[bdj] Belle Doesn’t Ring True — the Guardian rolls out Cynthia Payne to analyse BdJ … ‘I think this is filth, and I certainly don’t want to be associated with it. I was never involved in anything like this. In my day, we did it the proper way – £25 without extras, food and drink, and a choice of ladies. We knocked off £5 for old age pensioners and we charged men half-price if they were past it, and just fancied watching. We had a high-class clientèle – no rowdy kids, no yobs, all well-dressed men in suits, who knew how to respect a lady.’
Cynthia Payne on Belle De Jour
This entry was posted on Thursday, March 25th, 2004 at 7:08 am and is filed under Belle de Jour.
« Five Questions for Peter Bagge Holy Priceless collection of Etruscan Snoods! »
Yet another of the weird coincidences in the BdJ saga: the Live Video Chat image at the bottom of the Cynthia Payne page was also used by The Sunday Times in their montage the other week.
Guess they’ll be asking Heidi Fleiss for comments next…
I don’t think BdJ rings true, either. And I should know.
But the Guardian is the one organisation that does actually know the identity of BdJ. This isn’t investigative journalism, it’s continued bandwagon-riding.
There’s a lesson in all of this:
Bloggers need to learn not to celebrify other bloggers.
A blog should be popular by merit of the quality of its content.
Belle de Jour is a *terrible* blog.
It’s cringeworthy at times, and I can’t believe how easily many of the ‘uber’ bloggers have bought in to the hype.
I’m making a conscious decision never, ever to talk about it again – and I would urge everyone else to do the same.
Cynthia said: “I think it’s written as a kind of posh pornography”. Nuff said.
DG – I’m not sure the Guardian does know the identity of BdJ. Simon Waldman might know but I wonder if he would reveal it to any of the other journalists. I seem to remember that he went on record to say anonymous bloggers were welcomed into the competition and I assume respecting their right to privacy is part of that. That said it is interesting that the Guardian’s coverage of the BdJ saga has been so tame compared to the other Broadsheets and I wonder what they have planned…
Martin – I don’t agree that BdJ is a terrible blog. I think it’s a well written, compelling and controversial blog — you can’t *not* have an opinion about it.
Some of the sexual content leaves me cold (one of the characteristics of BdJ is that she comes across as clever, cold and in control – no surprise really) but for me it’s the questions about identity and authenticity which it raises which are the hook.
I’ve had an entertaining five months reading BdJ and if Belle holds her course this will run and run. I wish her luck (even is she is a bloke).
I’m with Darren – BdJ entertains consistently and in terms of content and style, all awards and book deals are entirely deserved, in my book. Personally I’d like to think I live in a world where a call girl can and does keep an online diary, but again – even if she’s a bloke – good on her.
I’m not even going to broach the subject of “uber-bloggers”, though.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.