Secrets of the City

The Twin Cities will not hold her. She’s bound for outta this backwater.

I’ve gotta get this off my chest: I can’t stand Diablo Cody’s writing. It’s just not good.

All of the discussion surrounding her reminds me of a bit by Chris Rock on 50 Cent at the VMA’s in 2003 — Rock kept asking people how 50’s album was and the only thing people could say was that he was shot nine times. ‘How are the beats?’ ‘He got shot nine times!’ ‘Okay, howabout his flow?’ ‘NINE Times!’

In a similar fashion, everything related to Diablo Cody refers back to her stint in a gentleman’s establishment (including her own work) and skips past the content of her craft. Her style can’t survive without annoying counter-positionings of grandiloquence and popculture references. Her last article on religous exploration is hokum and unoriginal. Her estanged account of SoCal reads like a freshman essay on summer vacation.

It’s really too bad that she continues to get so much exposure.

There. I’ve said it.

Huh. I really like Diablo’s writing. Granted, there wasn’t much content for me in the article Taylor mentions, but I always enjoy reading her blog and I’m excited for the book.

“I’ve gotta get this off my chest: I can’t stand Diablo Cody’s writing. It’s just not good. “

Evidently at least one publisher and one movie company think differently.

I’ve only read little bits so have no opinion of her writing myself, but what the publisher and movie company presumably are concerned about is sales not quality.

Diablo Cody sells sex and pop culture. Beyond that, her words are vacuous and will not have lasting power.

I don’t know –there’ll always be a place for sex and pop culture.

Granted, her status as a former sex worker got her noticed and continues to generate publicity.

And she’s witty.

So flashing tits (and discussing endlessly) got her up to bat. Now she has to hit for average.

There seems to be some consternation that the woman has scored some success, but is not achieved it in the same way as Hemingway or Fitzgerald.

You know what? — they liked getting paid, too. And they wrote what would sell.

Yes, but did they get naked for perverts? Maybe.

If they did, I bet they got paid a lot less for it than Diablo Cody, even if there was a way to calculate it on a dollar for dollar comparison.

I have to agree that I find her constant sex talk annoying. It’s like a little kid who keeps pulling down their pants to get attention.

I do think she is a great writer, I enjoy quite a few of the things I have read of her’s and will probably end up purchasing her book. However, her blog has been failing recently as she is already complaining constantly about the pressures of “stardom” and she has become totally self-absorbed, which I can’t stand.

Why is it that once people start getting noticed their quality of work goes down?

A blog, in and of itself, is a self-absorbed undertaking. (Say that five times, quickly).

i’m with you, taylor. i find her gimmicky. it might just be that i really can’t stand the city pages anymore and that and my dislike for her are rather intricately weaved together.

and as far as all blogs being narcissistic… i totally agree. on the other hand, she posts a lot more self-portraits than any other blog i’ve come across.

but hey, if she “makes it,” congratulations.

the quality of work is totally subjective to begin with. but it is completely the responsibility of the artist or writer or musician to continue to be and do whatever it is that he or she is compelled to express, not whatever it is that people want. musicians probably face this conundrum with more frustration than other art forms; maybe it’s because the relationship with the audience is most immediate and tangible.

russ is right, but we’ll only know that over time (her average, whether it’s batting, era, or just simply runs scored).

i like her.

I do anxiously await her next chapter on “fingerbanging”…

And I like your ability to use the baseball analogy!

Andrea isn’t it kinda obvious that sexuality is always going to be a topic or theme in her writing? Because she DID/does(?) pull her pants down for attention. You know what they say, “write what you know.”

I have to agree Bud, I’m anxiously awaiting the next “fingerbanging” chapter and similar adventures. Hopefully her future holds the same zip, zazz, zing cause whatever it is it’s mazoola in the bank.

True, true. I just don’t see how the “I used to work at sexworld and I say naughty things” schtick is going to last for long. But it totally makes sense why it’s selling, unfortunately.

I just think she could have the chance to be a really GREAT writer, more than just some passing fad. So I hope that she writes about a variety of topics, like she used to, instead of beating the dead naked horse like she is now.

Andrea I have to agree with you that the schtick isn’t going to last for long. She does have writing skillz but I don’t see how she’d be able to transfer them to anything … ah … Oprah book club standards. Without her [right on] pop culture references and tell all tales she’s metiocre at best.

Even though her writing can be uneven, she is funny and smart enough to hold my attention. She’s important as a pop culture figure–and a literary one–because she’s fearlessly profane and she’s adamantly unconcerned with your good opinion or mine.

Yes, she creeps me out on a fairly regular basis. But it’s good to have my beliefs tweaked–it keeps me from ossifying into a smug, middle-aged prude.

I envy her success a little. I envy her fearlessness more.

I might be biased, but I’ think Diablo’s new book is wonderful. (Yes, I got a “sneak peek.”) In fact, the night I got it, I stayed up till nearly 6 a.m reading it. It seems other writers can get away with a running theme throughout their writing life (Bukowski, hello?), but when it comes to sex, and especially women writing about sex, some are quick to dismiss it as “hokum.” I think it’s Diablo’s willingness to write about it at length, to go into great details that might make the reader even squirm, that makes people uncomfortable with her work. It’s not necessarily her writing you’re criticizing (which is great, really), but the subject matter. Maybe? Am I at least somewhat right here?

Oh, and I also should’ve said: The fact that the subject matter sometimes makes people uneasy is also one of the reasons her stories are so enjoyable to read: they’re unabashedly honest, funny, and sometimes even graphic. If she were a dude, there’d be hardly any backlash here.

Noting my opinion here is like asking Bill Clinton if he likes head, but I’ll say it anyway: Diablo is unequivocally da bomb. All the comments above about the lasting power of her sex talk just goes to show how fickle our society is — her first book isn’t even out yet, and you’re already wondering what else she can do. Dudes!

Obvs, her sex chatter isn’t going to be for everyone, nor could it be while still being provocative. Like all of my fave memoirists, there are moments I struggle with Diablo’s ideas, like a little mental rubik’s cube (or, perhaps, naked Twister). But these are the times I love her most: when I feel like I’m arguing back at her.

I’m confident the book will be a hit, and some of you still won’t like it, which is fine — but gimme a call some night and I’ll explain how to apply it like mental lube.

Nope, I’m criticizing her writing. I don’t think anyone here ever said it made them “uneasy,” which is a indeed a legitimate goal of “art,” but just that they found it unoriginal. As someone else said, taste is subjective. Different folks, different strokes. That’s all the cliche I have for today. And, as I said earlier, if she makes some bucks off it, congratulations to her.

I don’t like Howard Stern either, by the way.

Both Diablo Cody’s content and writing style are a problem.

Her recent cover pieces — unresolved Catholicism (*yawn*) and the glad-handed business ethic of SoCal (no, really?) — are as unoriginal as her sex talk. And the same goes for most of her contemporary culture references, just pick any paragraph… like this one:

Personally, I could never call myself a Def Leppard religionist if I only played the hits and refused to embrace their post-Mutt Lange catalog.

Even though I maybe wish that I didn’t get it, but I do. And it’s not good.

Also, blunt sexual statements can be incindiary, yes, especially if they were made by Richard Prior in 1973. Now it’s just gimmicky, like myandrea rightly points out, especially in Diablo’s contant first person pieces.

All I know is that we are in dire need of more witty pop-culture commentay from slightly counter-cultural perspectives. Thanks Diablo, for filling that abysmal void left since Oscar Wilde’s tragic demise. His brilliance may never compare…

Rex: biased much?

It’s not that I find her sex talk offensive, I just know that I have read some of her pieces that are deeper than others (ie. the piece she wrote in City Pages about Catholicism was amazing). I was trying to say that I hope she doesn’t end up leaning more on the sex stuff than everything else simply because it gets her more attention. But I do look forward to reading the book, like I said, and I suppose I should hold my tongue until I have done so.

When does it come out anyway?

“….are a problem.”

A problem for who or what?

So a lot of people say Diablo is just cashing in on our fascination with sex and that those who like her are more interested in her sex talk than her writing. But writers have been milking the chemical-dependency genre forever and I think they are often praised as some sort of maverick bohemians. I think many readers tell themselves that drug sagas are great literature when really they just get a voyeuristic kick out of reading about one more author who wakes up wearing diapers in his hospital bed. It’s too easy to admire writers who wax self-indulgent about their drug use with wit and candor, and then criticize Diablo for doing the same with sex.

I’m sorry, I might have missed it, but who here was admiring writers who write about drug abuse?

And yeah, what Taylor said.

I don’t think there will ever be a problem with finding readers who like reading shocking and incindiary stuff about sex, which is why I think Diablo might succeed in making a living on it. But, you shouldn’t mistake shocking for unique. And when she doesn’t write about sex, I don’t think it even sounds original (e.g., Catholicism article).

Wow, censorship on MNSpeak.

Say what, foo’?

She’s completely boring, trite, and simple, but she knows how to get attention. I guess that’s almost sort of like talent.

The good news: In a couple of years, she’ll just be a bad memory.

Let’s hope she can hone her writing and expand her repertoire faster than her tits and pussy lips sag. Nobody wants sex talk from the homely.

Diablo Cody is, unfortunately, one of the most formulaic writers I’ve ever seen. It’s cookie cutter sass. It would be extremely easy to program a Cody Diablo generator.

Here’s my big question, though – why doesn’t she have fake tits? She doesn’t really have the goods for her chosen profession. Isn’t that the logical next step when the attention generated by her scanty assets up top fades?

She can milk this for a while. Her next book can be about her fake tits, and then the one after that can be about blow jobs behind a convenience store dumpster. It’s a logical progression. Another sex act, another book deal.

What’s this fearlessness stuff? Stripping in a Midwestern city isn’t fearless. It’s a basic publicity stunt. Get over it – stripper testimonials are a dime a dozen.

Anybody want to do a meetup at a bookstore tomorrow. I mean if all those snotty nosed kids can get tv coverage waiting in line for some Harry Potter serial we should be able to get jderusha to cover us waiting in line for the release of our local-flavor softcore lit-porn.

Downtown Barnes and Noble? Somehow seems appropriate. We could all get dressed up as our favorite strippers and whores in literature. I get dibs on Cleopatra!

It’s a crime how good I look in a dress, ladies. A crime!