2010 at 10:28 PM
19
I don't care if gawker gets it or not; I just wish they'd find another frame I'd reference for their insults than "Singles." It's not like I hate N.Y. JUST because everyone there is a twelve year old in the body of Tom Hanks playing a giant piano with their feet...
Posted by QuakeRugger on September 27, 2010 at 10:42 PM
laterite 20
WHO GIVES A SHIT ABOUT ANY OF THIS
Posted by laterite on September 27, 2010 at 11:59 PM
21
Geez, Paul, do you even get Gawker? It takes nothing seriously, and every post is designed to amuse and/or piss someone off -- hopefully both.

So no, it isn't that Gawker doesn't "get it." It's that once again you don't get it -- and in the process looking like a fucking tool.
Posted by bigyaz on September 28, 2010 at 11:49 AM
wilbur@work 22
Gawker == You The Man Now, Dawg. End of story.
Posted by wilbur@work on October 1, 2010 at 12:38 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy