Thursday, December 9, 2010

Does the New York Times really expect us to believe . . .

. . . that Sarah Wendell is embarrassed to be seen in public reading romance novels, when she clearly agreed to pose for that photo in the New York Times?

It reminds me of scenes on The Real World where two characters would have a "private" conversation about something they were desperate to keep a secret from their other housemates. If they had actually wanted to keep anything private, they wouldn't have agreed to have their lives broadcast on MTV.

2 comments:

Summer Anne said...

As a girl, the expression that she doesn't want to be seen "in public" holding a romance novel with a shirtless Fabio on the cover makes sense to me and doesn't contradict the fact that she agreed to pose for the NYT and blogs about romance novels. I'm probably the least easily embarrassed person that I know and will generally tell anyone I know personally almost anything about me, but I don't want to discuss those same things with the guy sitting next to me on the bus, or with some guy at a bar while I'm waiting for my friends. Actually, I'd rather play on my phone than read almost ANYTHING on the bus, simply because it discourages people from starting a conversation with me that often leads to me being harassed, or simply feeling forced into an awkward conversation with I'd rather read in silence. It's both a nice and a terrible thing about electronics: with something like an iphone or an ebook, I am able to feel alone when I am actually in public. It sounds sad but sometimes it's what I want.

John Althouse Cohen said...

I would think people would start conversations with her using, "Hey, wasn't your picture just on the homepage of the New York Times website?"