Look. I know so much less about Lena Dunham than I should. I’m not a fan-boi and NO she Can’t date my kid.
That said, I really think that a few spiteful sacks-of-sh-t have been storing up “Throw Lena Under A Bus” tokens for a sh-t-load of days and are now cashing out with twittering glee.
Sorry, Lena. Its not Me. Dicks been giving you free T-shirts with glow in the dark targets on your back for a long while now. Hope you slap them like mosquitoes.
I dunno, you seem pretty invested in this thread.
Not really, she has all sorts of important opinions to share, and I keep seeing them pop up without having sought them out.
That is not the point. The point is that she agreed to do an interview for a national publication (if I wasn’t on my phone I’d look it up but I think it was Entertainment Weekly). Instead of meeting at a restaurant or at an office like normal people she just had to meet the reporter in the hipster capital of the world (Williamsberg Brooklyn) while she was getting a dog from a shelter. And we are supposed to believe that was just coincidence and it was the only time she could possibly fit in the interview. Not pretentious at all.
Just heard her interview on Howard Stern from a month ago, and it seems to me she has a persecution complex. When the topic of her $3 million+ book deal came up, she attributed all of the criticism about it to misogyny. Her point was that only women are ever questioned about whether they “deserve” their money; it never happens to men.
Howard and Robin both started laughing at the absurdity of that claim, since Howard Stern may be the poster child for receiving criticism about not “deserving” his money. They also brought up the example of professional athletes, who are criticized all the time for being overpaid.
Lena backed off her point, then a few second later doubled down and said no, she still thinks it’s misogyny. Because the complaints about athletes are that “they just throw a ball.”
The implication of that “they just throw a ball” comment is that the criticism is valid when applied to athletes, and therefore doesn’t count when we’re tallying up which genders get criticized about deserving their money.
That screams “persecution complex” to me loud and clear.
But magazines do that. And often at their insistence. Rolling Stone made Jennifer Lawrence give an interview on horseback (she ended the interview by peeing on the ground along the trail). And Rolling Stone also tagged along with Miley Cyrus getting a tattoo. I’m sure there are more, but those are two I remember off the top of my head.
It’s a “thing,” it has nothing to do with Dunham.
I don’t know anything about that book, but clearly, the publisher was wise to publish it if it is selling well. Not all popular books are good books, just as not all popular movies are good movies and not all popular songs are ones I want to listen to.
What is or isn’t a bug or a feature is a complete irrelevance in terms of whether it was wise to give Lena Dunham $3.7 million for her book. You may not like what other people want to read, but it is what it is. Many people want to read Lena Dunham’s book. It was a slam dunk.
No doubt they do. I did find the article. As written it implies that it was Dunham’s idea. Maybe the reporter was lying. I don’t think so.
A Briebart journalist looked into Dunham’s recollection of her rape and more questions arise than are answered. Story here.