The Critics Respond, Part Seventeen

Jesus wept.

This is one of those situations where I have to admit one of two things:

0. A very nice young man who, like me, owns and loves an aircooled 911, is basically too stupid or bad at reading to understand what was meant to be, and delivered as, a very straightforward, low-impact, low-complexity humor article.

1. I failed the readers by writing something that failed to explain or demonstrate my point.

I never like to assume Point The First, it's the kind of thing that the Jonny Liebermans of the world do. "Oh, I'm so brilliant and all my readers/viewers/commenters are such mouth-breathing morons." Not only does it prevent me as a writer from honestly examining my faults, it's also a key ingredient in Autojourno Stockholm Syndrome where you come to believe it's you and your great friends in manufacturer PR versus that ungrateful horde of mouth-breathing content consumers. Before you know it, you're eating caviar in the back seat of a G65 AMG at the Arctic Circle and at that point, my friend, they own you.

So I assumed Point The Second and went back through the article with "Nate964's" comments in mind. I've reproduced them below, with my comments in bold:

Perhaps I misrepresented the message, but the main point of the article was don't buy an old super car because they are finicky and so outclassed by the current generation of supercars that you will look silly driving one. No, it's about the fact that supercars are fashion accessories and are valuable more as fashion than as automobiles. It also mentions that you should be responsible and get a 911 instead.

Several critiques / observations

1. Is R&T and other car magazines catering to only what is trendy? Do modern car magazines cater to what is "cool" and "trendy" so as to not lose their sponsors in face of twindling readership (Note: I have no facts to back that readership is declining other then the fact that readership trends are declining across print media) Things are looking up at R&T and I'm not sure you'll find anything "trendy" within the pages. "Cool", maybe.

2. Is the oppositelock/jalopnik audience very different from the R&T audience? I am not meaning to offend anyone that is a fan of car magazines, I have just been more intrigued by the online community. I love new vehicles such as the M235i, Porsche Cayman/Boxster, Corvette C7, Jaguar F-Type, but having a hobby surrounding these type of vehicles requires significant disposable income which I do not have. I love the focus on older (ranging from classics, older vehicles with a niche following, older SUVs, now-affordable sports cars) that this community embraces while still keeping us updated and excited about the new offerings from Detroit, Germany, Japan, England and South Korea. The audience is somewhat different --- the vast majority of Jalops cannot afford new cars. R&T is a magazine about new cars.

3. I personally find this to be a greater time then ever to like older cars. Jay Leno said cars have changed more in recent years then they have between 1930 through 2006 (I do not have the exact quote). Surprise R&T!, I LIKE having a manual transmission! I LIKE not staring into the screen of an I-Pad/Computer when I drive (I get enough of that at work!!!) I like having analog feedback from my steering wheel! I view a car as an extension of my interests in style and the art of driving! NOT my social media life...And these cars that I love are affordable because they are not yet considered classics by the R&M auction crowd! So what you're saying is that you are all about "cool" and "trendy" things as long as they are the "cool" and "trendy" things among your set of "Jalops".

4. Assuming that you will look silly driving an older super car because it is not the "latest" and "greatest" super car assumes that your readers (and car enthusiasts in general) only care about "looking cool" and "trendy" which is just insulting. No, it assumes that the purchasers of supercars and the people whom they wish to impress are fashion-conscious. It's just reality.

5. I took the article to refer more than old super cars but any sports car, sporty coupe, luxury car or SUV that is now more affordable because of that beautiful thing called depreciation. No, not at all, where the fuck did you get that idea?

6. Because the author has a Ferrari 365 BB does not excuse the article. I don't have a Ferrari 365BB and nowhere does it say I do. The bio at the end says that "The author has a point, but we still want that 365BB."

Sorry for the long rant!

Well, he's failed to read what I actually wrote --- but if I were a perfect writer, I'd be better at making myself understood. So I take some blame for the fact that he mis-read the article. However, with points five and six or he demonstrates that he's just layering-on meaning that I never intended. Just like the driving students I get who can't be bothered to learn to downshift correctly but who still think they should be allowed to run "flat out", this kid is a lazy reader who then wants to crucify me for things I didn't even write.

The only lesson I can take from this as a writer is that I need to make things even more plain to avoid upsetting people like him. In doing so, however, I run the risk of losing the readers I have and enjoy now, the ones who can pick up a subtle reference or enjoy a complex series of digressions from the original point. This being a trade I'm unwilling to make, I will continue to suffer the slings and arrows from dudes like this.

It really is too bad that I don't have a 365BB, though.