I Read the Natalie Portman and Jonathan Safran Foer Emails and I Have Questions
If you are the right combination of literary and nosy (I am), the Natalie Portman and Jonathan Safran Foer emails of yesterday need no introduction. Like you, I have read The Emails. Probably also like you, I have Some Questions. Let’s jump right in:
- Why is this feature accompanied by a series of photographs of just Natalie Portman in her underwear? (This is a rhetorical question, we all know why.)
- I have this theory that the popular “underwear + cozy socks” photo aesthetic is designed to appeal to the kind of man who wants to objectify a woman, but also does not want to think of himself as the kind of man who objectifies women. The socks (or oversized cardigan) in this scenario provide a simulation of domesticity and intimacy that allows the viewer to ogle in relative comfort. Call it a “Maxim distancer.” Am I correct? Bonus question: is this also likely the kind of man who identifies as a “sapiosexual”?
- Isn’t it awkward as hell to continue to carry on a years-long friendship with someone who rather famously left his wife for you without, in fact, checking to see if you reciprocated his feelings?
- How does Michelle Williams feel about this? (Note: I am not Harry Burns; I don’t think that it’s impossible for men and women to be just friends or that their partners should be jealous. But were I JSF’s partner, I personally would have some, shall we say, reservations about both the friendship and this feature.)
- Who is the ex-boyfriend who called Natalie “Moscow”?
- What are the chances Gina Rodriguez texted the link to this article to Tessa Thompson with only the eyes emoji as a caption?
- Is … this … what emails are?
- No seriously, do these in any way resemble emails you send your friends? There are several friends with whom I carry on a rich correspondence; we too, discuss our ambitions, passions, and frustrations, but we also debate at length the peak of Chris Evans’ MCU abs.
- Has literal garbage ever been imbued with more significance?
- On a scale of 1-10, how offended should we be that a celebrated literary novelist, a high-brow Harvard-grad actress, and the paper of record did not think their audience would recognize carefully-constructed, self-aggrandizing intellectual performance when we saw it?
- There is not a person alive who doesn’t recognize the mysterious “loss” of the previous years of emails as a convenient (albeit not particularly convincing) fiction, right?
- What does Natalie think about Hiddleswift?
Please feel free to answer these questions and/or pose your own in the comments.