Rachel's reactions to this paper both confirmed my prior suspicions about this paper and raised new ideas: the story is more interesting than the way it was written, and, according to her, is more hype than music journalism. Here is a summary of what she told me throughout and after the reading.
When asked to summarize her experience, she was first confused but complied. "I was enjoying [the reading], and Katie kept telling me to talk. So I did to make her quiet. Through talking, I really understood most of the article by saying it aloud." The fact that she did not grasp most of this article until forced to by an unnatural (to the reading process) interruption is troubling; however, people are asked to summarize these kinds of articles to their friends all the time. To Rachel, this article was about "the journey of Owens and his journey from a cult to using music to adapt and find his place in the world"; however she noted that she wished to hear more about this personal transition that was in the article.
When asked to reply to the article in general, Rachel stated that the author (who she wrongly assumed was a male) was "kind of right and kind of wrong": "he" was right because the background story of Girls is the force behind the music, but it seemed forced, biased, and strayed too far from the actual music. She noted - rightly so, I believe - that there "could be better bands with less interesting backgrounds".
A few particular quotes from Owens were what resonated with Rachel, as noted below:
"'It's like, everybody has a band... It's this thing people do because they think they're supposed to do it... It's not about that for me... It's about finding a reason to be alive.'" Rachel stated: "I agree with him completely."
The lyrics to "Lust For Life", sampled in the article, also interested Rachel: "the disarming, ingenuous lyrics ('I wish I had a father... I wish I had a pizza and a bottle of wine') backed by a bright guitar strum and doo-wop harmonies, set the tone for the dozen songs he... produced". She said it made her realize she'd heard this song (which I've played multiple times in our room quite loudly) and gave a new dimension to the lyrics she already knew.
My theory that the subject of the article is the only reason it's interesting is proven here: nearly everything she liked was quoted from Owens himself and not the narration. Though she claims that she enjoyed the article, her idea of hype and bias is right on the money for this article. It almost makes an interesting read but fails to reach beyond the big, bad hype machine.
