ms_jennyd's review against another edition
4.0
This book was fascinating. I’m a huge fan of Ryan Holiday’s books and this is one of my favorites. I love how he weaves conspiracies of history through the central story. You’ll find yourself rooting for someone then their opponent. Disgusted by Gawker, and then horrified at the consequences. It’s a good read, and you’ll be thinking about it after you put it down.
arthuraugustyn's review against another edition
2.0
Holiday is a good writer but an unbelievably poor person to tell this story. By the second chapter I was noting in the margins whenever Holiday performed editorializing, mind-reading, or flat out bias. I read this book as someone who truly hated Gawker, but even I thought Holiday's shilling for Thiel as a Christlike figure was insane.
The thing to know is at the end of the book, Holiday acknowledges the book only happened because Thiel approached him to write it after Holiday wrote a flowery op-ed favoring Thiel's position after his involvement was revealed. This book was literally commissioned by the subject of its story and I can only assume there was pressure — indirect or otherwise — to make Thiel look good.
The book reads well but is borderline propaganda. Interesting anecdotes from the conspiracy, but I had to take it all with a huge grain of salt.
The thing to know is at the end of the book, Holiday acknowledges the book only happened because Thiel approached him to write it after Holiday wrote a flowery op-ed favoring Thiel's position after his involvement was revealed. This book was literally commissioned by the subject of its story and I can only assume there was pressure — indirect or otherwise — to make Thiel look good.
The book reads well but is borderline propaganda. Interesting anecdotes from the conspiracy, but I had to take it all with a huge grain of salt.
cogsofencouragement's review against another edition
4.0
A Modern Mrs. Darcy rec, and on sale. I was not familiar with the story because I was busy watching educational cartoons with my tiny tots at the time this would have been covered in the news. I enjoyed the writing style and think the description as a page turner is accurate.
Though I hold the individuals involved ultimately accountable, I do agree with this sentiment:
“It would be a little more elegant if the reading public recognized their own contribution, that they get precisely the media that they click on and talk about.” I’m not sure that happened. I wish it would.
Though I hold the individuals involved ultimately accountable, I do agree with this sentiment:
“It would be a little more elegant if the reading public recognized their own contribution, that they get precisely the media that they click on and talk about.” I’m not sure that happened. I wish it would.
caradeane's review
dark
informative
medium-paced
3.5
#12 for your girl. If Peter Thiel was a girl, he’d be named Cara. 💅🏽 For there are no bounds to his petty. A gay businessman who was not hiding but was also was sort of outed in 2007 by the celebrity blog Gawker. Well, first life lesson in this sordid tale— is know thy enemy. Peter Thiel, the co founder of PayPal and Palantir (and also a billionaire many times over), takes slight offense to being thrust in the public spotlight and so he hires a team… who sits in the shadows FOR YEARS and patiently waits for the perfect time and place to strike. Enter Hulk Hogan— who in 2012, FIVE YEARS LATER, is non-consensually taped having consensual sex with his consenting best friend’s consenting wife (while going on the ol racist rant every now and again while on video)… he’s not the gleaming victim of innocence (because let’s be honest, every layer of the tape is a disgusting indictment of this washed up B-list celebrity…) BUT it is the prime example of Gawker outing a personal moment to the world when they should not have. Yet again. Thiel secretly funds the lawsuit that in 2016 (more than a decade from his initial offense!) doesn’t just wound the ginormous media empire but casts it into oblivion— with a $140 million award to Hogan that is bargained down to $31 million and bankruptcy for Gawker. (Bye, Gawker.) So the lessons are— Careful what bears you poke. Or maybe, be kind lest you meet karma. Or maybe sometimes a conspiracy really is… but also, a wise poet once said… if you don’t want a sex tape on the internet, don’t make a sex tape. I would add to that nugget that if you don’t want a sex tape on the internet also don’t have sex with your sleazy best friend’s weirdo wife in their home while your best friend hangs out in his office and waits for y’all to finish.
Red flag.
Conspiracy. 💯
#iread #chasingcarabooks #chasingcarabooks2023
Red flag.
Conspiracy. 💯
#iread #chasingcarabooks #chasingcarabooks2023
rumbledethumps's review against another edition
1.0
In the introduction to this book, Holiday makes this statement: "[I attempted] to make something more than just some work of contemporary long-form journalism or some chronological retelling of events by a disinterested observer (which I am not)." And then a few pages later, makes this contradictory statement: "In the meantime and for the record, I simply present what happened." I should have known what I was in for.
This book is very much a lionization of Peter Thiel. Holiday repeatedly avoids making judgments on what Thiel did, but simultaneously portrays Thiel as heroic. While at a private dinner party at Thiel's home after the trial, Holiday follows him on to the balcony and muses, "I stood a few paces behind and felt myself recalling the line from Hamlet: 'He was a man, take him for all in all, I shall not look upon his like again.'"
We are presented with a man who seeks revenge on someone who did him wrong, and ruminates, plots, and plans for 10 years, before finally slaying his nemesis; and yet we are expected to see him as someone who has seen a wrong in the world and righted it. Post hoc rationalizations and dehumanization of his opponent allow him to turn a personal grudge into a mission to make the world a better place. "'I came to believe that the nastiness of the internet was not a function of a technology or various things that have gone wrong, but the function of one particularly nasty media company led by a particularly sociopathic individual and that if I defeated Gawker, it would actually change the media landscape,' Thiel would say." To which my only response can be: How'd that work out, 5 years later? Is the media landscape a better place?
Holiday sees it this way: "what is indisputable is that he saw his actions as a kind of social good and there is something to be admired in that." How many evil acts in human history were committed by people who saw their actions as a kind of social good? Is there something to be admired in those as well?
I don't particularly care about Gawker, nor do I particularly care about Thiel. And I'm not even looking at the implications of a billionaire destroying a media outlet because he didn't like what they wrote about him. For this review, I'm just concerned about the book. It feels dishonest. As much as Holiday tries to act like he has no opinion of Thiel's actions, I think he's just maybe too timid to express his opinion directly. Instead, he writes things like this: "The line from the Obamas was 'When they go low, we go high.' It’s a dignified and impressive mantra, if only because for the most part, whether you liked them or not, it’s hard to deny that they followed it. But the now cliché remark should not be taken conclusively, for it makes one dangerous omission. It forgets that from time to time in life, we might have to take someone out behind the woodshed."
This book is very much a lionization of Peter Thiel. Holiday repeatedly avoids making judgments on what Thiel did, but simultaneously portrays Thiel as heroic. While at a private dinner party at Thiel's home after the trial, Holiday follows him on to the balcony and muses, "I stood a few paces behind and felt myself recalling the line from Hamlet: 'He was a man, take him for all in all, I shall not look upon his like again.'"
We are presented with a man who seeks revenge on someone who did him wrong, and ruminates, plots, and plans for 10 years, before finally slaying his nemesis; and yet we are expected to see him as someone who has seen a wrong in the world and righted it. Post hoc rationalizations and dehumanization of his opponent allow him to turn a personal grudge into a mission to make the world a better place. "'I came to believe that the nastiness of the internet was not a function of a technology or various things that have gone wrong, but the function of one particularly nasty media company led by a particularly sociopathic individual and that if I defeated Gawker, it would actually change the media landscape,' Thiel would say." To which my only response can be: How'd that work out, 5 years later? Is the media landscape a better place?
Holiday sees it this way: "what is indisputable is that he saw his actions as a kind of social good and there is something to be admired in that." How many evil acts in human history were committed by people who saw their actions as a kind of social good? Is there something to be admired in those as well?
I don't particularly care about Gawker, nor do I particularly care about Thiel. And I'm not even looking at the implications of a billionaire destroying a media outlet because he didn't like what they wrote about him. For this review, I'm just concerned about the book. It feels dishonest. As much as Holiday tries to act like he has no opinion of Thiel's actions, I think he's just maybe too timid to express his opinion directly. Instead, he writes things like this: "The line from the Obamas was 'When they go low, we go high.' It’s a dignified and impressive mantra, if only because for the most part, whether you liked them or not, it’s hard to deny that they followed it. But the now cliché remark should not be taken conclusively, for it makes one dangerous omission. It forgets that from time to time in life, we might have to take someone out behind the woodshed."
lizzierolley's review against another edition
Found extremely boring and focused on topics of faux wealth I couldn’t care for
irinagoldberg1's review against another edition
2.0
This book should have been a news article. The book is too long and the story is so dragged out that it was almost painful. In the end, I really don't care about anyone mentioned even though I thought I did care when I started the book.
A more interesting conspiracy would be that Peter Thiel is the actual author of this book.
A more interesting conspiracy would be that Peter Thiel is the actual author of this book.
alexager5028's review against another edition
3.0
I found this book to be an absolute page turner. Much credit to Ryan Holiday for his investigative reporting and ability to weave together a compelling narrative, especially with this being the first time he had written a book like it. I really enjoyed everything that had to do with the main plot involving Gawker, Denton, Thiel, and company. It was not only a fascinating story to follow, but an interesting character study of everyone involved and the anatomy of a conspiracy.
My only complaint about this book is Holiday's seeming ceaseless references to ancient conspiracies and some that seemingly had nothing to do with the one at hand. From Machiavelli (lots and lots of Machiavelli), to Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign and George Washington, this frequent interrupting of the narrative to establish often tenuous connection to a past conspiracy was unnecessary, in my opinion. Some of these references would have been fine, but it happened so often that I began to skip forward as soon as I read the name of a historical figure. It often took me out of the flow of the narrative and I would have enjoyed the book more without so many such detours.
My only complaint about this book is Holiday's seeming ceaseless references to ancient conspiracies and some that seemingly had nothing to do with the one at hand. From Machiavelli (lots and lots of Machiavelli), to Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign and George Washington, this frequent interrupting of the narrative to establish often tenuous connection to a past conspiracy was unnecessary, in my opinion. Some of these references would have been fine, but it happened so often that I began to skip forward as soon as I read the name of a historical figure. It often took me out of the flow of the narrative and I would have enjoyed the book more without so many such detours.
shivamt25's review against another edition
4.0
Ryan Holiday is a media critic in New York Observer and is an author of notable books such as The Obstacle is the Way and Ego is the Enemy. His new book, Conspiracy gives the readers a chance to know the inside planning which went on to destroy Gawker Media.
The book starts some 10 years back with an article on Gawker which outed the PayPal founder Peter Thiel as gay. After which it describes how Peter Thiel created a specialized team to bring down the Gawker empire along with its founder, Nick Denton. The case this team picked as a missile for the annihilation of Gawker was that of Hulk Hogan, a former wrestler, whose sex tape was leaked and posted on one of the websites of Gawker. The battle ended after approximately 10 years with Hulk Hogan a lot richer and Gawker bankrupt and sold.
The book works on many levels as it is more like a successful screenplay for a thrilling courtroom drama (I heard that a movie is in discussions). There is a hero who is, more or less, blameless and wants revenge for he was wronged by this big bad firm (evil organization) run by this unapologetic boss Denton(nemesis). So, he assembled a team which has a smart mastermind in mysterious but ambitious young man Mr. A and a hard-working lawyer, Harder. All they need was a weapon with which they can finish what they started, which they found in Hogan. In creating this movie-like impression, Holiday might have, unknowingly maybe, written this book with more of a sympathizing attitude towards Thiel. At many times he defends Thiel’s actions narrating them as innocent innocuous mistakes or overshadowing them with the validations of counteracting to Gawker’s or Denton’s misdemeanours. We get from the book that Gawker was a media firm which had no respect for people’s privacy, was involved in a lot of illegal activities and was so powerful that it was untouchable (indicating this highly, to say, even for a billionaire to topple it). And Theil is just a private person who was affected deeply and wanted the situation to change (but actually it felt more like he wanted revenge, just like any ordinary person). But the conspiracy the book is talking about did not look so great till the end as Theil’s actual goal of freeing the media space with such privacy penetrating firms wasn’t fulfilled.
The book is decent in the way it is written, just not in achieving its goal of convincing the readers about how immense this all was. But one thing which this book did is made me contemplate over how much the media and its consumption has changed from back then. The book described how Gawker became successful in the first place. It actually was a pure supply-demand game. There is no requirement of a gossip spreading website if there are no hungry for gossip readers. Nowadays, any such chatter is just a click away. It's just very tempting for us to click on such links, just have a look or forward it among friends. But what happens when such websites go too far? Does leaking a sex tape of some celebrity on the internet comes under journalism? Do firms like Gawker have the right to post something so personal to someone over the internet for everyone to see? Questions like these come to mind while reading the book and are well contested by counter attacks from questions about freedom of speech and freedom of the press (US Law, first amendment).
This is not the first case where firms like Gawker were criticized for targeting people with unsubstantiated posts online. The Internet has provided a tool to every blogger to report any gossip and leave it to someone else to defend it or provide explanations and confessions. The driving force is the numbers – the views, likes, shares and comments. “A story which increases these is a story worth publishing no matter what” is the new motto. In a recent example, Buzzfeed ran an article singling out Armie Hammer which made the latter delete his twitter account. Many celebrities have been the victims when their objectionable pictures were leaked online.
It is difficult to define what all can be reported in the name of entertainment. Some will say that people have the right to know and hence it’s our duty to publish. So, the question is where does one draw a line?
The book starts some 10 years back with an article on Gawker which outed the PayPal founder Peter Thiel as gay. After which it describes how Peter Thiel created a specialized team to bring down the Gawker empire along with its founder, Nick Denton. The case this team picked as a missile for the annihilation of Gawker was that of Hulk Hogan, a former wrestler, whose sex tape was leaked and posted on one of the websites of Gawker. The battle ended after approximately 10 years with Hulk Hogan a lot richer and Gawker bankrupt and sold.
The book works on many levels as it is more like a successful screenplay for a thrilling courtroom drama (I heard that a movie is in discussions). There is a hero who is, more or less, blameless and wants revenge for he was wronged by this big bad firm (evil organization) run by this unapologetic boss Denton(nemesis). So, he assembled a team which has a smart mastermind in mysterious but ambitious young man Mr. A and a hard-working lawyer, Harder. All they need was a weapon with which they can finish what they started, which they found in Hogan. In creating this movie-like impression, Holiday might have, unknowingly maybe, written this book with more of a sympathizing attitude towards Thiel. At many times he defends Thiel’s actions narrating them as innocent innocuous mistakes or overshadowing them with the validations of counteracting to Gawker’s or Denton’s misdemeanours. We get from the book that Gawker was a media firm which had no respect for people’s privacy, was involved in a lot of illegal activities and was so powerful that it was untouchable (indicating this highly, to say, even for a billionaire to topple it). And Theil is just a private person who was affected deeply and wanted the situation to change (but actually it felt more like he wanted revenge, just like any ordinary person). But the conspiracy the book is talking about did not look so great till the end as Theil’s actual goal of freeing the media space with such privacy penetrating firms wasn’t fulfilled.
The book is decent in the way it is written, just not in achieving its goal of convincing the readers about how immense this all was. But one thing which this book did is made me contemplate over how much the media and its consumption has changed from back then. The book described how Gawker became successful in the first place. It actually was a pure supply-demand game. There is no requirement of a gossip spreading website if there are no hungry for gossip readers. Nowadays, any such chatter is just a click away. It's just very tempting for us to click on such links, just have a look or forward it among friends. But what happens when such websites go too far? Does leaking a sex tape of some celebrity on the internet comes under journalism? Do firms like Gawker have the right to post something so personal to someone over the internet for everyone to see? Questions like these come to mind while reading the book and are well contested by counter attacks from questions about freedom of speech and freedom of the press (US Law, first amendment).
This is not the first case where firms like Gawker were criticized for targeting people with unsubstantiated posts online. The Internet has provided a tool to every blogger to report any gossip and leave it to someone else to defend it or provide explanations and confessions. The driving force is the numbers – the views, likes, shares and comments. “A story which increases these is a story worth publishing no matter what” is the new motto. In a recent example, Buzzfeed ran an article singling out Armie Hammer which made the latter delete his twitter account. Many celebrities have been the victims when their objectionable pictures were leaked online.
It is difficult to define what all can be reported in the name of entertainment. Some will say that people have the right to know and hence it’s our duty to publish. So, the question is where does one draw a line?