"Yes, of course, everyone knows who Cho Chang is."-NYT Editorial Board.
The occasion for Cho Chang's name being dropped is a profile of Robert Pattinson, the star of Twilight I occasionally forget to talk about over here. Why do I occasionally neglect Pattinson? I'm reminded of John Hodgman's introduction to his first book, The Areas Of My Expertise. He mentions that there will be exactly two mentions of sports in his book, and if you would like more, he would kindly refer you to all other aspects of our culture. Case in point: Ashley Greene is being interviewed by fucking Fandango, and Robert Pattinson is being profiled in The New York Times. So.
Is it becoming too obvious that long-form print journalism is only being read by people who actively aspire to be long-form print journalists? I can't imagine anyone else would give a fuck about how hard it was to get an interview with Robert Pattinson. But that is how this writer starts his/her (Brooks is a kind of gender neutral name) profile. It took months! Months, he or she tells you! "It took so long that I couldn't publish this article until a week before Eclipse came out, isn't that weird?" Anyway, if you are a young girl who really likes Robert Pattinson and thinks he might be a nice guy, this article is determined to smash your hopes and dreams against a rock and feast on their insides. Is that harsh? Am I the only person who feels like The New York Times is lately behaving like someone's bitter, terminally ill aunt, trying to bring everyone down with her before she goes out? That or The New York Times is actively campaigning to be the Patient Zero of the death of print. "If someone is going to kill this thing, it better be us."
(Especially when you realize the reason for Cho Chang's name being dropped so casually is a correction to a reporting error - the line originally read that Pattinson played Hermione's love interest. Hermione, obviously, needs no introduction, and Chang's name was dropped in after-the-fact, and no additional explanation was provided, needed though it may have been. Seriously, New York Times: Cedric Diggory and Hermione? And you originally said he appeared in Order of the Phoenix? Get your fucking shit together!)
So the first four paragraphs of this profile are about how much Robert Pattinson hates Twilight. Okay. Much as I am probably supposed to be predisposed to hate Pattinson already, and much as this article tries to make me hate him, I refuse. I can certainly see how Pattinson saying he wants to be in a Todd Solondz movie could be played as his "truffle fries" moment, but I'm not going to take the bait. Good for Pattinson for being adventurous and ambitious. I really hope he gets that role where he gets to speak Comanche!
This whole article feels too transparently like a hit piece - there's the fact that Robert Pattinson is almost never directly quoted, the fact that they bring in some random academic to rhapsodize about how hard it is to be a teen idol - and fuck that. It's boring, and it's kind of mean. I'm roughly Robert Pattinson's age, and despite his millions of dollars and the fact that even if he never achieves artistic satisfaction he will still have more money and more freedom than I will ever have in my life, he has my sympathy. I don't see a difference between Robert Pattinson and any other male actor, but we do this weird subdividing with the Zac Efrons of the world. Why?
I hope Pattinson's smart enough to not release a dis track on his website attacking this reporter. Let's all just leave The New York Times alone, to die. Maybe I'm just mad at them for knocking chewing on the "Cultural Importance Of It All," that being one of the major purposes of this blog.