"Whoa," was the one-word comment by "Emily, New York," in response to the New York Times Sunday magazine excerpt of their staffer David Carr's memoir, The Night of the Gun. Which means that whatever deity might exist suggests a compare and contrast! Let's delve into the comments left for Carr versus the comments left for Emily Gould's own New York Times magazine essay, back in May.

For Carr:

Monetizing your shameful past is disgusting. Haven't you harmed your loved ones enough for one lifetime?

-- Beck Childs, France

For Gould:

Is this supposed to be a redemptive missive, a one last outing of the demon before the self-described "writer" reforms her ways? It reads like a self-glorifying recounting of minutiae, a means to justify her abuse of self and those closest to her. And the delusions of grandeur that her therapist detected will not be quelled with The New York Times granting her this space and the accompanying, bizarre portraits.

-- amelie, illinois

For Carr:

Hey, everyone has to make a living. If people want to buy it, mazel tov. but another drug memoir?! another memoir of any kind?! in the wake of James Frey, caveat emptor. (Who did have the gun?)

-- William Brigham, Scotts Valley CA

For Gould:

I expect more from the New York Times. This article was nothing more than the ramblings of a moronic juvenile who calls herself a writer. I hope that the New York Times is not paying her for this piece. I long for the days when writers were people who had something to say.

-- Joseph, Manhattan

For Carr:

Yikes. The Times hits a new low in its search for cheap writing. Carr's on staff, right?
Talk is cheap and so is most writing. Thinking must cost more because there doesn't seem to be a lot of it going around here.
Can we please find a new trend to replace "Reporters who like to write about themselves?" The Sixties and Seventies are long gone.

-- arty, New York

For Gould:

Addiction is a state in which the body relies on a substance for normal functioning. When this substance is removed, it can cause withdrawal. It was first used in 1906, in reference to opium (there is an isolated instance from 1779, with ref. to tobacco). The first use of the adjective addict (with the meaning of "delivered, devoted") was in 1529 and comes from Latin addictus, pp. of addicere ("deliver, yield, devote," from ad-, "to" + dicere, "say, declare").[1]

Addiction was a term used to describe a devotion, attachment, dedication, inclination, etc. Nowadays, however, the term addiction is used to describe a recurring compulsion by an individual to engage in some specific activity, despite harmful consequences to the individual's health, mental state or social life.

Is this what you mean by "intimate online experience?"

-- dazze, chicago, usa

For Carr:

Druggie addicts stories sell these days. Jump on the bandwagon...

ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Who cares. grow some guts. we all have problems. most of us don't blame drugs or alcohol... you want a medal for doing your job and being a father?

PLEASE....

-- Bill W, Washington DC

For Gould:

it all seems so remarkably self-indulgent and yet so completely trivial, no offense. really, the details of your life are no more interesting than those of anyone else's. they are of interest only to you and those who care about you and the occasional bored gawker who is, really, nothing more than a social coward hiding in the anonymity of the internet.

go do something worthwhile so that other people can write about you instead.

-- bill, cambridge, MA

For Carr:

Whatever happened to stories? Yet another me-me story. I don't really care if there were drugs involved, narcissism is getting too much space in this newspaper. At least I don't subscribe!!!

-- 2MUCHOVERSHARING, Brooklyn, NY

For Gould:

Interesting, I got bored by second page with the nacissism of a lengthy article writing about the youthful nacissist need to blog, blog blog (replace yada, yada, yada... perhaps). Then in an introspective moment I realized I must have ADD if I could not make it past two pages of an article. But I regained my composure and continue to blame it on the content. Why am I responding here... that is an introspective intrigue for another time.

-- RJAN, LONG ISLAND, NY

For Carr:

Why does this man deserve a top posting on the New York Times Home page? Why? Someone. Anyone. Please tell me why?

-- Amy, Jacksonville

For Gould:

Why is this article on the top of the times home page?? This is what is important to us??

-- ML, new york

For everyone:

If you ever want to lose faith in humanity, read any comments section on the internet.

-- benjamin.dolnick, brooklyn