Indiebride | IndieMom Blog

recent posts
----------
Who Wants It?
Pangolin
Standing Corrected
London
No Kool-Aid for Me, Mr. Cruise. But Thanks for Off...
Give That Kid a Chicken Leg!
I have never let my schooling interfere with my ed...
Plug
Side Effects
A Quiz

Book cover
You've got questions, she's got answers. Be among the first to read Elise Mac Adam's new etiquette guide. Pre-order from:
- Simon & Schuster
- Amazon
- Barnes & Noble

Monday, July 18, 2005

Modern Love, What a Pain

So for the second time this week I found that an article in the New York Times's Modern Love column had the unfortunate effect of triggering great ire. I've always found the column to be sensationalistic and its writers to be mostly interested in a kind of self-congratulatory navel-gazing. I commented on the incendiary piece by Ayelet Waldman about her Life's Great Loves in March, which makes me wonder why I still sometimes read the thing.

But Waldman had the decency to invent an issue she could worry. The two more recent columns really only feed their authors' egos and humiliate some unfortunates. I'm thinking about this because yesterday's article "The New Nanny Diaries Are Online" (I know, I know, the title) really made me cringe. The writer admits to a kind of jealousy and curiosity about her nanny's blog, which she read regularly and was upset at what the woman had to say about her and her family on its pages. Eventually, she fired the nanny and then wrote this strange article. Part "poor me" lament, part rant of a protective mother and wife, the piece feels very much like a journal entry in itself, except that it is in the New York Times and Olen, the writer, somehow saw fit to broadcast her former employee's abortion and perceived sexual habits to the world. Olen really should be ashamed of herself. There is a place for this sort of revelation, but this isn't really her information to publish in an international setting.

Needless to say, Olen's former nanny was upset about having her story told to the world by someone else. While she perhaps shouldn't be surprised - writers often filch good stories that belong to other people and she knew Olen was a journalist, and besides that, she was writing all of this in a public blog - she is right to feel used. She was used. And while the news is filled with stories about Dooce and how her blog accidentally created a verb when it got her fired (or "dooced"), so all the world knows about the risks of blogging about work, it is rare the one's former employers decide to retaliate so publicly, especially when No Harm Was Done to Anyone Anyway.

So feelings were hurt on both sides and this little domestic fight got elevated to mammoth proportions. Do I feel deeply sorry for anyone? Not really. I'm sure someone will decide to option this battle and somehow turn it into a romantic comedy.

"Froky Doesn't Play Around Here Anymore" (I KNOW, the title, it pains me too) is the other article that blindsided its subject. The piece discusses a little poignant moment. The author realized that his relationship with his girlfriend was over when he was no longer able to use or derive comfort from the pet names and invented language they shared. The author, endowed with "creative nonfiction" superpowers, liberally altered facts, reshaped the personality of his ex-girlfriend, broadcast the words they used to use with each other, and never warned his ex that this was going to appear one Sunday in July.

The former girlfriend in question, Kate Kirtz, wrote an elegant response on the Black Table, and while she clearly feels embarrassed and betrayed, she understands that she was unfortunately fair game. She points out the sad bottom line of this whole tangle when she describes confronting her ex in a letter and hearing back from him. I won't quote it here, because her piece is really worth reading.

Ever since I became aware of it, I've wondered why the Modern Love column exists. Now I realize. It is like a tree that every week produces an apple of discord that serves to spread outrage or pity, pain or contempt, and otherwise distract us from real problems, real news or even real fiction. I sympathize with the writers. Very few people would turn down a chance to dance on the pages of the Times, but perhaps writers could pause before running off at the mouth and work a little harder to respect their subjects, without whom they would have nothing to say.

** The New York Times articles require registration, and the Frocky piece may be only available for a fee by now. My apologies.

posted by Elise at 10:42 AM

........................................................

8 Comments:

lovethelaw said...

When I read the nanny-blog article in Modern Love I found it mostly pointless and wholly self-centered. It does seem incredibly exploitative (albeit savvy) that Olen reinvented the nanny's blog as her own big NYT break.

Much as I hate to, I have to take issue with your opening comment: you said "But Waldman had the decency to invent an issue she could worry. The two more recent columns really only feed their authors' egos and humiliate some unfortunates." Waldman invented an issue, yes, but I would argue that Olen did the same, for the same reasons. Waldman certainly used her manufactured "issue" (gee is something wrong with me b/c I love sex with my fabulous husband) to shamelessly feed her ego, and exploited and quite possibly humiliated unfortunates--her kids--along the way. I'd say the only real difference is that AW told her own story, while Olen wove herself into someone else's and then appropriated it.

7/22/2005 12:35 PM

Elise said...

I do see what you mean, though I suppose I was thinking that Waldman's invented issue was actually something about whether marriage must be subsidiary to one's children -- I thought she was saying that she found herself unusual in her circle because she respects her marriage so much, and the people around her feel that their marriages could suffer as long as their children were placed above everything else. She seems to feel that the attitude of her acquaintence is inferior to her own. (I tend to feel that both attitudes are weird and creepy and it is unnecessary to create hierarchies of devotion.)

It is hard for me to see the issue in Olen's article, which did seem kind of narcissistic and pointless, unless she is demonstrating about why it is unwise to tell one's employers about one's internet diary. A bunch of issues have blossomed in the wake of Olen's piece, though. She has managed to dredge up all sorts of stuff about class and nannies and somehow managed to do this in a timely fashionn since the news is riddled with tales of Jude Law and his Nanny.

7/23/2005 8:42 PM

Anonymous said...