UNRIVALED...at covering up countless instances of sexual abuse perpetrated by the defensive coordinator of the football team over a 20+ year period.

Better than some of the “surprises” that have occurred in Penn State football facilities.

You’re missing the point, which is not remotely about sellout/clickbait, but about an editorial decision to attack one literary figure for reasons x,y,z that are not readily disclosed. To better repurpose your analogy, imagine ten chemistry blogs owned by the same publisher that publish 10 thinkpieces per blog that…

I’m not saying this is clickbait. I’m saying Gawker has some sort of internal policy to attack Franzen because his views are not within the orthodoxy of Gawker’s own political sensibilities. You can see that if you’ve read the many, many nearly identical pieces run on Gawker platforms that attack Franzen — not just…

I like how your go-to response to criticism is tantamount to “if you don’t like it, then why are you reading these reviews?”

Not a hateboner? Sure. Your first post for example: Franzen writing about Pip/Igor is SUPER PROBLEMATIC GUYS because Franzen WANTS TO FUCK HIS CHARACTER. Nevermind that it turns out Pip’s interaction with Igor is a result of her self delusion/inability to read people/general immaturity, but that doesn’t stop you from…

People can have opinions about writing, man. And just saying “Well don’t read it then” is petulant and immature.

It’s just a coincidence then that, across the Gawker Media platforms over the past month or two, there have been about a dozen thinkpieces on Franzen in general and Purity specifically that each reach the conclusion that Franzen is a hack. Please do not pretend that Gawker does not have, if not an agenda per se, an…

Yeah! How dare the readers express their own opinions of Gawker’s coverage of a book! Those assholes. They should be happy with whatever Gawker writes and never ask that they do or don’t talk about something.

Please man. As if any of that is true.

Nobody gives a shit about the hateboner deadspin, gawker et. al seems to have for Purity.

have you finished it yet? perhaps reviewing a book while you are reading it isn’t such a great idea, much as you would not taste a beer during the proceedings of its brewing. the product at the various stages of it’s development is much less appealing than at it’s completion.

We won't understand the true nature of their dislike until there have been at least seven more thinkpieces.

We get it. Gawker Media does not like Jonathan Franzen. Time to move on.