Why are your “open letters” so empty and utterly devoid of meaning? Have you no congressman at whom to direct your sass? Most recently, not a soul with wifi could avoid Sinead O’Connor’s multiple public missives to Miley, or even Sufjan Stevens’ (I know, right?) tangentially relevant appeal to Miley’s grammar, making an open letter the essential A/W ’13 must-have. However, like many an ill-conceived runway trend, it has left its wearers looking immature and starved for attention. Never the look.
An open letter, particularly between two parties with enough clout to find a reasonable intermediary through which to arrange private communication, is the most dastardly form of concern-trolling, in that any benefit to the recipient is immediately mitigated by the bickering chorus of voices that ensue. At best, it comes off as a race for public approval, and at worst, a telling display of mental instability and emotional immaturity. The fact is, Sinead has a point when she says that Miley is worth more than her body, just like Miley is under no obligation to alter her due course regardless. But when celebrities act like media outlets and dole out insincere advice, it just makes them look bored, since they’re clearly not getting paid to do so.
Sinead used to burn Pope photos, but now she’s writing think pieces about twerk videos for free; just look at where open letters can get you. The one surprising winner in all this is the crafty Sufjan Stevens, who was on Pitchfork earlier this year for a typography beef he started with another band. I guess the silver lining here exists for simpering singer-songwriters in need of buzz.
The bottom line? If you’re famous enough that your open letter will reach its intended target, you should probably just have your people call their people. Doing lunch is a lot cuter than bitchslapping each other with public blog posts, mkay?