I love advice columns. LOOOOVE. If I could write one I'd be the happiest clam in the raw bar plateau. But I don't. So I'll critique.
Today I finally realized what doesn't sit right with me about the relatively new New York Times Style column "Social Q's." The advice tries harder to be cute than to be helpful. But more than that, Philip Galanes only (kinda) answers the questions asked (he's too busy making cute pronouncements rather than sticking to the story, much like how Family Guy hides behind non sequiturs while South Park artfully works its points into the plot), unlike The Divine Dan Savage, who not only fully answers the query at hand but provides teachable moments for all of us, whether we can relate to the exact issue described. THAT is how a good advice columnist advises.
Posts
