I think the delaying of the publication of “The Snow Forest”, more exactly, the actions and words of the author about it, was an excellent place to start this e

I think the delaying of the publication of “The Snow Forest”, more exactly, the actions and words of the author about it, was an excellent place to start this essay. It pretty effectively construct the context to culminate in the sentence: ” How did a heartfelt writer like Elizabeth Gilbert come to adopt the neutered rhetoric of brand management?” Which is a great summarization of the point that the author is going to discuss in the way they want to discuss it. That artists are not bad, or evil, but they are doing art with the emptiness of corporations’ public relations. I read it as a brilliant way to start an essay. It introduces the topic with a concrete example that provides context of what the author is going to talk about, in a short, straightforward form (unlike, e.g. how the New Yorker tends do these introductions, with long, writer-centered ramblings). I saw no intention of fabricating outrage or t baiting in this introduction at all. Not a single drop of it to be honest. Much less that is supposed to be pointing to the fact that this example is something big, strong to any side of the current ideological disputes. On the contrary, it is there just to show how empty it all is. Irrelevant one-Star reviews, about irrelevant concerns of association to the current war, followed by an irrelevant stance, justified with an irrelevant speech, all coming together to become an irrelevant act of pseudo-activism. All so empty. Which is the whole point.