And then we read a comment from one of you and couldn't help but chuckle:
Once again, Julia Allison transparent revising history game is in full swing. She's really just too easy to figure out.
1. Latest TONY column gets ripped apart by its commenters for lacking depth and substance.
2. Julia's Internet is mysteriously broken so she disappears for the day.
3. Magical "email from mom" shows up explaining TONY's "edit" of her illustrious article.
4. "Original" longer article shows up on Julia's blog later that day. Three times as long and three times worse than what made it into TONY.
Julia Allison? I'd bet that after throwing TONY under the bus like that (accusing them of cutting your article instead of just owning up to a craptacular article in the first place) you'll be out of a job.
We were thinking something along the same lines, Anon. We're actually not surprised about the last part regarding TONY eds. cutting the article. We're sure they did cut the piece, as slashing and rewriting is pretty standard protocol in magazine journalism (one of our fields, natch). What we don't understand is this:
How do you turn in a 2,500-word piece for that space?
Read that again: 2,500 WORDS!
First of all, no magazine editor from this century would assign Julia Allison 2,500 words to write a piece on her experiences with matchmakers. It's just not going to happen. What's more, no one wants to read 2,500 words from Julia Allison on her experiences with matchmakers. But here's why we're really confused: Surely, the editor must have given Jules some kind of word count. Maybe not the 550 it ended up being, but perhaps a range? 600-800? That's what we're thinking, MAX.
So what does Jules do? She writes a 2,500-word, crappy, vain, self-absorbed, pseudo- (sorry, suit-o) clever piece on matchmaking (sorry, you'll have to go to her page to read it, we just don't have the heart to post it here) and turns it in, expecting that her editors will fawn all over it and print the whole thing? That's incredibly lazy and unprofessional. And then Momsers emails this (we do not doubt its veracity):
I like this column… it needs a good edit job…but the job TONY did was ghastly! Looks like they just took a hatchet and carved up the copy without looking. As you would say, BLERG.How convenient. Hatchet job, indeed. It's tough to edit something that's so god-awful in the first place, but perhaps said "hatchet job" wouldn't have been necessary had Julia completed her actual assignment. Then again, maybe, in some strange world, TONY was going to give 2,500 words of real estate to JA (yes, if you know anything about magazines, that's highly unlikely, but let's grant her the hypothetical) and then read the piece, realized how shitty and self-absorbed it was and had no choice but to hack.
Either way, her writing sucks, as does her professionalism, or lack thereof.