Michael Gross: National UK newspaper picks up the story
Yes. Isn't that good? Which UK national newspaper? Oh, the title quite escapes me. But I'm delighted that Madame Arcati has played her part in drawing this matter to public attention.
From the Feuilletons
9 minutes ago
25 comments:
The story is in [deleted - nice try, dearie]. Seems the book is not on sale in the UK because Gross backed down to de la Renta's legal demands.
Madame Arcati is the stringer with a zinger!
If you say so poppet. I hadn't looked at the paper in question for such a long time - the so-called diary in question is now "edited" by a little tart with a double barrel christian name - that's original. Sounds like some sort of daddy's girl - any dirt on her? I try to be nice to these fly-by-night underpaid gossers but they're just whores in the end. Whores.
Which reminds me, one of the paper's senior feature writers, who has had a starring role on Arcati in the past, and whose lately abandoned partner drenched one of his tarts with wine at a party last I reported, now lives with a monied bint linked to Pink Floyd. That's a story you won't read in the paper's Diary. Still, I'm not one to gossip.
Oh yes, the feature writer in question recently fucked up over the Oxford Professor of Poetry thingy. Still, I'm sure she'll be reelected. So no harm done.
Come on now Madame. The [deleted] did move the story on.
The requested changes, per Mrs de la R's lawsuit, are spectacularly minor, barely more earthshaking than, say, the correction of typos. Or so is stated in http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-kornbluth/annette-de-la-renta-v-mic_b_204632.html
That's not the impression one gets from the [deleted] today: one might imagine (wrongly I am certain) that there are substantive errors of fact in Gross' book. It's even claimed by Ms Double Barrel that the book (in future editions presumably) must carry denials from de la Renta.
My own view is that the book should be published in the UK and not censored by some rich crow in the US. It's not right at all that a book is denuded by social power. The [deleted] has not necessarily got across a positive view of what I am convinced is a fascinating and accurately-told tale. I fear Ms Double Barrel sided instinctively with Money 'n' Power - as her balding cunt of a war-mongering editor did in the past.
We all admire your Independent thinking....
Even when you open a Pandora's box...
Oh shit, u tricked me
What a vicious nasty piece of work you are madame. Keep it up.
Alice-Azania Jarvis is a very healthy journalist with no vices. She loves lentils and is an Ikeaphobe - your sort of person really. You really must learn to control your temper Arcati. Here's a link you may find helpful http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/anger-management/Pages/Introduction.aspx. And as for your foul attack on Roger Alton, you should be ashamed. He is one of the most beloved of national newspaper editors even if his language is as appalling as that of your legendary self. Do better. Be better.
You is? It ain't.
Nice photo of Mr Gross. Wouldn't mind his chin resting on my mound, get me?
What on earth does this have to do with lycra?
Oh god
Arcati Madame. Your legendary prowess and natural "nose" FOR SNIFFING OUT A STORY are only matched by your brilliant writing and scathingly unflinching attacks on media luvley editors. Who next, one wonders, will flinch in fear from the dazzling beacon of hope you represent to the downtrodden media-whores who long for succour at the breast of the Queen of Gossip in Lycra? Spill. Please.
Oh MA darling,
All the reactions/reviews/e-mails posted in Michael's website make the whole thing sound so hilarious, I have been prompted to make certain I go and buy a copy no later than Saturday! So much fuss over this! I better get me a first edition before all that juicy stuff he's being forced to pull out disappear from further editions! But I must say that if this turns out to be a story as lame as The Devil Wears Prada I'm going to be r-e-a-l-l-y upset!
I was going to say at the previous post (before getting all distracted with the Lycra issue) that looking back in history it has always been that way: the rich organise parties, charities, promote cultural activities, etc. as a way to distract others (including their peers...specially their peers) from noticing their nasty side and little conniving ways - for what I've read in those reviews (the handling of the Astor estate and stuff) there is no surprise in any of the things claimed; it's all a tired issue that happens every time money is involved. What's the big deal?
What intrigues me is why does it matter so much to her, if so? Why not just sue for libel and actually make open statements that he's (Gross) making it up for profit? If she's right, wouldn't Gross be forced to pay for damages like celebrities have got tabloids and others to do so in the past? Who's opinion of her will be tainted enough to affect her? Certainly not ours; look at all those other true scandals from Heirs/Heiresses / Nobility/Aristocrats that have even been suspect of attempted murder (Sunny Von Bulow case) and just go on with their lives. Dunno, either she's mentally unstable or something is rotten in Denmark and I don't think that even Gross has uncovered it yet.
After the Devil Wears Prada came out, Anna Wintour wanted to do an exorcism in her office. She (had it fumigated/redecorated) and asked her friend, the photographer Eric Boman ( 'Blahnik by Boman') to hang some of his tastefefully bland photos on the walls.
Well, why not? As crazy a story as I have ever heard. Did Anna think Eric's snaps would add to the exorcism?
Anna W. thought Eric's photos were very soothing and hoped they would change the decor a la blamange. She told Eric she wanted all traces of 'that bitch' exorcised for an eternity!
I hear Anna Wintour asked Eric Boman to hang his soothing snaps on her office walls AFTER the exorcism ... she wanted a complete New Look.
Just to clear this up--if such is possible--I have made precisely one change in future editions--and I think it"spectacularly minor" in the extreme. An objection was made to my description of an obituary that was missing mention of four accomplishments by the deceased. Future editions will be corrected to say the obituary was missing two accomplishments. And as a courtesy, I have added a footnote stating that a certain party who ignored six separate requests for comment before publication denies one contention made in the dozens of pages of text about said party and her family. I also intend to correct some equally spectacularly minor spelling errors and a slight misstatement of Hermann Goering's multitude of titles. Wouldn't want to offend a Nazi, would we?
Post a Comment