Ah, Mr. Barney, thank you. I lost my dad in April of this year and if I was in the same writerly situation as your son, he would have helped me through it however he could. Dreams are dreams!
I hope you all have been able to celebrate, and more to come with a future book! 🎉
Cassie, sorry about your dad. He sounds wonderful. I know Augusta would love your sentiments. There is a very good chance she will read, though she is so reclusive she likely won't respond. we will let you know if she has a reaction. She is the real deal. Fascinating person to spend time with.
I may have to unfortunately be the dissenting voice amidst these comments and say I disagree with much of what you've written here, Cassie.
I can understand how this is a 12/10, no notes performance from Barney from a publicist's perspective. Virality is the game, & he's milked the biggest story to fall in his lap for all it's worth. And why not? How else to get eyes & ears in today's media noise & score the beginnings of a career? How else to get that bag?
My disagreement, however, comes from the glaring lack of responsibility and self-awareness Barney & VF have displayed on their way to achieving this. As an example: Britt insists on her own agency & wants to be portrayed in a specific way (i.e. as not a victim), to which Barney & VF agree, adopting the salacious, tell-all approach they know will get the clicks. Barney has taken this opportunity & turned on turbo: on the writing, on the tale itself, & on the opportunity. However, regardless of what all parties involved believe, or what Britt believes about her time with McCarthy, there remains a truth that no amount of buzz can sidestep: that this remains a story about a heinous crime (grooming) by a powerful white man in America, even if told by decentering him. Framing this story in the manner they have, in an election year where powerful white men are gearing up to gobble even more power at everyone's expense, written by a young white man who considers every word out of his mouth an opportunity for tongue-in-cheek trolling slash engagement bait, is a cultural net negative.
The comments all over social media have veered toward gross vitriol and lacking nuance, as social media is wont to do. I'm in agreement with you & others in that I equally find it abhorrent. However, I also believe (& you likely do as well) that Barney & VF wanted exactly that. They baited & engineered it. I wouldn't say that's the lesson I want young, new writers to take away from this: that they need to invest in engagement bait & virality by any means necessary.
What a responsible author & editor would've done is give us room to see Britt how she sees herself, while offering sufficient context to make it irrevocably clear what this story is about: a case of grooming by one of the most respected American authors, and the woman who has emerged from that as a character of interest on her own terms. (See the Dylan Roof essay or Ijeoma Oluo's profile on Rachel Dolezal, for example).
The whole time everyone has been talking about this, I've kept wondering if people on other axes of privilege would be allowed to wear Barney's smugness the way he does. I wonder if Britt's story would've been received as a salacious Bonnie & Clyde tale if she were a Black woman or McCarthy was a Black man, or both. I wonder if all of this will still be funny, or at least funny (or salacious) in the same way.
All this to say: It is fair game to analyze the publicity angle of this campaign & the levers behind its success, but we must remain clear-eyed about the irresponsibility of that piece, & the fact that no matter how we spin it, its existence in the manner it's been presented does not constitute a cultural net positive. And that's a separate discussion from the quality or style of prose (which I have no opinions about).
Suyi, I agree with what you’re saying here. I think Vanity Fair set out what it wanted to do (and I do wonder if the piece written differently, with context, might have received a different reaction AND an equal amount of engagement. I guess what I’m saying is it would have been a STORY either way, salacious or not—at least, I think it could have been). I also wonder what contractual obligations everyone was under to tell the story (in this way, and what weight was given or pushed—who … allowed what?). Obviously each person & entity involved has different needs, so how did we end here?
I wonder if the story actually had more space (a book, first—excerpted) if it would have turned out to be very different in framing. I can’t know, of course. And I agree with your commentary about the folks involved and their own cultural standing—how their stories will be received, and the pressure, culpability, or cultural capital (or not) of that reception.
I appreciate this comment so much, and I’m really glad to read your thoughtful perspective. I wish I could offer more than agreement here. While there are gray areas in the piece, grooming certainly isn’t one. I’ve read the Dylan Roof piece, but I’m going to go read the Rachel Dolezal piece now.
I can speak to this a little bit, since I know Barney (he was my student). I don't think he was shooting for engagement bait or virality with this, nor was he being smug in that (good-natured, very funny) interview. Nor do I think he's chasing a bag (he knows enough about the literary world to know there's not really a "bag" to chase at this point: he cares about writing). The story fell into his lap, and from what I know I don't think Britt would've been willing to tell it elsewhere or to another journalist. One can (and should!) argue with the framing of the story itself, which (as Suyi accurately notes) de-emphasizes a crime and a gross moral abuse, and one is free to argue with the prose style as one likes, of course. But the motives here, and the living people involved, aren't cynical, and Britt wanted her story told a certain way. Whether it's possible to square that way with the legal and/or moral trespasses that are inextricable from the story I have no idea, but the idea that the writer should (or could!) have just disregarded her wishes seems a little fanciful to me too. Anyway, this is a lovely piece, Cassie. Thanks for writing it
Thanks, Matthew—this is helpful. Intentions are always wiggly creatures. I also appreciate the phrasing of “legal and/or moral trespasses”—I haven’t heard it put that way and trespasses feels like THE word.
Cassie, Matthew, thanks for your carefully considered responses.
For what it's worth, I don't think Barney should've disregarded Britt's wishes. I only believe a more seasoned writer would've found a way to responsibly balance her wishes with what needed to be said without veering too closely--and I equally love your expression here--to a moral or legal trespass.
You could be right that Barney wasn't shooting for bait. And maybe he isn't trolling or baiting or being smug in that Slate interview (I believe he is doing at least one of those things, though). But whatever the case, what I pointed out in the beginning is where I'm hoping to leave this convo: that the authorial & editorial responsibilities here have been taken for granted because the social positioning of these actors & subjects allows for that; and that this story we have received, however interesting, is a cultural net negative as a result.
A totally reasonable conclusion, Suyi. From my perspective the real net negative here is that--as I understand it--Ms Britt has been pretty dismayed and depressed by this whole thing, not so much by the story itself (which came out how she wanted it, basically) but by the frenzied response to it. (Which, of course, might not have been the case--or might have been less the case--had the story been told or edited differently. But then she might not have been happy with it!) The whole thing is a huge bummer, in any case. That the experience should wind up causing--rather than alleviating--pain for its subject seems, ultimately, the worst aspect of all
You make a lot of excellent points here. The sheer vitriol this VF piece aroused really floored me. It's obvious Britt wanted the story told this way. Would *I* have written it this way? No, but I'm not Vincenzo Barney, and I didn't spend a year in Arizona. Also, good for him for getting paid. I love getting paid a lot for magazines pieces, when possible. You're right that the view of writers today is rather absurd: it's ok to be capitalistic and sell-out (get that bag!!) but don't make *too much* or you're ... what? A bad person?
It was really wild to watch in real time (and I am fascinated by the heat in our current political landscape too??)
I also love when folks get paid, especially for writing! And I think as much as we hope pay transparency has hit the publishing industry, but I don’t think we’re even close to that yet, and we need more of it.
I am debating how much jealously has to do with it. I think it's a factor. I also think there are legitimate questions about portraying what is a dubious moral situation (romanticizing grooming, etc.) but it's hard to argue with the reality that Britt wanted the story told this way and never saw herself as a victim.
As for the prose, I'm a bit sick of the cult of Hemingway. You get so punished today for being too purple, when a lot of great writing (certainly in the New Journalism heyday) was going for broke, trying out wild metaphors and nutty sentences, some of which landed, some didn't. Twitter/X would have destroyed anything by Tom Wolfe. Faulkner, too.
Transparency would be great. Writers and journalists are the least transparent people alive. Try asking a journalist what they got paid for an assignment or what a writer collected on an advance. It's like trying to get answers from the CIA.
As someone who definitely leans into the purple and flowery, I definitely agree. I love a wild metaphor. When I was agenting, I used to say I would take pretty sentences over plot any day--probably why I didn't last in that space.
Jealousy seems to be a motivating factor to me, especially from the first bigger accounts that came out against the piece. So many of them had intimate connections to McCarthy or at least reasons to get unreasonable.
The situation of the piece is should be studied, and probably is (I didn't go to journalism school), but presenting a story with respect to the source while holding accountable the moral quandaries involved--what a fine tooth comb! I would need the year just to figure out how to navigate it. And both choices feel a bit like a loss--you lose the public reaction (and maybe your own truth), or you lose the source you need for the very project.
Also, I wonder what the contract looked like, with Britt specifically. If there were stipulations in how it was told that Barney didn't have control over. I haven't seen anyone ask this, but I do wonder if there were negotiations. We won't know, and that's fine with me, OR that might be reason to buy Barney's book!
The interview was handled well, like the online attacks... It would be helpful to hear from the editors of VF and their reasoning for running the piece and how they view the situation.
I LOVED this write-up, Cassie. I think you've nailed a really salient takeaway for all of us with, "I would not handle myself with such levity. My therapist would have had to deactivate all my accounts and take my mobile devices, sending me off into the woods for the next several months... Barney is funny in this Slate interview, without a hint of bitterness. It’s a 12/10 publicity performance, and the best part is that it caused even more talk about the piece, which I wasn’t sure was possible." May we all be so self-possessed when our moment comes.
And I have to say: I'm the one. I loved his piece. I messaged him privately on Substack to tell him so immediately. I'm gestating some thoughts about why (and of course I've not wanted to throw myself to the wolves in being honest publicly before I can be usefully articulate).
Katherine! This actually means so much coming from you because I feel like you write from similar landscapes, I hope your comments heartened him.
I totally understand approaching privately amidst the mobs, and I also can’t wait to read what you have to say about it. (I loved it too!)
I have this sneaking suspicion that the response from most people was joining in a community of poking fun, rather than reading with an open mind, especially if you came to the piece through Twitter. I also think we’ll be talking about it for a long while, which is what anyone hopes for their work!
That essay went down like Velveeta cheese. It was only 24 hours later it began to bother me. Not the writing but the content. The biggest turn off was this writer clearly worships at the Cormac altar. But he spent a YEAR to get there? Wow. Dedication. It felt storified…like I can’t separate the pretty horses from the real life power differential - it reads like a Western.
Cassie. I am one of those Barney parents you mention. I'd be awfully proud of you too. Brilliant essay.
barney_doug@hotmail.com.
Best one I have read on the subject. My son sent me the link, after I found it myself.
Ah, Mr. Barney, thank you. I lost my dad in April of this year and if I was in the same writerly situation as your son, he would have helped me through it however he could. Dreams are dreams!
I hope you all have been able to celebrate, and more to come with a future book! 🎉
Cassie, sorry about your dad. He sounds wonderful. I know Augusta would love your sentiments. There is a very good chance she will read, though she is so reclusive she likely won't respond. we will let you know if she has a reaction. She is the real deal. Fascinating person to spend time with.
Oh, an honor! Please tell her there are folks excited about a full book dedicated to her story.
I may have to unfortunately be the dissenting voice amidst these comments and say I disagree with much of what you've written here, Cassie.
I can understand how this is a 12/10, no notes performance from Barney from a publicist's perspective. Virality is the game, & he's milked the biggest story to fall in his lap for all it's worth. And why not? How else to get eyes & ears in today's media noise & score the beginnings of a career? How else to get that bag?
My disagreement, however, comes from the glaring lack of responsibility and self-awareness Barney & VF have displayed on their way to achieving this. As an example: Britt insists on her own agency & wants to be portrayed in a specific way (i.e. as not a victim), to which Barney & VF agree, adopting the salacious, tell-all approach they know will get the clicks. Barney has taken this opportunity & turned on turbo: on the writing, on the tale itself, & on the opportunity. However, regardless of what all parties involved believe, or what Britt believes about her time with McCarthy, there remains a truth that no amount of buzz can sidestep: that this remains a story about a heinous crime (grooming) by a powerful white man in America, even if told by decentering him. Framing this story in the manner they have, in an election year where powerful white men are gearing up to gobble even more power at everyone's expense, written by a young white man who considers every word out of his mouth an opportunity for tongue-in-cheek trolling slash engagement bait, is a cultural net negative.
The comments all over social media have veered toward gross vitriol and lacking nuance, as social media is wont to do. I'm in agreement with you & others in that I equally find it abhorrent. However, I also believe (& you likely do as well) that Barney & VF wanted exactly that. They baited & engineered it. I wouldn't say that's the lesson I want young, new writers to take away from this: that they need to invest in engagement bait & virality by any means necessary.
What a responsible author & editor would've done is give us room to see Britt how she sees herself, while offering sufficient context to make it irrevocably clear what this story is about: a case of grooming by one of the most respected American authors, and the woman who has emerged from that as a character of interest on her own terms. (See the Dylan Roof essay or Ijeoma Oluo's profile on Rachel Dolezal, for example).
The whole time everyone has been talking about this, I've kept wondering if people on other axes of privilege would be allowed to wear Barney's smugness the way he does. I wonder if Britt's story would've been received as a salacious Bonnie & Clyde tale if she were a Black woman or McCarthy was a Black man, or both. I wonder if all of this will still be funny, or at least funny (or salacious) in the same way.
All this to say: It is fair game to analyze the publicity angle of this campaign & the levers behind its success, but we must remain clear-eyed about the irresponsibility of that piece, & the fact that no matter how we spin it, its existence in the manner it's been presented does not constitute a cultural net positive. And that's a separate discussion from the quality or style of prose (which I have no opinions about).
Suyi, I agree with what you’re saying here. I think Vanity Fair set out what it wanted to do (and I do wonder if the piece written differently, with context, might have received a different reaction AND an equal amount of engagement. I guess what I’m saying is it would have been a STORY either way, salacious or not—at least, I think it could have been). I also wonder what contractual obligations everyone was under to tell the story (in this way, and what weight was given or pushed—who … allowed what?). Obviously each person & entity involved has different needs, so how did we end here?
I wonder if the story actually had more space (a book, first—excerpted) if it would have turned out to be very different in framing. I can’t know, of course. And I agree with your commentary about the folks involved and their own cultural standing—how their stories will be received, and the pressure, culpability, or cultural capital (or not) of that reception.
I appreciate this comment so much, and I’m really glad to read your thoughtful perspective. I wish I could offer more than agreement here. While there are gray areas in the piece, grooming certainly isn’t one. I’ve read the Dylan Roof piece, but I’m going to go read the Rachel Dolezal piece now.
I can speak to this a little bit, since I know Barney (he was my student). I don't think he was shooting for engagement bait or virality with this, nor was he being smug in that (good-natured, very funny) interview. Nor do I think he's chasing a bag (he knows enough about the literary world to know there's not really a "bag" to chase at this point: he cares about writing). The story fell into his lap, and from what I know I don't think Britt would've been willing to tell it elsewhere or to another journalist. One can (and should!) argue with the framing of the story itself, which (as Suyi accurately notes) de-emphasizes a crime and a gross moral abuse, and one is free to argue with the prose style as one likes, of course. But the motives here, and the living people involved, aren't cynical, and Britt wanted her story told a certain way. Whether it's possible to square that way with the legal and/or moral trespasses that are inextricable from the story I have no idea, but the idea that the writer should (or could!) have just disregarded her wishes seems a little fanciful to me too. Anyway, this is a lovely piece, Cassie. Thanks for writing it
Thanks, Matthew—this is helpful. Intentions are always wiggly creatures. I also appreciate the phrasing of “legal and/or moral trespasses”—I haven’t heard it put that way and trespasses feels like THE word.
Cassie, Matthew, thanks for your carefully considered responses.
For what it's worth, I don't think Barney should've disregarded Britt's wishes. I only believe a more seasoned writer would've found a way to responsibly balance her wishes with what needed to be said without veering too closely--and I equally love your expression here--to a moral or legal trespass.
You could be right that Barney wasn't shooting for bait. And maybe he isn't trolling or baiting or being smug in that Slate interview (I believe he is doing at least one of those things, though). But whatever the case, what I pointed out in the beginning is where I'm hoping to leave this convo: that the authorial & editorial responsibilities here have been taken for granted because the social positioning of these actors & subjects allows for that; and that this story we have received, however interesting, is a cultural net negative as a result.
A totally reasonable conclusion, Suyi. From my perspective the real net negative here is that--as I understand it--Ms Britt has been pretty dismayed and depressed by this whole thing, not so much by the story itself (which came out how she wanted it, basically) but by the frenzied response to it. (Which, of course, might not have been the case--or might have been less the case--had the story been told or edited differently. But then she might not have been happy with it!) The whole thing is a huge bummer, in any case. That the experience should wind up causing--rather than alleviating--pain for its subject seems, ultimately, the worst aspect of all
Are you referring to the Pulitzer winning piece on Roof by Rachel Kaadzi Ghansah?
You make a lot of excellent points here. The sheer vitriol this VF piece aroused really floored me. It's obvious Britt wanted the story told this way. Would *I* have written it this way? No, but I'm not Vincenzo Barney, and I didn't spend a year in Arizona. Also, good for him for getting paid. I love getting paid a lot for magazines pieces, when possible. You're right that the view of writers today is rather absurd: it's ok to be capitalistic and sell-out (get that bag!!) but don't make *too much* or you're ... what? A bad person?
It was really wild to watch in real time (and I am fascinated by the heat in our current political landscape too??)
I also love when folks get paid, especially for writing! And I think as much as we hope pay transparency has hit the publishing industry, but I don’t think we’re even close to that yet, and we need more of it.
I am debating how much jealously has to do with it. I think it's a factor. I also think there are legitimate questions about portraying what is a dubious moral situation (romanticizing grooming, etc.) but it's hard to argue with the reality that Britt wanted the story told this way and never saw herself as a victim.
As for the prose, I'm a bit sick of the cult of Hemingway. You get so punished today for being too purple, when a lot of great writing (certainly in the New Journalism heyday) was going for broke, trying out wild metaphors and nutty sentences, some of which landed, some didn't. Twitter/X would have destroyed anything by Tom Wolfe. Faulkner, too.
Transparency would be great. Writers and journalists are the least transparent people alive. Try asking a journalist what they got paid for an assignment or what a writer collected on an advance. It's like trying to get answers from the CIA.
As someone who definitely leans into the purple and flowery, I definitely agree. I love a wild metaphor. When I was agenting, I used to say I would take pretty sentences over plot any day--probably why I didn't last in that space.
Jealousy seems to be a motivating factor to me, especially from the first bigger accounts that came out against the piece. So many of them had intimate connections to McCarthy or at least reasons to get unreasonable.
The situation of the piece is should be studied, and probably is (I didn't go to journalism school), but presenting a story with respect to the source while holding accountable the moral quandaries involved--what a fine tooth comb! I would need the year just to figure out how to navigate it. And both choices feel a bit like a loss--you lose the public reaction (and maybe your own truth), or you lose the source you need for the very project.
Also, I wonder what the contract looked like, with Britt specifically. If there were stipulations in how it was told that Barney didn't have control over. I haven't seen anyone ask this, but I do wonder if there were negotiations. We won't know, and that's fine with me, OR that might be reason to buy Barney's book!
Love this piece, Cassie, esp because of your perspective as a publicist. I'm off to read the interview
Ah, would love to hear what you think, Andrea!
The interview was handled well, like the online attacks... It would be helpful to hear from the editors of VF and their reasoning for running the piece and how they view the situation.
Now I would love to see that!
I LOVED this write-up, Cassie. I think you've nailed a really salient takeaway for all of us with, "I would not handle myself with such levity. My therapist would have had to deactivate all my accounts and take my mobile devices, sending me off into the woods for the next several months... Barney is funny in this Slate interview, without a hint of bitterness. It’s a 12/10 publicity performance, and the best part is that it caused even more talk about the piece, which I wasn’t sure was possible." May we all be so self-possessed when our moment comes.
And I have to say: I'm the one. I loved his piece. I messaged him privately on Substack to tell him so immediately. I'm gestating some thoughts about why (and of course I've not wanted to throw myself to the wolves in being honest publicly before I can be usefully articulate).
Katherine! This actually means so much coming from you because I feel like you write from similar landscapes, I hope your comments heartened him.
I totally understand approaching privately amidst the mobs, and I also can’t wait to read what you have to say about it. (I loved it too!)
I have this sneaking suspicion that the response from most people was joining in a community of poking fun, rather than reading with an open mind, especially if you came to the piece through Twitter. I also think we’ll be talking about it for a long while, which is what anyone hopes for their work!
That essay went down like Velveeta cheese. It was only 24 hours later it began to bother me. Not the writing but the content. The biggest turn off was this writer clearly worships at the Cormac altar. But he spent a YEAR to get there? Wow. Dedication. It felt storified…like I can’t separate the pretty horses from the real life power differential - it reads like a Western.
lol you had me at velveeta cheese, Kelly! 🧀Which I actually love, unfortunate for me. Storified is a word I’ll be thinking about!!!
And kudus to you Cassie for this considered piece. 🙌🏼
I am in Knoxville, where many people I know are semi-professional McCarthy experts. Many of them are having outsized odd reactions to this story.
Tracy, this totally made me think about questions of scale when reacting to art. I appreciate it!