Stuffy, out of touch, respected for some reason writer for the New Yorker Katy Waldman has unearthed a shocking, visceral and culturally relevant trend:
Authors make stories for people who can either identify with or empathize with the main characters due to either embraced, hidden, or aspired similarities with the readers themselves.
In her brilliant prose she remarks on the current stunning proliferation of a heretofore unnoticed aspect of American society:
Women and girls, not just men, can and do use computerized technology to obsess over the lives of others, and can even be consumed by this, as well as the need to subtly fit into clliques and social circles without being too much of an obvious fangirl.
The length of time Waldman spends quoting and explaining snippets from various recent novels which illustrate that the female sex as well is subject to entirely common and gender/sex nonspecific inclinations, as well as the predictable tragedies that befall those who are fundamentally sly, manipulative, and work in the shadows, is illustrative of the fact that Katy needed to hit a word count, and by God, she did.
Waldman’s groundbreaking cultural analysis breaks entirely with the convention of knowing anything at all about what she is talking about with the ultimate conclusion of her article, where she states that women and girls who pander for attention, popularity, fame and social status online are the polar opposite of woman and girls who sit back, monitor social groups to get a feel for their dynamics and what is likely to effectively manipulate core players in the scene as unassumingly and innocently as possible, and then strikes with a perfectly timed false accusation or other cunning powerplay.
This conclusion, showcasing an astounding, astronomical level of unfamiliarity with how vapid online celebrities act when they think no one is watching, when they know their cult will justify their actions if caught, when they are confident they can erase the evidence as if they never did anything, truly indicates a defiance of the convention of publishing literary trend reviews with any regard for any knowledge of kids these days.
Historians will study the works of Kathy Waldman and praise her for doing what no other New Yorker reviewer ever had the guts to do so brazenly:
Make a whole big deal over an obvious and predictable cultural trend while being so out of touch with anything interesting or relevant, so unfamiliar with the very personalities produced by the culture she provides commentary on that it could only possibly be published in the New Yorker.
The year is 2024.
Stuffy, out of touch, respected for some reason writer for the New Yorker Katy Waldman has unearthed a shocking, visceral and culturally relevant trend:
Authors make stories for people who can either identify with or empathize with the main characters due to either embraced, hidden, or aspired similarities with the readers themselves.
In her brilliant prose she remarks on the current stunning proliferation of a heretofore unnoticed aspect of American society:
Women and girls, not just men, can and do use computerized technology to obsess over the lives of others, and can even be consumed by this, as well as the need to subtly fit into clliques and social circles without being too much of an obvious fangirl.
The length of time Waldman spends quoting and explaining snippets from various recent novels which illustrate that the female sex as well is subject to entirely common and gender/sex nonspecific inclinations, as well as the predictable tragedies that befall those who are fundamentally sly, manipulative, and work in the shadows, is illustrative of the fact that Katy needed to hit a word count, and by God, she did.
Waldman’s groundbreaking cultural analysis breaks entirely with the convention of knowing anything at all about what she is talking about with the ultimate conclusion of her article, where she states that women and girls who pander for attention, popularity, fame and social status online are the polar opposite of woman and girls who sit back, monitor social groups to get a feel for their dynamics and what is likely to effectively manipulate core players in the scene as unassumingly and innocently as possible, and then strikes with a perfectly timed false accusation or other cunning powerplay.
This conclusion, showcasing an astounding, astronomical level of unfamiliarity with how vapid online celebrities act when they think no one is watching, when they know their cult will justify their actions if caught, when they are confident they can erase the evidence as if they never did anything, truly indicates a defiance of the convention of publishing literary trend reviews with any regard for any knowledge of kids these days.
Historians will study the works of Kathy Waldman and praise her for doing what no other New Yorker reviewer ever had the guts to do so brazenly:
Make a whole big deal over an obvious and predictable cultural trend while being so out of touch with anything interesting or relevant, so unfamiliar with the very personalities produced by the culture she provides commentary on that it could only possibly be published in the New Yorker.
Lmao I don’t agree with that, but that was well written anyways
Well thank you for the compliment, and I would actually love to know why you do not agree with it.