What was dubbed the most boring feud ever – by a fellow fluff reporter if not both of the apathetic participants – the reaction to Ryan Bigge’s scalding review of Leah McLaren’s debut novel The Continuity Girl, which generated at least a dozen other blog posts that ended up contributing little to the discussion beyond links to other blog posts on the subject, culminated in a mea culpa from Toronto Star books editor Dan Smith: “What we didn’t tell readers last week, and we should have, is that Star reviewer Bigge had previously, in 2001, been on the receiving end of a decidedly nasty putdown of not just his own debut book, the semi-memoir A Very Lonely Planet, but also his person – at the hands of one Leah McLaren, in the Globe.” And nearly five years too late for McLaren to be joined in the best-seller list by Bigge’s self-help book for perpetually single guys, a premise that was slightly ahead of its time – or an idea that might’ve flown off the shelves more briskly had it been packaged as a field guide for females instead. Due to the fact that Bigge’s one book to date, published by the smallish Arsenal Pulp Press, dealt with his own quest for companionship, his newfound demi-celebrity finds him cast as the male version of whatever exactly Leah became famous enough to get a Harper Collins contract for. A glance at the Bigge World website verifies that Ryan cultivated this career in the field of zines and other independent media, in addition to many heartbreaking years in the brutal domain of mainstream freelancing. Leah McLaren? Not so much, given the frequently evoked web of connections that led to her securing regular pontification space in The Globe before age 25. But while antipathy toward Leah rivals water-cooler contempt otherwise reserved for tabloid celebrities, none of the journalism student types sniping about her have posed a challenge to the fearless wit that she’s credited with having. How can it be an issue of access when anyone can freely publish online, and seduce an unsuspecting world of readers? And if it’s not possible for anyone to secure and surpass Next Leah status on their own, how can anyone argue that she isn’t deserving of that $18.95 plus tax for each copy that’s sold of The Continuity Girl?
PREVIOUSLY: Local lurper lacerates Leah lexicon [*pic above by Bigge]
10 responses so far ↓
Chris Taylor // February 20, 2006 at 2:22 pm
I will admit to bellowing out loud “For heaven’s sake SHUT UP!” while reading her columns, but I think she must have some genuine (if indiscernable) writing talent.
Mom’s good word might be able to land an aspiring featherweight fluff-writer a job, but it can’t keep her in it. If McLaren was genuinely as talentless as she seems, she would have been fired ages ago.
alanTdot // February 20, 2006 at 5:17 pm
The level of animosity directed at Ms McLaren has simply got to mean that she can write.
You may not like what it is she chooses to cover, but no-one gets this worked up over a hack.
blamb // February 20, 2006 at 11:47 pm
The level of animosity directed at Ms McLaren has simply got to mean that she can write.
No it doesn’t! That’s a completely illogical statement!
Lena // February 21, 2006 at 9:35 am
What blamb said. Animosity towards an author has nothing to do with whether he or she can write.
Larry // February 21, 2006 at 10:18 am
She can’t write for crap and she has nothing interesting to say, as her column proves week after week.
Without nepotism, she’d be nowhere. A pudding-faced nonentity.
alanTdot // February 21, 2006 at 11:51 am
“No it doesn’t! That’s a completely illogical statement!”
Actually writers provoking reactions from readers is probably the best way to see if someone has talent or not.
What is illogical is someone saying that an apathetic reaction is equivalent to writing talent.
Everyone has such strong reactions to what she writes, BUT YOU ARE READING WEEK AFTER WEEK!!
Nepotism may have gotten her the job but it wouldn’t have kept it.
There is some kind of typical ‘Canadianism’ going on here. She isn’t nice girl Katrina Onstad, so let’s go get her.
Leah can write quite well. Your reactions only prove this.
Larry // February 22, 2006 at 5:06 pm
Balls, Alan.
People keep reading her just to see what solipsistic awfulness she’s come up with this particular week. It’s like seeing a car crash - horrible, but it’s hard to look away.
The Globe keeps her on because her articles generate letters and word-of-mouth, no matter what (no such thing as bad publicity).
And her writing IS awful - that’s glaringly obvious, partly because her stuff never seems to have been looked at by a proofreader, revisor, fact-checker, etc.
alanTdot // February 23, 2006 at 10:48 am
I could see the ‘car crash’ comment coming a mile away. Next comment will have a reference to ‘Paris Hilton’ currently the peoples champion of undeserved attention and notoriety.
How many op-ed pieces are fact checked/revised? An ‘Opinion Column’is someone’s personal opinion is it not?
Take a look at the column she penned that got the hackles raised on Mr Bigge. It was well written and her wit skewered her intended target thoroughly.
(Luckily for Mr Bigge her coined word ‘Lurper’ didn’t catch on or else he might have had to relocate to Australia)
Mr Bigge’s attempt at revenge was not as well written and didn’t match wits when compared to her initial article.
Listen, I don’t read Leah McLaren. I have read maybe two of her editorials - one being the now infamous column that strips a piece off of Mr Bigge’s hide.
I don’t like her topics. I don’t like the way she brandishes her profile and writing ability to even scores.
I do think she is an talent though.
SoW // February 26, 2006 at 1:52 am
What wit?!?! Leah’s column is boring b/c she displays no original wit in it. I have no problem with her and I only keep reading (or at least skim) in hopes that i’ll find the hidden gem to prove that the Globe had not made a mistake. She’s not bad and once in a while she highlights a less prevalent idea/perspective. But it’s the execution and the overall tone of her writing is so lacking in sharp originality. She really tries to be objective about the social state around her but can barely BARELY mask her desire to be an intellectual version of Plum Skyes. Stop it Leah - we can see right through you, and really, contrivance is such a turn-off. Mon Dieu! It’s just a real shame that she is given a column space that is equal to writers such as Doug Saunders and Lynn Crosbie. I’ve been a fan of Doug’s column (Reckoning) for a few years because he is ENDLESSLY INSIGHTFUL. And Lynn (Pop Rocks) discusses pop culture topics with a sharp analytical approach. She disses with strong supportive arguments. This is the type of writing that retains myself as a fan of print media such as the Globe and the Guardian. I guess I keep glancing over Leah’s column in neverending hope that maybe she’ll improve - that maybe the Globe isn;t that dumb/irresponsible with giving out space to display such lame-o product. It’s just baffling that she is allow to occupy a prime column space that is on par with the space alloted to Doug Saunders! I’m not saying she’s a bad writer. Looking at the writing elsewhere in the Globe, I just expected more. Her column is the one area where the Globe went soft. It is so incredibly easy to find a talented writer with unique and exceptional perspectives. So. Incredibly. Easy. Leah’s writing is fine and suitable at many other media outlet , just not at the Globe.
patricia // March 1, 2006 at 9:57 am
What SoW said.
You must be logged in to post a comment.