Yep, the inevitable: agency Trident is hawking a book proposal by the self-revealing former Gawker writer and controversial New York Times Magazine covergirl. The working title is And The Heart Says... Whatever; "I assume it's 400 pages of the word me in different fonts," says one publishing industry spy. Dewy Gould's latest career move isn't that surprising: Ana Marie Cox went out to publishers the week after the Wonkette editor appeared on the front cover of the same Sunday supplement. Gould's outline is being messengered rather than emailed to prevent a leak to a certain website. But I'm sure someone can sneak at least a few pages to the scanner. Email us.

It's lucky for Russia! magazine that former Gawker and new NYT Magazine covergirl Emily Gould has already split up with Russian-born novelist and n+1 editor Keith Gessen. Otherwise, they'd be in trouble! Out now in their new issue is Gould's profile of Russian-American writers—including Gessen.

Emily Gould, Day 9. The former Gawker editor turned New York Times Magazine covergirl (the article mentioned breakups and blogs) has childhood frenemies coming out of the woodwork! Second Skin interrupts their film's blog to let us know about a younger Emily, who was, not surprisingly, quite the little firecracker in middle school. Her antics occasionally resulted in backlash such as "An entire bottle of Sprite. Right on her head."

It's Day 8 of the Emily Gould saga, the former Gawker editor whose first-person blogging narrative that landed the cover of the New York Times Magazine. Our coverage of her is nothing personal, just business—she's officially a "person of interest"! Today's installment: some people, including Gould herself, seem to be offended by the article's accompanying photos, shot by fine art photographer Elinor Carucci. They're "intimate," like the text, but "intimate" also reads as "sexy," and God knows we can't have that. (Gould called them "vaguely cheesecakey" in a NYT Q&A.) Although the Observer wrote today that "the writer was involved in winnowing the photos to a dozen... 'when I saw the cover, I was shocked,' Ms. Gould said on the phone. Did she feel a tad exploited?"

The gossip has been coursing into our emails in various forms and tones for several weeks now: former Gawker editor (and newly minted NYT Mag essaysist) Emily Gould and n+1 editor and newly minted novelist Keith Gessen are no longer boyfriend-girlfriend. OK? We'll spare you the overlong analysis of possible root causes. So all you ladies who have been whispering about Keith's hotness from the back of his readings (I was there, I heard you!) can now say it to his face. Gessen's take on the situation? It was casually buried in his article in The Stranger last week:

When the Times shut down comments on Emily Gould's still-physically-unpublished magazine cover story Friday, we — OK, I — speculated the newspaper "might be having second thoughts" about the value of generating online buzz, "barring some kind of technical concern." Well, there doesn't appear to have been any technical concern, but, based on information from one Times source, it sounds more likely comments were closed to shift staff to newer stories.

So the commenters over at The New York Times' editorial about Sen. Hillary Clinton's assassination gaffe are all, "You suck, Hillary!" And after 686 such comments, the Gray Lady has pulled the plug. You can no longer express your opinion of the Senator there, just like you can no longer jump on the goonish hate pile that Emily Gould was treated to at that venerable news site. So congratulations, "Diplomatic," your frenzied "NOT ready on DAY ONE!!" will forever be the final word. Some other choice words after the jump.

It's a long holiday weekend, so perhaps by Tuesday there'll be nothing left to say about former Gawker editor Emily Gould's extensive New York Times Magazine cover story about sleeping with people and blogging about it and having panic attacks on bathroom floors? No? Well, in any case, The Huffington Post's Rachel Sklar, a Canadian, provides a tasty summary of the essay and the ensuing media cluster-fuck. "This was an extended blog post, an overlong 'Modern Love' essay, 7,937 words that did not venture beyond the author's own experience; for some perspective, the NYT's investigative expose on the Pentagon's purported ties to on-air military analysts had 7,486). And for what?"

For former Gawker blogger Emily Gould's raw "Blog-Post Confidential" essay in the upcoming New York Times Magazine, she was photographed by Elinor Carucci, who specializes in "portraits of everyday female vulnerability." The photo on the left is Emily Gould by Carucci, the one on the right is Carucci, from her Closer series. Shoot the Blog remarks that Carucci, admirably, is able to "delivers editorial imagery that is barely distinguishable from her own [fine art] work." That's the photographer equivalent of making it big writing personal narratives! (Click to enlarge.)

Times editors are apparently tired of people saying mean things about Emily Gould and about their own decision to publish her meditation on blogging, because they've shut down the comments section attached to Gould's magazine piece. Some 727 responses flooded in before the shutdown, even though the article won't be physically published until the Sunday issue. Many called the former Gawker editor narcissistic, self-indulgent and a bad writer and said her story was a waste of space; there were supporters, including people who praised Gould for having moved on from vicious, inconsequential Gawker and for pushing them to reexamine their own online personas. Whatever was said, the decision to shut down comments is bizarre, because just yesterday Times Magazine editor Gerry Marzorati told FishbowlNY the story was worthy of his cover precisely because of the discussion it would spark:

Occasionally, on this very website, enlightening debate breaks out. In between the clusterfucks and the bodysnarking, talk about blogging, the internet, the effect of technology on relationships, and the Way We Live Now occurs. In that case, Emily Gould's just-online article in next Sunday's New York Times Magazine has done what it set out to do. We found it fitting to highlight a conversation between commenters Cassandra and A Dismal Science. Are we all Emily? Is nobody Emily? Should we stone her to death, as is the Internet's custom? "There is not one Emily. There are millions of Emilys." Read on...

That New York Times Magazine cover story on the perils of online self-exposure is up online-and itself exposed to a still wider audience of gawkers. Oops, as author Emily Gould might say. There isn't much that hasn't already been discussed on this site or on the newspaper's own discussion board. But there's an adorable new photo. If you can't be bothered to read the text-which has already been blogged, commented and rehashed to the point of absurdity-Daily Intel's statisticians have quantified the narcissism in an easy-to-digest table.

Hey, bloggers! The countdown to the three-day weekend clusterfuck of examining and reexamining former Gawker editor Emily Gould's forthcoming New York Times Magazine piece may be cut short! Because The Observer has a copy, and it'll probably be online tomorrow. You are forewarned: there is a photo of a blogger at a laptop, blogging. It's just Emily's hands, though. According to Matt Haber, the piece is "heavily diaristic." Do you want to read about Julia Allison? Sure you do.

Matt Haber at the Observer points out that Emily Gould isn't the first Times magazine poster child for a generation shaped by technology. Joyce Maynard played the same role in 1972 as an 18-year-old whose cohorts were "the first to take technology for granted." The technology in question was television, which unlike the internet did not make it easier to, say, tell a cute boy how much you like putting things into your mouth or otherwise flirt. But Maynard's story still raised Troubling Questions about young people's prospects amid the onslaught of modernity, as Gould's apparently will:

"I'm going to try to never write about you," I whispered to the boy whose shoulder my head was on two nights ago. Oops. Emily Gould has made a writing career of her personal life and built a personal life around her writing career, exposing her relationships on a personal site and on Gawker when she was a writer on this site. Now, in a cover story for this coming weekend's New York Times Magazine, she does an accounting. "What I gained-and lost-by revealing my intimate life on the web," goes the cover line-over a sultry photograph of the author sprawled across a bed, a laptop power cord suggestively looping towards her tattooed arm.

This week, everybody's wondering why boys (yes, they call them boys) can't write anymore! In the Observer, Choire Sicha argues that with the current crop of women writers looming over them—Janet Malcolm, Ursula Le Guin, Didion, Dunn—dude writers simply can't concentrate, much less perform. " A little penis, it turns out, can be a dangerous thing," he writes. "But it's not crazy at all to feel bad for the young male writers of our time, despite all they have done to us with their books." Or what they haven't done to us with them! Debut novelist and n+1 editor Keith Gessen's photo, tragically, illustrates this article. And now Emily Gould chimes in on Galleycat. (Disclosure? "Whatever. Google me.")

Book publicist/author Sloane Crosley is so magically delicious that she even brightened the painful Sunday Styles feature on N+1 editor and Emily Gould-dater Keith Gessen in today's Times. "At the football game, he admitted to monitoring his novel's Amazon.com sales obsessively. And he lamented the fact that more visitors to his novel's Amazon page chose to buy Sloane Crosley's essay collection, 'I Was Told There'd Be Cake,' than his book." But to get to that, I had to come face-to-face with one particularly offensive nugget.

Anne Rice is not just an author, she's an Author. In the comments of a post from blogger Dawn Papuga's site about Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling's lawsuit over Harry Potter Lexicon creator Stephen Vander Ark's book project, she criticizes the manner of Papuga's assault on Rowling's lawsuit: "The rampant viciousness on the internet is hurtful to to me even when it’s not aimed at me," she writes. Rice joins a cacophony of voices attacking the tone of the Internet, which won't play by the rules of famous and important Authors. With the Internet-fighting team of Julia Allison and Emily Gould joining Rice's crusade to end being virtually criticized forever, we find it shocking that no one has stepped up to support Al Gore's greatest invention. Here's why they're wrong.

"Formerly anonymous blog commentors would have to say their piece out loud, face to face." [Emily Gould's fantasy, in the New York Observer]

"All the Sad, Young Literary Men has too many men, none of whom is particularly sad, literary or, for that matter, interesting." That's The L Magazine's Jonny Diamond on N+1 editor Keith Gessen's first novel. The interesting bit is how Gawker, you dear commenters, and the scribblers of Magical Brooklynism fit into the equation. "Gessen has rightly and eloquently lamented the impoverishment of intellectual discourse in 21st-century America, particularly in a New York literary scene that prefers whimsy to gravitas, adolescence to adulthood and typography to teleology." (Yeah, Gessen and his privileged band of bores are the answer. Okay, I'll stop.) "And if lit journal-cum-publishing house McSweeney's has come to stand (albeit unfairly so) as shorthand for this particular style of whimsy-sotted, Brooklyn-born preciousness, then online media gossip Gawker has served as its natural enemy, employing snark and irony to interrupt the daydreams of thousands of Michel Gondrys and Miranda Julys." Sounds good. But it isn't!