I hardly write here at all any more, but I just don't seem to have a whole lot to say...

[darkfirehair]

But this is one of the most well-written (and sadly true) things I've read in a long time:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1651506-1,00.html

Comments

[tactlessoracle]

This is why I've been reading Jane Austen, Nicholas Sparks, and *gasp* even a Lurlene McDaniel or two from middle school all summer.

Gimme some old fashioned love, dammit!

[frostflake]

Were it true that studios have stopped making love stories, I wouldn't mind at all. But the author is just incorrect. Or at least, only partially correct. The recent movie calendar is pockmarked, she says, with the craters of little romantic bombs (Catch and Release, In the Land of Women and The Ex). So in the sense that there are no new Gone with the Winds in terms of revenue, she's right. In the sense that Gone With the Wind has a story worth emulating, or in which anyone in the movie is interested for any reason other than revenue, she's wrong

[darkfirehair]

Good to know that a philosophy degree at 40,000 dollars a year has well equipped you to tear apart pop journalism. ; )
I supposed when I called it well-written, I was referring more to her style than her argument. Specifically I was thinking of this:
"Juliet's a Capulet? Bummer. Back to Facebook."

[frostflake]

It's true. I'm never allowed back into the E! studios on the grounds that my ideas are too vicious.

And it was well-written, though I'm pretty disturbed by the fact that she thinks Facebook is a dating site (I don't doubt there are people for whom it serves that function). In fact, I think her ideas about what's going on with the romance industry right now could be part of a good piece of journalism if she approached things differently (like "what's the whole story with the flowers?" instead of "where have all the flowers gone?").