The most amazing part of this story to me is that anyone still gives a crap about Sinead O’Conner.
O’Connor is pure class at a level that the moron who wrote this piece will never hop to attain.
"O’Connor’s remarks are beautiful and sincere, yet unapproachable in an anxious, edgy way that’s hard to define. "
To Rob: Why is it so uncomfortable to you that someone is sincere and you have no snarky commentary to add? Isn’t that a normal response for a person who is unaccustomed to sincerity on social media (and on the greater internet)?
And "Miley Cyrus succeeds at a form of celebrity shock behavior that Sinead O’Connor often attempts and fails at. "
How are the two at all analogous? Yes, trying to bring attention to institutionally-sanctioned child rape sure is the same thing as faux-satirical cloyingly aware twerk-parody.
Geez, I just don’t understand this article. I don’t dislike Miley any more than another youth who makes popular music I don’t care for, but to somehow conflate their careers and methods, it’s beyond me.
O’Connor gets just as much out of this cultural dumpster fire as anyone else. A thousand words in the Guardian selling some squishy platitudes about feminism and “not being a prostitute” doesn’t make her any different from the conservative hacks tut-tutting on Fox News.
The only way to stop it is to cut off the oxygen supply and ignore the whole thing. Cyrus is the Sarah Palin of popculture.
[quote=“mrmcd, post:5, topic:11323”]
A thousand words in the Guardian selling some squishy platitudes about feminism and “not being a prostitute” doesn’t make her any different from the conservative hacks tut-tutting on Fox News.
Amanda Palmer has also contributed a lengthy and quite thoughtful open letter of her own.
Some (including Cyrus, judging by her tweets) seem to be interested only in gawking at a flame war. But there ARE some interesting and quite personal thoughts being put out there about feminism, art, the entertainment industry, etc.
I wonder if Cyrus actually has the maturity to respond in long form after her (extremely hectic, I’m sure) week at SNL is done. Or will we just be treated to some horribly mean-spirited mocking of O’Connor on SNL this weekend?
“transitively self aware”
I actually googled that (quotes in place) and got 5 hits…all related to this article.
All snark aside, perhaps an article on ‘Transitive Self Awareness’ would benefit…or maybe a Wiktionary entry.
Maybe it’d only benefit me…nonetheless, I put out this suggestion.
“…beautiful and sincere, yet unapproachable in an anxious, edgy way that’s hard to define.”
“…her own fluency seems part of an act designed to fit 2013’s knowing buyers of music.”
How could anyone presume to render a value judgement between those two artist descriptions?
They’re virtually identical!
Mean spirited, self-indulgent snark is now called “transitively aware”?
To me, the most amazing part of any story about a celebrity is that one of the first posts is invariably a comment expressing amazement that anyone gives a crap about said celebrity.
It isn’t. You read this post looking for snark, then took its absence as evidence that I simply couldn’t think of anything snarky to say. If those are your expectations, you know there are plenty other sites on the internet that can scratch that itch for you.
Transitive means “characterized by transition”
“transitively self aware”
No idea what this is intended to mean. Anyone?
To quote Louis Armstrong, “there are some people that if they don’t know, you can’t tell them.”
There was no way Sinead O’Connor’s letter was going to have the effect she was hoping for.
Somehow, when I liked this I focused on the word “class” and not the word “moron”. I symbolically retract my “like”. Calling someone a moron for a post you don’t agree with is something only a moron would do.
Should I not be surprised when a celebrity that flamed out in the mid 90s is still considered relevant?
Oh I don’t know. I think it totally had the effect she was looking for, you’re talking about her aren’t you?
Drawing any kind of equivalence between O’Connor’s pope-shredding actions and Cyrus’s twerking, licking and sexual displays has all the authenticity of processed cheese, and shows less intelligence.
Cyrus is practicing a time-old tradition of shlocking the world (well, prurient America - no-one else cares) with a quick-change into another person. She’s pouring money into her coffers. Madonna did it, and what a wealthy example to follow. It’s textbook. She’s a businesswoman, using her assets to her greatest advantage. Where does feminism enter this? She doesn’t care.
O’Connor didn’t exactly have the same objectives. Mixed up, crazy, fuelled by drugs, whatever. The impact of her actions resonates today, and probably made a boatload of people pause and examine catholicism. I don’t think Hannah Montana is going to do quite that.
Why should anyone care, about either? Because they’re both icons of pop culture - and you and your kids are going to be aware of, and influenced by, them for a long time to come.
Publicity. Publicity. Publicity. Jackpot.