who claims to have corresponded with Duncan writes:
I think many people corresponded with her [Duncan] via pm and she knew very well that she/her blog was popular, that she had a loyal following, and that many people thought she was marvelous. She was not a person to be much moved by what other people thought, though. She measured herself by her own yardstick. If she wasn't happy with herself, nobody else's approval would have made any difference. She wasn't that kind of person. IMO and from what I knew of her.
and
She [Duncan] didn't publish most of the comments she got, but she got a lot of comments. Her blog was more like a magazine. She didn't like it to get too interactive.
Here's my theory, based on a recent viewing of Annie Hall (this film has held up so incredibly well, btw, it's really amazing): Duncan suffered from the same affliction that drove Woody Allen's Alvy Singer to a lifetime of analysis: She did not want to belong to a club that would have her as its member.*
Duncan knew she was a fake. She couldn't have had anything but contempt for those who viewed her with awe. That's why she kept them at arm's length.
*This quote has often been attributed to Allen. In fact, in the film, he attributes it to Grouch Marx.
As long as we're giving credit, how about a hand for Marshall Brickman, who co-wrote the screenplay to Annie Hall? (Gesue to Allen's Duncan? You decide.) This film kicked some serious ass at the Oscars. Could a romantic comedy every win again?
5 comments:
I noticed that she'd posted at least one picture of the facehunter - at that time a blog with a following of fashionistas - and pretended it was taken at a gathering of her faux lunar society. I thought it was an odd practice to not at least somewhere credit the facehunter (and to be fooling her visitors),which I did let her know. She didn't post my comment nor did she respond privately.
I'm fulltiltredhead.
I sent TD an email saying I enjoyed her blog, maybe a year or so ago, and she responded. We had bits of conversation here and there after that, via email. I remember we talked about the print ad for Coomb's (sp?) fragrance, "Unforgiven." (We disagreed, but it was a good discussion that I think we both enjoyed.) Besides that, just random comments and observations, nothing personal.
I'm not sure it was that she didn't want fans posting, because she posted someone's comment that she was pretty. But I posted a few times to take issue with a point of view she'd expressed or represented, and my posts were censored out. She didn't like to be challenged in public. So rather than respond on her blog, I would email her, so the conversation would be private. She seemed to prefer that; she responded, anyway.
Except for the time that she and I were discussing her take on the boomers, and I busted her out. I had an intuition she was lying about her age, and, being born Dec. 1956, I was tired of her anti-boomer rants, which hurt my feelings. She responded to my email via reply email, and I wrote back again, arguing her response.
Next thing I know, she had published my private email to her on her blog, with a picture of someone flipping the bird, and her response email to me, slightly edited.
She never asked my permission to publish our private correspondence on her blog. She didn't give me an opportunity to edit what I'd written, while she took the opportunity to edit her reply email to me before she published it. She did not post my response to her reply, instead giving herself the last word. I emailed her I thought all of that was dirty pool. The next day, she sent me an invitation to some party in New York. I ignored it and deleted our correspondence.
Full Tilt--Did you know that someone was posing as you on a perfume forum? Was this connected in some way?
http://pherolibrary.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16122
I did know, thanks. I believe that was all straightened out.
And one thing had nothing to do with the other.
Post a Comment