Comments on: Mariah Carey Asks For It

By: tom moody

tom moody — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 23:54:58 +0000

Colin,
It is beyond jejune, it’s jejuly!
Anyway, you say it’s “obvious” what the “it” is, but…
Mariah Carey isn’t asking to be remixed, Oliver Laric is.
(Her publishers probably don’t encourage it.)
The line only makes sense as a journalistic double entendre, with the joke being set up by the phrases “…her “come hither” gestures and the invitation “touch my body”…” that preceded the punch line.
Paddy was being generous to give Olson the benefit of a doubt and say it was sloppy writing.
For Olson to turn that around and accuse the rest of the world of “sloppy reading” takes a lot of chutzpah. (She could also have owned the line and told the critics to get over it.)

By: Art Fag City

Art Fag City — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 22:36:52 +0000

Not to beat a dead horse, but to quote myself:

“…while a reader can discern that [Olson] means to suggest she’s asking to be remixed, the common usage of that phrase carries more weight than [her] intended meaning”

Also, I think sloppy writing is being interpreted much more harshly than it’s meant. It happens all the time, particularly on blogs. You point it out, discuss what’s interesting to you and move on.

By: Colin

Colin — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 22:24:40 +0000

I think this discussion is incredibly jejune. For what it’s worth, when I read the excerpt it was obvious to me that the antecedent of the “it” that she’s asking for was “that the larger public will… post remixes of their own” from the previous sentence. But even if you didn’t surmise that yourself from reading it, it’s insulting to blame the author’s “sloppy writing” for your inability to parse the meaning from two simple sentences, and to not assume good faith.

The interpretation you offer doesn’t even make any sense in the context of the article. To conclude the article by saying that Carey is asking to be sexually violated would be quite the non-sequitur, no?

By: Art Fag City

Art Fag City — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 04:27:28 +0000

Adam: Please comment on why you think the piece works and how if you’re unsatisfied with the discussion about the art.

Jon: I think the double entendre is easier to spot if you know Marisa though as Tom points out Marisa herself doesn’t identify a double entendre. I didn’t respond to this for two days because I thought maybe that ambiguity was fine…but in the end, it still doesn’t sit right with me.

[editors note: I updated this comment to include Tom's link]

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:36:05 +0000

“The “erasure in photoshop” genre is just as hackneyed with a green screen.”

Amen to that!

By: Adam

Adam — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:53:12 +0000

….you may be offended, but I do believe that this piece deserves more thought….

By: Jon Williams

Jon Williams — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 21:37:11 +0000

Pretty obvious that it was a double entendre; there was plenty reaction to this with blatant genuine sexism directed at Ms. Carey though.

This reminds me of how unsettling the portrayal of the male love interest in “Glitter” was to me. The character only existed a foil to Carey. Of course, I wouldn’t have batted an eye if the genders were reversed.

By: L.M.

L.M. — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 21:13:35 +0000

I was taken aback at “Carey’s certainly asking for it.” too.

(that green is insanely sexy.)

By: Art Fag City

Art Fag City — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:35:35 +0000

Yeah, until now I hadn’t linked to it for precisely that reason. I liked four four’s culture commentary on the piece, but as art I think it has all the problems you identify. The piece has meme potential, but little more.

By: tom moody

tom moody — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:29:32 +0000

Love the use of the smiley after the dig!

I took it as post-feminist double entendre. (My sloppy reading.)

In any case the Laric piece doesn’t rate this attention. The “erasure in photoshop” genre is just as hackneyed with a green screen.