|
Columns
Video
Currently Recapping
Popular People
|
Diablo Cody’s "Binge Thinking" is just what we needAs a young aspiring female filmmaker, it’s hard not to be just a little bit jealous of Diablo Cody. She’s got it all, including an Oscar and she’s barely 30 years old. Then I look at the flack Cody gets anytime she opens her mouth by putting something out into print and I’m no longer envious of her, I’m just annoyed by all the haters. OK look, Cody writes a regular back page column for Entertainment Weekly. Does anyone even really read Entertainment Weekly anymore? The last one I can remember buying had Ellen Page on the cover. My point exactly. (Actually, not my point since I just bought it because Ellen Page looked really cute.)
Anyway, back to Cody. Why do so many people keep trashing her musings on pop culture? Perhaps because it’s so rare in this day and age that women get to show their enjoyment for mass media, much less be funny about it. And judging by snarky write-ups from the pages of Variety to various bloggers and those always pleasant sexist anonymous comments left on the World Wide Web, it seems practically illegal for Cody to have an opinion on anything. It’s like women aren’t supposed to have a sense of humor, take enjoyment out of anything and they definitely are not allowed to get paid for it.
How many times do you turn on the radio, flip through television channels, open any sort of publication and hear what men think about things? Any things, all things, everything. Raise your hand if you would rather see Sarah Silverman host some late night TV instead of her, ex, Jimmy Kimmel. That’s what I thought. While I’ll probably always be conflicted about the moral messages in Juno (and how in the heck it was just a “coincidence” there was another film years before about a pregnant teenager also named Juno), friends and readers (reader-friends I will call you) I am not conflicted about Cody’s presence on the web and in print. I absolutely adore it. While sad her blog is no longer called "Pussy Ranch" and is now a regular old MySpace blog, she also has a Twitter mini-blog. And since December 2007, she has written a regular column for Entertainment Weekly called "Binge Thinking." She shares the column-writing duties on a rotating basis with a guy you may have heard of named, oh I don’t know, Stephen King (who BTW, I hear no one complaining about his credibility when he writes about his favorite movie snacks).
And seriously, Cody has already collaborated with Stephen Spielberg upon his request. Did I mention she wasn’t even 30 when this happened? I hardly think Cody needs anyone’s approval regarding what she thinks of 90210 or an upcoming Will Ferrell flick. I’m just so darn glad Cody has found a job getting paid to write how she feels. What’s so wrong about hearing a funny woman geek out over things that she loves? Haven’t men been doing it for years? And women have too; they just haven’t always gotten paid for it. (Riot grrrls didn’t invent fanzines, but we sure did make a lot of them.) I look forward to reading more of Cody’s columns and seeing her next few projects: A horror film named after a Hole song directed by the filmmaker who made Girlfight!; a cable television show that is Weeds-meets-Sybil-meets-Three-Faces-of-Eve!. Cody knows how to push my buttons and for the sake of female pop culture geeks everywhere, I hope as her first EW column said, Cody’s column for the mag “ain't no one-off." Submitted by on August 20, 2008 - 11:00am. |
Recent blog posts
New forum topicsActive TopicsNew Comments
|
Welcome to AfterEllen.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Lesbian and Bisexual women in Entertainment and the Media
Diablo Cody
I'm glad someone is writing
Oh, come on. So what? I'm sorry, I'm just so tired of people bringing that up. It's *not* the same story, so what does it matter? She doesn't strike me as being dim, so if she decided to lift things from another script, wouldn't she be smart enough to change the name (especially when it's such an uncommon one)? The only reason that movie is brought up is because one of the characters was named Juno, and it wasn't even the pregnant girl (Jenny), it was her boyfriend who was named Juno.
:D
i met her! and she was so nice and funny and witty and cool. i don't understand why the backlash and need to trash in the first place.
i can't wait to see her new projects.
Janet: Everybody's talking about it.
Amy: About what?
Janet: How you met Lucy and lived to tell about it. They're calling you a hero, when really you're a slut.
Amy: You shut up
Janet: A gay slut.
Eh
I just don't like her stuff that much. I thought Juno was pretty lacking and I find her column (the people I nanny for have a subscription and I read it while the baby naps) to be kind of obnoxious, but I feel the same way about most of Stephen King's columns as well (although, I must say, Cody has pretty decent taste in music, while King's is awful).
I have no problem with people liking her; it's really a matter of personal taste, but I think it's kind of insulting to dub anyone who doesn't like her work a "hater". Some people just aren't into her, it doesn't neccesarily have anything to do with the fact that she's a woman.
Any woman who manages, in
Any woman who manages, in our culture, to make a living making films and/or writing has my respect.
www.SeekingSaraSummers.com
This site has gone to hell
EW's column isn't on the back page--it's in the middle, because they did a redesign...about six weeks ago. Try buying the magazine you're blogging about, because the post isn't credible unless you do. (And if you're going so far as to acknowledge you haven't bought it, well then why on earth are you blogging about it? And why would I care to read about it?) Will Ferrell's name is spelled the way I just typed it--not with an a, but with an e. A five-second IMDB or Google search could've found that one out. The whole post is just lazy.
Yes, you said that two paragraphs ago.
I cannot begin to deconstruct this sentence. I guess I'll just say: Writing is not talking. Writing is not texting. Maybe that's the heart of the matter--there are few writers on this site anymore, and even fewer editors, it seems. I lament the impending loss of Malinda.
I've been coming to the site less and less, but I really think it's time to break up, AE. It's not me, it's you.
Yeah
Well said.
My apologies for the double post and
as both of you have done, I too, have commented on this subject in other threads. Mistypeppers said it well.
"[T]here are few writers on this site anymore, and even fewer editors, it seems."
Where are the writers? Where are the editors? I was originally drawn to this site by the writing because it evidenced well-practiced writing and editing. Writers and editors clearly understood the elements of writing and obviously enjoyed constructing and organizing their prose. I miss that. I really miss that.
Glad I'm not alone
I actually might've been a little harsh on this particular post (sorry, writer, whoever you are!). It's more that I'm sad that the site overall seems to be losing many of the things I used to love about it, and this post was the proverbial straw.
I agree rhetri--AE used to boast wonderful wordsmiths who possessed great writerly flair, but now the only people I read are Dorothy and Stunt. And don't get me started on the quality of the commenters' comments. The site changes and evolves--whatever. A new vlog is created every four seconds--whatever. Keep them. But please, please also keep the great writing.
Yes,
EW, etc.
1. Yes, I still read Entertainment Weekly and have for years.
2. I quibble with some of what Diablo Cody says, but she is getting slammed most often just because she's a woman and it's quite unfair.
3. The people posting above about grammar and editing sure do have a point.
Grammar, writing, etc.
In response to the above comments, I thought I'd chime in. As blog editor, I do my best to catch all the grammatical mistakes, like any editor would, but for the most part, I try not to change any writer's own style. Each of our bloggers have their own way of writing, some more traditional than others, but blogs are supposed to be a little more casual — that's part of their appeal!
If you have any specific ideas for what would make the content better on the site, please do let us know. We are trying to provide quality content as quickly as we can, and we are still human.
As for this post specifically, I suggested the topic to the bloggers, as I know many AfterEllen.com readers appreciate Diablo Cody. Cathy was simply sharing her thoughts based on Diablo-bashing that has happened ever since "Juno" and how she appreciates EW giving her a forum to talk about pop culture. I just hope her point isn't getting lost because she stated that she doesn't prefer to buy the hard copy of the magazine and the Will Ferrell typo.
Thanks for your comments, and I hope you will feel obliged to send in ideas to us so that we can write stories you are interested in reading (and subsequently critiquing).
What defines the style of “casual” for this Web site?
The most prevalent issue I see with the writing on the site is the overwhelming overuse of sarcasm that pulls the attention away from the subject matter and back (inappropriately so) to the writer in order to (seemingly) elicit comment posts proclaiming the writer to be “so funny” as opposed to being able to say, “that really made me think.” It is a “smoke and mirrors” style of indolent writing designed to draw readers’ attention away from the weaknesses of the prose.
Some people love this kind of writing, but not me. It gets old fast when you’re looking for more than rimshot writing styles, especially when you were accustomed to finding better at the local watering hole.
I’m aware that time marches on and that this site is courting a younger demographic, but I also know many impressively well-written younger women who appreciate good writing and editing, too. I know I’m not alone, regardless of my being representative of an apparently diminishing demographic on this site.
Trying to be helpful here
Not to belabor the point, but there is a difference between voice and basic grammatical and structural integrity in writing, and as an editor you should know that. However, given that even in your defense you make a mistake (ahem, "each" is singular; each of your bloggers has her own), I guess I see what I'm up against. My specific advice? Take a copyediting--and while you're at it, editing--class.
PS: "Simply sharing thoughts" isn't what this site used to be. It used to be well researched, well written and have an actual point of view!
Agreed, Mistypeppers.
Editors know there is a difference between conforming to the house style and preserving the author's voice. As Mistypeppers points out, there is also a difference between basic copyediting and manuscript editing, and when both are given short shrift in the review process the writings can't help but suffer. It's difficult to focus on the prose when you're distracted by surface errors such as missed punctuation or compounds that seem arbitrarily assigned to be open, closed, or hyphenated. When such basic writing errors are coupled with content and context errors that should have been caught before the article goes to press, the reader can become distracted and the author’s voice is diminished.
I've no doubt the increased pace of article production would constrain the ablest of editors and writers, but what is being presented reflects basic composition and lax editing. There's a sense that writers and editors aren't practiced. Oh, yes, they may have been writing for years, but they aren’t practiced. Some of the writers don’t seem to understand the elements of grammar or style, so I can only imagine how difficult it must be to determine exigence beyond having an opinion. The editing reflects this same lack of understanding. You can’t catch errors if you aren’t well versed in grammar and style.
If you find yourself so pressed for time that taking an editing class (as Mistypeppers wisely suggests) is not currently possible, then consider studying The Chicago Manual of Style. Even if your house style is AP, MLA, APA, or AMA (doubtful), and not CMS, the fifteenth edition has an expanded grammar section and it does, briefly, review other styles as well. (Of course, it contains so much more valuable information than these topics I mention.) I would also recommend Amy Einsohn’s The Copyeditor’s Handbook, which discusses the different levels of editing and provides a number of practice exercises to sharpen skills.
A gentleman acquaintance of mine is fond of saying “Writing is never finished, it’s just due.” He knows how difficult it is to produce competent prose under deadline conditions, which is why practicing writing and editing is necessary to reduce surface, content, and context errors.
Mistypeppers said, "‘Simply sharing thoughts’ isn't what this site used to be.” Not surprisingly, I agree, but I also think that, given the changes to the site since Logo took over, staff persons are being pushed in the direction of disposable writing designed to elicit reactive rather than reflective responses. In short, the climate has changed, and many of we AE dinosaurs will eventually lumber away with mournful faces, the oft-repeated strains of “[insert AE personality’s name here] is so hot!” ringing in our ears.
Well, hey
... ridiculous amount of missing commas in this post ...
If you're going to make a point of 'belaboring' other people's grammatical errors in such a snide way, it's probably best to make sure your own posts don't contain similar mistakes.
I believe you meant to say 'number of missing commas'.
Raise your hand if you
Raise your hand if you would rather see Sarah Silverman host some late night TV instead of her, ex, Jimmy Kimmel.
No, thanks. I cannot stand Sarah Silverman and I find her just as crass and unfunny as I do Kimmel.
Um, as for the actual topic, I agree that a woman voicing opinions is more quickly bashed and discredited than a man doing the same thing, and that is probably ONE of the reasons why DC is getting so much flack. HOWEVER, I do think the contingent that dislikes her or this so-called "haters" shouldn't be dismissed so quickly because they might have a valid point. I ADORED Juno with all my heart, but I'm not above recognizing that it was wayyy too quirky and cutesy and some of the dialogue felt really unrealistic. Ellen Page could make everything work but still, people don't talk like that. I'm happy it was nominated, but it wouldn't have been my first choice for Best Screenplay Oscar, so if some people are not very big on DC because they feel she got an undeserved Oscar, for example, well, I can't say I blame them. There are tons of reasons why people might dislike her, and I think some of them might have less to do with her being a successful woman and more to do with her actual work.
Meh. I just think she's a
Ha!
yes, lesbians read EW
I've been coming to this website since its inception. In fact, I've been reading Sarah and gang before this website even existed, when it was still just a Yahoo group run by Sarah to give a bunch of queer women from around the world an opportunity to yammer on about pop culture. So as a very longtime reader/yammerer, I would like to say that some of us DO read Entertainment Weekly, and we ARE interested in reading about Diablo Cody! In fact, I actually subscribe to EW. I had no idea she was being bashed for her scribblings in the magazine, and I thought it was interesting to read the blog author's take on it, as well as the commenters who replied to her post.
Nat
EW Fan
I just wanted to give a shout out to Entertainment Weekly. I've had a subscription for several years now and I feel like it is the only main stream entertainment magazine that has any real substance. Their writers are intelligent (I will include Cody in that group) and their opinions and criticism always feel like their own - unlike many media reviews that often feel like shameless paid-for hype.
They also don't shy away from including frank reviews of GLBT content - including foreign and independents, which I appreciate.
I loved that EW gave Cody the chance to call out Vanity Fair in her column, which she did. I agree that her column is mostly a personality piece, but I think that is the intended appeal. Therefor if you don't like her personality, you probably won't like her column.
However, I agree that it is unfairly criticized in way that Stephen King's crappy column is not. I usually scan through his column, having given up on taking it seriously long ago. When he writes about horror fiction and movies, he is insightful. When he writes about his favorite movie snacks (total b.s. filler!) or his "favorite new bands" (which are usually generic and past their buzz) he is a total bore!
Viva EW!
Can I just say you're icon
APPLAUSE
"How many times do you turn on the radio, flip through television channels, open any sort of publication and hear what men think about things? Any things, all things, everything. Raise your hand if you would rather see Sarah Silverman host some late night TV instead of her, ex, Jimmy Kimmel. That’s what I thought"
My thoughts exactly.
Geez!
Why is everyone being so judgmental about CathMath's writing and style? At least, that's what I'm gathering from these posts. She's not submitting this for a grade and you're not her professors. She's doing this for no other reason than to inform us about something she thinks we may care about. As far as editing goes, don't you think they've got a work load on their hands? I mean, I've seen actual published magazines and newspapers which are a lot worse off, and it's their job to do things right. Do our editors get paid for running AE, or do they do this in their spare time while they are working on jobs that actually bring in a sufficient amount of income so they can support themselves? Now, I'm not trying to offend anyone, I just think you all need to relax and give some people a break. Nobody's perfect and that's something we all know.
Why I hate Diablo, and why you should, too.