Los Angeles agazine -- where old L.A. Weekly writers go when it's time to sell out and pick some of The Man's money.

So you are saying people at the L.A.
Weekly haven't sold out?
I actually think L.A. Magazine does
some damn good journalism that doesn't
get the pub it should because the
publication has a glossy, coffee-table
reputation.
Name me one L.A. Weekly story in the last
year that really made waves?
While you answer, I'll be taking a
Bahamian cruise.

The pay differential between LA Mag and the Weekly is not as great as you think; neither is the exposure. Their images--glossy versus pulp--are utterly at odds; I suspect there are few people who respect both publications. What a writer who wants to make cash (TE's poverty-a-noble-writer-makes theory is, I think, mostly fantasy) AND have their work appreciated is a venue that neither attractively gathers dust nor is perused mainly for movie listings, something along the lines of LAT. Even people who deplore the Times read it.

It's true the Weekly pays well: I once got a $3k kill fee from them.

hell, I'd pay a lot more than 3,000 bucks to not read any more of Cathy Seipp's stories.

The idea that a cathy seipp piece is ever "killed" is utterly false. Cathy's pieces are like that hand that comes out at the end of "Carrie," ...just when you thought George christy/Rick Orlov/lunch with Loh/Big Nurse/my days at Buzz/Dad/daugher/ex-husband has been farmed out to some paper in Thailand, you feel the cold hand of Seipp pullin' ya back in. Even her death will be repurposed.

For someone who seems not to like her, you
sure do know a lot about her.
Morbid fascination or secret attraction,
the paradox does flutter.

Funny, but untrue. Seipp always comes fresh.

And regarding Los Angeles magazine, I have to say ... Keven Roderick and RJ Smith are in there, no? Roderick did get behind City Hall's suspiciously overpriced PR firm before this pay to play scandal really got going.

Don't judge a book by its cover.

hey, it's just a joke with this repurposing stuff. I'm Cathy's biggest fan since Luke Ford. You can look it up.

Alan, do give us your piercing personal analysis of what makes Cathy's work so unreadable. PS I believe you loathe me and my work, too. Hmm, here's an idea: If you pay me $3000, I promise I won't mail any copies of my column to your house.

Actually, your thing with Cathy has gotta be either a grudge or a crush, or you wouldn't crawl out of your hole every time her name is mentioned here just to disparage her, then crawl back in. Because even people who vehemently disagree with Cathy's political views (I believe they're called lefties) find her writing entertaining. What happened, did she back over your kitten? Tell, tell!

I don't hate you Amy. I don't hate Cathy either. I've actually met both of you and you were both fairly presentable, poseurs that you are.

What I DO hate is the way you flaunt your syndication deals, French cell phones, million dollar kill fees and your inability to be gracious to people who you disagree with. (I point you to the way you mocked a less successful writer on your Web site. Her name may have been Stephanie, but I'm not sure)

It's declasse, lacks even a veneer of elegance and reeks of a new-money worldview.

But I don't begrudge the success of talentless hacks -- people who work hard deserve their rewards. They just shouldn't trick themselves into thinking they have anything worthwhile to say.

(I point you to the way you mocked a less successful writer on your Web site. Her name may have been Stephanie, but I'm not sure)

Noble, but really not worth the time, Allan. (Sharp as Cathy and Amy think they are, that was not my writing.)

I'm forced to do too much scrolling down to stay in tune with this cage fight. Could you start your bitchslapping on a new thread higher up in this comment bar? Mah finger is gettin' sore!