http://207.68.164.250:80/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang=EN&lah=b29567e8faaaaa4c03c209320892dbed&lat=1068730440&hm___action=http%3a%2f%2fbelledejour%2duk%2eblogspot%2ecom%2f
(I can't do fancy links)
― Anna (Anna), Thursday, 13 November 2003 13:44 (twenty-one years ago)
― Anna (Anna), Thursday, 13 November 2003 13:46 (twenty-one years ago)
― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Thursday, 13 November 2003 13:47 (twenty-one years ago)
http://belledejour-uk.blogspot.com/
― Anna (Anna), Thursday, 13 November 2003 13:48 (twenty-one years ago)
― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 13 November 2003 13:49 (twenty-one years ago)
― Madchen (Madchen), Thursday, 13 November 2003 13:50 (twenty-one years ago)
― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 13 November 2003 13:51 (twenty-one years ago)
― Anna (Anna), Thursday, 13 November 2003 13:54 (twenty-one years ago)
― Tim (Tim), Thursday, 13 November 2003 13:56 (twenty-one years ago)
I don't know if this is because of my inherant distrust of blogs, or my inherant distrust of people with "alternative sexual lifestyles" (and I ain't talking about homosexuality before you ask).
― Citizen Kate (kate), Thursday, 13 November 2003 13:57 (twenty-one years ago)
Not hairy enough.
― Madchen (Madchen), Thursday, 13 November 2003 13:58 (twenty-one years ago)
― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Thursday, 13 November 2003 14:03 (twenty-one years ago)
― Citizen Kate (kate), Thursday, 13 November 2003 14:07 (twenty-one years ago)
― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Thursday, 13 November 2003 14:21 (twenty-one years ago)
― Pashmina (Pashmina), Thursday, 13 November 2003 14:25 (twenty-one years ago)
― Joanthan Z., Thursday, 13 November 2003 14:42 (twenty-one years ago)
― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 13 November 2003 14:44 (twenty-one years ago)
― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Thursday, 13 November 2003 14:47 (twenty-one years ago)
― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 13 November 2003 14:49 (twenty-one years ago)
― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Thursday, 13 November 2003 14:52 (twenty-one years ago)
― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 13 November 2003 14:53 (twenty-one years ago)
― tokyo rosemary (rosemary), Thursday, 13 November 2003 14:56 (twenty-one years ago)
― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 13 November 2003 14:57 (twenty-one years ago)
― Citizen Kate (kate), Thursday, 13 November 2003 14:58 (twenty-one years ago)
I dunno. It could easily be real. Maybe she's a nympho.
― Sarah McLusky (coco), Thursday, 13 November 2003 14:59 (twenty-one years ago)
― @d@ml (nordicskilla), Thursday, 13 November 2003 15:00 (twenty-one years ago)
― teeny (teeny), Thursday, 13 November 2003 15:02 (twenty-one years ago)
I don't know, but even on a very cursory reading, this sounds like a fantasy (college girl who likes reading Eugenides and Rick Moody, sounds like a caption for a soft porn shoot) with too many unlikely episodes ("my hand goes where no hand has gone before. Namely up a woman who is on the phone to her boyfriend in Italy." - bad porn writing alert!)
Plus, that line about getting her London geography wrong, as if she's trying not to get caught out...
― Jonathan Z., Thursday, 13 November 2003 15:10 (twenty-one years ago)
― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 13 November 2003 15:14 (twenty-one years ago)
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 13 November 2003 16:09 (twenty-one years ago)
!!!!!!!!!!
― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 10:08 (twenty-one years ago)
― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 10:09 (twenty-one years ago)
― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 10:39 (twenty-one years ago)
!!
― toby (tsg20), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 12:02 (twenty-one years ago)
― suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 12:09 (twenty-one years ago)
― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 12:12 (twenty-one years ago)
― suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 12:15 (twenty-one years ago)
― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 12:17 (twenty-one years ago)
― Dr. C (Dr. C), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 13:14 (twenty-one years ago)
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 13:57 (twenty-one years ago)
― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 14:01 (twenty-one years ago)
― El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 14:03 (twenty-one years ago)
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 14:06 (twenty-one years ago)
― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 14:06 (twenty-one years ago)
― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 14:11 (twenty-one years ago)
― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 14:14 (twenty-one years ago)
― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 14:15 (twenty-one years ago)
― El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 14:18 (twenty-one years ago)
^^yeah i agree, i think i mentally filed it as a more risqué bridget jones aimed at a similar audience
― lex pretend, Sunday, 15 November 2009 15:58 (fifteen years ago)
i haven't actually read it for, like, 5 years but the tone was down-to-earth and humorous rather than titillating, wasn't it?
― lex pretend, Sunday, 15 November 2009 15:59 (fifteen years ago)
“Look, of course trafficking occurs. It’s awful. Awful. Desperate. But you don’t have a go at prostitutes — you have a go at border controls. You do something on the policing front. I thought his remarks were so reductive and also slightly patriarchal, and I was upset at being used as a counter-argument — ‘Belle de Jour says this, but she is of course fake.’
“The thing is that people are complex. People lead complicated lives. I’m not the only person walking around who’s an ex-call-girl, believe me. And you can’t say I’m not real, and that my experience isn’t real, because here I am.
“Some sex workers have terrible experiences. I didn’t. I was unbelievably fortunate in every respect. The people at the agency looked after us appropriately and instructed us appropriately and weren’t going to put us in harm’s way if they could possibly avoid it.”
She is, she says, “entitled to speak about it, or write about it, as I lived it”.
This isn't good enough. Her sheer evasiveness of India Knight's concerns over the image of prostitution she's helped perpetuate is somehow even worse given that she actually used to be a call girl. I'm a little disappointed Knight didn't push her harder on this issue.
― Space Battle Rothko (Matt DC), Sunday, 15 November 2009 16:10 (fifteen years ago)
India Knight is appalling though. Check out this atrocity on the death of the dinner party from last week's paper.
― Ismael Klata, Sunday, 15 November 2009 16:23 (fifteen years ago)
you're ascribing an agenda to b.de jour that i'm not sure exists matt - hasn't she repeatedly said that she's not trying to "perpetuate" any image of prostitution, just to tell her own story? and that one shouldn't generalise about the industry?
― lex pretend, Sunday, 15 November 2009 16:30 (fifteen years ago)
It doesn't matter whether she's "trying" to perpetuate anything, she is perpetuating it. And she's not telling her own story, it's primarily a work of fiction and any elements of her own story that are there are clearly embellished enormously.
― Space Battle Rothko (Matt DC), Sunday, 15 November 2009 16:46 (fifteen years ago)
I don't think pointing out that the blog was/is poorly-written (which I think it is), or pointing out that the fact that this is a news story at all is an indictment of news values in yer modern media is "sour dismissiveness", really.
― mu-mu (Pashmina), Sunday, 15 November 2009 17:00 (fifteen years ago)
TBF no-one here has exactly talked about news values in yer modern media here so much as suggested that the reason no-one should give a shit is that this was a thing in 2003 rather than 2009. Which doesn't strike me as the primary reason that no-one should give a shit y'know? I mean it's all a very Sunday Times type story so I can see why they jumped on it given that their readership doesn't chiefly comprise jaded ilxors, but I read the link, then went to the shop and it was on the front fucking page of the paper! Which *was* a bit woah.
― The Execution Of Garu G (DJ Mencap), Sunday, 15 November 2009 17:11 (fifteen years ago)
she was being doorstepped for the past month by reporters who had figured it out, the times is just who she decided to finally tell, to make it all go away.. fyi
― Tracer Hand, Sunday, 15 November 2009 17:17 (fifteen years ago)
as a writer of semi-autobiographical fiction who has explicitly stated that her experiences shouldn't be taken as a reflection of the whole spectrum of prostitution, i don't see what else she's obliged to say.
it's not an indictment of any values, it was a good and interesting feature.
xps
― lex pretend, Sunday, 15 November 2009 17:17 (fifteen years ago)
i mean i can understand why people are jaded and it's mostly justifiable but kneejerk jadedness is so tedious, and misplaced here
― lex pretend, Sunday, 15 November 2009 17:18 (fifteen years ago)
I didn't think the feature was interesting (only read about 1/2 of it before ennui set in), but I think India Knight is a poor writer, I didn't like her style at all when she wrote for the Observer or the Guardian, I forget, and I haven't cared much for anything I've seen with her byline since.
I thought at least one person did mention news values! Maybe I'm projecting. I think it's a nothing story, which doesn't deserve to be in the news at all, let alone on the front page! It's one of the few things that still winds me up about "the media", this endless stream of trivia stories, pushed up into "news", for reasons which I just don't get. This is just one more such thing, it annoys me, it's not important, barely even gossip-column material really.
― mu-mu (Pashmina), Sunday, 15 November 2009 17:34 (fifteen years ago)
anonymous author of best-selling, widely-covered book dealing w/hot-button topic reveals her identity, thus opening up the possibility of talking about that topic in more detail = this is absolutely a feature worth publishing! even if it is a bit out of date. front page splash is weird but it's exactly the right thing for a weekend magazine feature. and jeez, if we limited newspapers to SERIOUS IMPORTANT ISSUES only they'd be even smaller than they're becoming.
i mean if you thought belle de jour was a good writer in the first place you might think differently?
― lex pretend, Sunday, 15 November 2009 17:48 (fifteen years ago)
whenever people complain about trivial fluff stories in the newspaper they often seem to think that the SERIOUS IMPORTANT APPROPRIATE topics are eg politics, even though that world (as reported) is even more trivial, superficial and meaningless.
― lex pretend, Sunday, 15 November 2009 17:50 (fifteen years ago)
Sorry Pash, Mike did actually mention news values - he seems to be a bit more positive towards the whole circus tho
― The Execution Of Garu G (DJ Mencap), Sunday, 15 November 2009 18:00 (fifteen years ago)
I think that stuff which actually affects people's lives in some material way, which generally would be more politically based stories, I think? Although not politics as reported in the UK press, which I agree is often trivial and superficial - is more important, and thus more newsworthy than some stupid viral internet thing from six years ago, yes.
I would be quite happy to see less newspapers, and the newspapers that exist shrink in size. I think that one of the main problems with the UK national press is that there's too much of it. Too much space to fill, week after week.
If she was a better writer, then I might think differently about it, maybe I'd rather see her write her own story instead of having it mediated for us by India Knight, who is no better a writer than BdJ herself, possibly worse.
Issues such as these are why I haven't bought a Sunday newspaper in over a year, and rarely buy read a daily.
― mu-mu (Pashmina), Sunday, 15 November 2009 18:12 (fifteen years ago)
Yes I would, but then it would be something approaching literature as opposed to something that's basically useless fluff. I think people have every right to be sour and dismissive about it regardless of its newsworthiness*, because the writing is terrible, the politics or avoidance of the politics behind it are dubious at best, the interview is by-and-large a free pass by a previously harsh critic of BDJ and it's an internet fad that is about four years past its sell-by date.
It's not kneejerk jadedness it's entirely justified jadedness about something which is generally indefensible on any grounds other than making loads of cash for the person who wrote it.
*I think it is newsworthy, maybe not front page newsworthy but who knows what that even means any more.
― Space Battle Rothko (Matt DC), Sunday, 15 November 2009 18:20 (fifteen years ago)
(x-post)
Yeah, but Mike's part of the blogosphere, including a couple of anonymous ones who've already been outed. You need to adjust for solidarity bias.
'Girl with a One Trick Pony One Track Mind - a blog by Abby Lee (pen name of Zoe Margolis, in which the author writes in detail about her life as a sexually active young woman in London. Outed by the Sunday Tmes in 2006 ("By day she worked on Harry Potter. But by night ...")
Petite Anglais - As anonymous blogger Petite Anglaise, Catherine Sanderson chronicled her life as an English single mother in Paris - and was sacked from an accountancy firm when unmasked.
What a tired clapped out internet meme this is, he added - no doubt sourly.
― Bob Six, Sunday, 15 November 2009 18:21 (fifteen years ago)
if belle de jour was just a "viral internet thing" then sure, but the bestselling book(s) and successful tv adaptation would seem to indicate it has a bit more traction than that! it's a no-brainer for the arts section and while front page is a bit excessive, definitely deserves to be pulled into the news section too.
i'm not really familiar with the oeuvre of india knight but that wasn't a badly written piece.
― lex pretend, Sunday, 15 November 2009 18:23 (fifteen years ago)
basically where you're all wrong is in seeing belle de jour as just an internet fad/internet meme.
― lex pretend, Sunday, 15 November 2009 18:28 (fifteen years ago)
Yeah it's not *just* an internet fad but as a phenomenon in it's own right its still one of declining interest as you can tell by one look at the TV show's viewing figures.
― Space Battle Rothko (Matt DC), Sunday, 15 November 2009 18:41 (fifteen years ago)
lex the answer to your q about "DU" vs "DE" is that it's a poetic thing - i.e. "city of night" by john rechy
― Tracer Hand, Sunday, 15 November 2009 20:22 (fifteen years ago)
that is good to know! does it apply across the board, wherever "du" might apply?
― lex pretend, Sunday, 15 November 2009 20:32 (fifteen years ago)
It's been a slow old Sunday, newswise, hasn't it?
― Madchen, Sunday, 15 November 2009 22:37 (fifteen years ago)
"Y2K bug brings down grocery till in Staines"
― Tracer Hand, Sunday, 15 November 2009 22:38 (fifteen years ago)
lex i'm not sure but i can think of other things like that, like the Arc de Triomphe - it's not an arch of THE triumph ("oh, THAT triumph?") but of triumph in general i guess
― Tracer Hand, Sunday, 15 November 2009 22:39 (fifteen years ago)
I kind of agree with lex here, it's obviously of interest considering the popularity of the books, shows etc. Of course it's going to be covered in the news. It could've been a better written or more interesting article, certainly.
― Nhex, Sunday, 15 November 2009 23:05 (fifteen years ago)
There are many known instances of well to do, educated young women paying their way thru university by being escorts for a little bit. Its not new and its not news.
Havent read the blog, mind.
― hulk would smash (Trayce), Sunday, 15 November 2009 23:37 (fifteen years ago)
Will this make more people watch the film? If so, some good.
― grobravara hollaglob (dowd), Sunday, 15 November 2009 23:53 (fifteen years ago)
Also in this week's Sunday Times, Makosi reveals what really happened in the Big Brother jacuzzi.
― Space Battle Rothko (Matt DC), Monday, 16 November 2009 00:51 (fifteen years ago)
I kind of agree with lex here, it's obviously of interest considering the popularity of the books, shows etc.
Not really sure what the disagreement is. This is certainly newsworthy, though not really interested if it should have been on the front page of the Sunday Times or the Arts and Culture section.
I don't see any problem with the dismissiveness - with India Knight's unquestioning interview* , with the quality of BdJ's writing, or why the news coverage generally.
* e.g.
"I have a pathological aversion to being in debt. My mother’s family are Jewish; there’s this hoarding thing, saving, being prepared "
WTF?, as the Telegraph observed...
― Bob Six, Monday, 16 November 2009 08:19 (fifteen years ago)
mike, how did you work out her identity? presumably you can say now...
I still can't really say, because it involves other people. I put a few things together, made an inspired guess, and had the guess confirmed. Then once I did know, I was able to spot all sorts of clues that were only apparent to people who knew. I've done a blog post about it. It's in the usual place.
― mike t-diva, Monday, 16 November 2009 10:15 (fifteen years ago)
Mike thanks to your blog post I worked out I know someone who knows her personally. Clearly this is god's punishment for me spending most of yesterday being snarky.
― Space Battle Rothko (Matt DC), Monday, 16 November 2009 10:19 (fifteen years ago)
really interesting post mike! if you feel like saying one more thing, i want to know what the chance remark from billie piper was. presumably unintended on her part?
― lex pretend, Monday, 16 November 2009 10:27 (fifteen years ago)
http://thegrandnarrative.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/beating-a-dead-horse.gif
― LOL my penny (Masonic Boom), Monday, 16 November 2009 10:35 (fifteen years ago)
Is there any proof that she actually was a call-girl and wasn't making it all up?
― Zelda Zonk, Monday, 16 November 2009 10:46 (fifteen years ago)
looks more like a tubby llama to me xp
― The Execution Of Garu G (DJ Mencap), Monday, 16 November 2009 10:51 (fifteen years ago)
xpost: Unintended, yes. And that's all you're getting, sorry!
― mike t-diva, Monday, 16 November 2009 11:24 (fifteen years ago)
she's quite fit
― I sb'ed your mum (ken c), Monday, 16 November 2009 15:12 (fifteen years ago)
I am trying to imagine the eyebrow-raising and level of snark by my former colleagues at her current place of work.
― Not the real Village People, Monday, 16 November 2009 21:52 (fifteen years ago)
Mike thanks to your blog post I worked out I know someone who knows her personally. Clearly this is god's punishment for me spending most of yesterday being snarky.― Space Battle Rothko (Matt DC), Monday, 16 November 2009 10:19 (11 hours ago) Bookmark
Dr C and N. right?
― I sb'ed your mum (ken c), Monday, 16 November 2009 22:16 (fifteen years ago)
Me and Belle de Jour – ‘Could it be Brooke?’ - another member of our shadowy little UK blogging cabal finally breaks rank.
― mike t-diva, Monday, 16 November 2009 22:44 (fifteen years ago)
saw her being interviewed by billie piper yesterday. surprisingly cheery 'chatty' type of interview (though a hard serious interview prob wouldnt work would it) and not sure i totally believed her (understandable) front. seemed a bit of an intellectual pose. she seemed quite vulnerable beneath the surface. wasnt too hard to see. i think she should have remained anon though. more interesting.
― titchy (titchyschneiderMk2), Wednesday, 3 February 2010 10:00 (fifteen years ago)
is that video up anywhere?
― Nhex, Wednesday, 3 February 2010 18:02 (fifteen years ago)
Billie.And.The.Real.Belle.Bare.All.2010.WS.PDTV.XviD-aAF is at most places. Was this women in a car accident or burned? She has bad scarring on her face. She also seems to have lost her American accident.
― svend, Wednesday, 3 February 2010 18:07 (fifteen years ago)
did they really bare all?
― the highest per-vote vag so far (history mayne), Wednesday, 3 February 2010 18:08 (fifteen years ago)
... Lost her American accent.
― svend, Wednesday, 3 February 2010 18:09 (fifteen years ago)
thanks svend, i'll be looking for that soon.
― Nhex, Wednesday, 3 February 2010 18:21 (fifteen years ago)
i was surprised about the scarring. i wonder what happened. and when that happened.
― titchy (titchyschneiderMk2), Thursday, 4 February 2010 11:13 (fifteen years ago)
Angry pimp?
― smashing aspirant (milo z), Thursday, 4 February 2010 15:39 (fifteen years ago)