On Halloween the New York Times featured two articles of spooky interest in their paper. Two articles, one called "Goth is Dead, Long Live Goth" (
read online here) and called "Halloween or not, a Softer Shade of Goth" (
read online here) graced my mailbox this week courtesy of my dear old Gran. And how do they fare? Let's dive right in.
Refreshingly, "Goth is Dead, Long Live Goth" dispenses with those stock three sentence histories of Goth subculture (usually referencing Siouxsie Sioux, Bela Lugosi's Dead, and that time in the nineties that we Do Not Talk About) and dives right into the heart of the matter. What is the heart? Well, apparently just a compilation of weird little tidbits on how to really dress Goth. But it also begins with talking about how Goth never dies because Southpark talks about it occasionally? This section of the article is advised by a "self-proclaimed Mall-Goth" and "Lauren M.E. Goodlad, a professor at the University of Illinois, Urbana, and an expert on goth culture." Under a section entitled "Blood, Blogs, and Tears" the article kindly refers to the Goth spheres of Tumblr as places to cry where "Everything is incredible and everybody is sad."

Oddly, it's accompanied by blips under the header "Goth Goes Mainstream (Again)" about how Goth/Goth-y things are featured in mainstream media. Monster High Dolls are mentioned, as is "Bat's Day", and an album cover where Rihanna wears eyeliner and a black dress (2spoopy.) Apparently the thesis of this section, essentially, is that since Goth fashion has been used by the mainstream, Goth itself is dead. Apparently as soon as certain aspects of something become popular, the thing itself just disappears. Not like Goths have been dealing with mainstream fashion using black lipstick and fishnets and "Victorian" or "Punk" clothing for decades (and picking up nice clothing items on sales racks afterwards, of course.)
"Halloween or Not, A Softer Shade of Goth" tackles the
very new and not talked about by everyone who
ever picked up a tube of black lipstick topic of how to balance a darker look without looking too spooky. It's a goldmine of terrible advice, including my absolute favorite from professional makeup artist Suzy Gerstein: "Don't even be afraid to mix in some black eye pencil with the [lip] color. The key is looking like you just ate a bird, or a rat."
...what?
The article also recommends that you embrace a "soft, feminine" version of the Goth look (represented, apparently, by Alice Cooper) as if Goths didn't already embrace a variety of makeup styles from Norwegian Black Metal Band to dark fairy princess. And Goth's don't own black nail polish. We've had this discussion already! Kim Kardashian's black nail polish isn't Goth, it's just black! Jeez.
Besides that, I'm troubled by both article's insistence on pale skin. Everywhere in the article: Pale, pale, pale, pale, pale. This is representative, at least in my eyes, of Goth's ever-present race issue. While Goth continues to struggle for representation of people of color, the mainstream media blunders around talking about how paleness is Goth's virtue (as long as you look "ethereal", not "chalky" or whatever.) And you know what? That's bullshit. Pale skin is about as relevant to Goth today as Nick Cave's weird porno mustache.
Honestly, I'm not that upset at these articles, just a little baffled by their existence. There is absolutely nothing in them that hasn't been said elsewhere (by Goths and "WE'RE NOT GOTHS WE JUST LIKE BLACK LIPSTICK OKAY" types alike) and they're just lazy pieces of journalism. What do you all think?