The Worst Festivus Ever
Today is Festivus. Which, if you didn't know, is "a holiday for the rest of us." Beyond this, I have no real idea what a Festivus is, but I do know this: Allen Salkin wrote the book on it. And Allen Salkin was laid off from the New York Times last week.
From what I can gather, Festivus was introduced to pop culture in a Seinfeld episode, via screenwriter Daniel O'Keefe, who wrote it into the show. His Dad came up with it to commemorate the first date he went on with his then-to-be-wife. Daniel O'Keefe wrote it into Seinfeld as the holiday that wacky character George Costanza (played by Duckman star Jason Alexander) celebrates. It's intended to be a holiday free of the "pressures and commercialism" of the other holidays that people spend money on.
The holiday continued as a storyline throughout Seinfeld, and included such rituals as "The Airing of Grievances," which is where you sit around a table and tell everyone how much they disappointed you over the last year, and vice-versa. Beyond that, I don't know much about it, because Seinfeld only served to remind me of the people in my family I can't stand. They all live in some proximity of Hollywood, Florida, and they all think Seinfeld was so-true-it's-funny hysterical. I thought Seinfeld was so-true-it's-traumatizing upsetting, the way some WWII vets couldn't sit through Saving Private Ryan. (Aunt Roz, if you're reading this, I'm mostly talking about you. I will marry a Shiksa just to piss you off.)
Two books were written on Festivus. One was by Daniel O'Keefe, in 2005, with an introduction by Jason Alexander. The other was written by Allen Salkin, with an introduction by Jerry Stiller, in 2008.
Festivus strikes me as a well-intended thing: it's a broad philosophical statement on the bullshit that December holidays are wrapped in whimsical nonsense and served well by the brand recognition of a TV show as popular as Seinfeld. To write one book on it is mountain-of-molehill type stuff. To write a second book on it is to birth a skyscraper from a sandbox. It is, like many things Allen Salkin has done, impressive.
But Allen Salkin has written many things that have been considered—to say the least—unimpressive by the strident group of people who opine about media, be they amateur, professional, or otherwise. In other words: Salkin's been the target of catty, bitchy bloggers since he started at the Times. (Before that, he was at the Post, and he was dating Lisa Loeb! Funny how those seem like "innocent" times compared to his tenure at the New York Times. )
One of his first pieces for the Styles section was about some kids who were going to have the Lower East Side reality show. It was something that we all wanted to read, right? But also something that made us all cringe. The long view, however: Here was a guy at the New York Times who might try to put some flavor in the Styles.
This interest quickly alchemized into something slightly more hostile, however, when Salkin pissed off everyone at the New York Observer by writing a softball profile of its (at the time) new young owner, Jared Kushner, that largely condescended to and slighted the efforts of the New York Observer's writers, as well as their now-former editor Peter Kaplan.
In January, 2008, Salkin probably did a good job provoking the wrath of Gawker when he wrote that it had "jumped the snark" in the Times. He was not at the time nor has he been since the only person to write about this! But considering Salkin's previous efforts, which included writing about how women who eat red meat are easier to fornicate with than vegetarians, curious fascination with Salkin turned to open contempt. Here was this guy at the Times whose job it was to write about trends! And from what some would consider a "lofty" "perch." (The "argument" against "trend" pieces is always, at heart: why this thing instead of that thing?) But it was his job, and he did it.
Gawker Weekend writer Jon Liu once called Salkin the "Christiane Amanpour of Sunday Styles." He was later referred to by another former Gawker writer as the "Seymour Hersh of the Sunday Styles." I also took my share of shots at Salkin. For instance, when Salkin profiled a group of media personalities who have a decidedly anti-oversharey organization, he did so without mentioning his own oversharing tendencies, and also couldn't acknowledge the irony that they let him profile them. It was not a great piece.
In any event, when Salkin was let go, this was almost inevitable.
And Gawker Media owner Nick Denton wasn't the only one who expressed schadenfreude at Salkin's dismissal.
The one time I met Salkin, he seemed surprised that I introduced myself. He was kind. He even signed a book for me. He handed me his business card, we had a quick talk, and I got the impression he was—get this!—a guy who was working hard at a newspaper. Working hard at a goofy newspaper job, yes—but also that his beat put him directly in the path of ongoing public scorn.
Salkin also took on assignments a lot of people would be scared to handle. One example: he suggested that MTV was at least a bit responsible for the death of DJ AM. And also, let's not forget: he did write that article on Gawker. Whether or not it was good—or even accurate!—is almost besides the point that Salkin, always in the cross-hairs, had basically now thrown his body on the grenade.
So I considered the laying-off of Salkin, and I wasn't happy. Salkin's job description at the New York Times, when you get down to it, is, or was, one of the most troublesome. But like so many of the things that "media critics" spend time mocking (The New York Sun! Radar magazine's Three Different Iterations! Etc!), I get the feeling we will miss Salkin, if for no other reason than that the opportunity for someone to take a risk in a major newspaper and fuck up (or succeed wildly) has now been further shrunk. That's kind of sad.
So, here: the best media souvenir from the last year I've received. Salkin's business card. Long live him, his reporting, and his ridiculous-ass holiday.
It was George's father Frank Costanza, played by Jerry Stiller, who came up with Festivus, if i remember correctly.
I read this, and as I did I was asking myself, I asked 'Who's byline?' And I never skipped to the end to see. And when I did, and I saw it was Foster, I was pleased– and sorta proud.
I agree! What's with Gawker staffers who turn out to be much better writers outside of that sphere? Not saying Foster is one of the worst offenders at Gawker these days but he's demonstrated a lot more insight and clarity here than I think I've read at the other site – weird! Not try to neg or undermine, it's a just a curious thing that seems to repeat itself.
So now is it time for feats of strength?
They're on pretty hard deadlines. Writing something like this is pretty different from puking out five topical microstories an hour.
Lovely I've always wanted to T or C Allen Salkin!!
Really though, even if he is an unemployed oversharer surely you might have redacted his personal info. It's not like he asked for it to be posted online. Unless he asked for it to be posted online. Gosh World 2.0 is so confusing sometimes.
It has been redacted! Whoopsies on my part.
Thanks, Foster. It was also nice meeting you! There's nothing to miss, since I'm still alive and will be around, I hope, for years to come doing lots of interesting things for you to love and hate.
As to the Festivus book, the first edition of mine came out in 2005, the same year as Dan's book, and a week earlier in fact. His is about his family's holiday, about its origins. Mine is about the way the world has adapted Festivus for its own uses since Seinfeld. There was an updated edition of my book issued in paperback in 2008.
My new email is allen.salkin@yahoo.com. The cell is the same.
Hope to see you around soon — a
Fact-checking! It happens.
I was hoping you'd land someplace better than Yahoo!
Airing our grievances, are we?
Foster! Do you have your pole up?
These pretzels are making me thirsty…
Nice FEK. I'm putting you on my rolodex. And you know Mohney. So it's all good.
Reasonable enough. And I love that you attributed Jason Alexander as the dude from Duckman, as if that would have cleared things up for anyone confused. I fucks with this.
So, Allen gets laid off from the Times and Foster writes about it on two different blogs, incorporating on one blog (not his employer's blog) Allen's old business card and a screengrab of his employer (millionaire publisher) gloating about Allen's misfortune? And then Allen comments on Foster's blog to provide his new email and cheerily assert that everything's fine?
Every so often, I feel like I'm living in the future that I imagined would come to pass when I was a teenager.
Unfortunately, my teenage-imagined future focused on big boobs and bongs, so this really isn't getting me off.
I was thinking more of Ender's War and Neuromancer.
Uh Ender Wiggin and Molly are waiting to see you and they've brought a steel bar.
Don't forget the mindfuck that the Gawker Allen piece referenced by Foster containing good quotes from Mr. Sicha (from Fire Island!) who is now the publisher of THIS blog.
Wait, just so I can keep track, riddle me this: What was the second blog I wrote about Allen's layoff on? Besides plugging this post on my Tmblr, I didn't write anything about his separation from the NYT on Gwkr (that I remember, hold maybe a comment), only his articles previous to it happened. Also, I'm now cnfsd.
Wait, did you disemvowel your own last word?
yes, i think the Cajun Boy wrote yesterday's piece on his departure and you commented.
Still don't get it. Cajun's not at Gawker anymore. Hasn't been for months. SO CONFUSED.
I came to this conclusion a while ago: when a newspaper or outlet publishes articles from many writers that do not come to a solid thesis (e.g. "one makes a trend" or "my subject is unique, except when he/she is the same" or "everyone's going to the mall") then you might want to hold off picking on the individual writers. The Styles writers had to pitch those stories; an editor caught them, and many readers viewed/emailed them. The only loathesome part of it is that the Times has editorial standards that are so often disregarded; hard working writers can and will stray from them, which editors are supposed to catch. Articles that don't meet those standards belong entirely to the editors.
Also, Salkin never wrote about something that seemed irrelevant such that you'd wonder, "WTF?"
Disclosure: Beyond having some common friends, Salkin and I are at an impasse because of snipey blog comments I've written about his writing. I've attended three of his Festivus parties (he owns the topic). I enjoy mentioning and repeating this transgression.
Dan O'Keefe has not much good to say about Salkin. From a recent WaPo chat:
Wow, he really takes the airing of grievances seriously.
OH. Also, little Festivus trivia: Titus Andronicus – who recorded one of the best albums of the last! ten! years! – named their debut record "The Airing of Grievances." And now you know.