Column analysis: 'Look What We Made Taylor Swift Do' by Anna Marks

This short piece was completed as a column analysis assignment in my opinion writing class. The article, written by section editor Anna Marks, was originally published in The New York Times opinion section on Jan. 4, 2024. Link here.

I don’t know much about Taylor Swift, so this article contained a lot of new information. It started with a strong anecdotal lede about country artist Chely White’s suicidal ideations. Shocking and sudden, this lede perfectly sets the tone for the article; we know the subject matter, and we get a glimpse of the analytical style Anna Marks is approaching the story with. 

However, an article that begins with an overview of LGBTQ artists and their struggles in the industry completely abandons this idea shortly after the lede. We never get to hear about these artists again, which is ridiculous. Taylor Swift has not publicly come out as LGBTQ, and despite the clues that Marks enjoys reading into, she has not suffered from homophobic discrimination. With the strange narrative turn, it feels like Marks used White’s darkest moments as a good eye-catch for non-Swifties giving the article a try. 

The speculation at play here is dangerous. It is below the New York Times to read so heavily into this subject when it puts closeted artists under pressure and at risk. It’s no secret that being an LGBTQ person in this country puts a target on your back; you cannot speculate this wildly. 

Structurally, it’s a mad dash around the world of Taylor Swift’s career, taking stops to observe moments where Swift ‘implied’ her queer identity. I can’t see the value in these moments which the article largely consists of. I understand what Marks is aiming to do here: she’s discussing the intersection of sexuality and superstardom, and how that impacts queer culture and understanding. However, I don’t believe it’s fair to use Swift as her vehicle. Swift is the most famous person on earth, and she does indeed have a unique track record of subtle queer theming. But I find it ironic to use Swift’s life for this conversation when she is not openly a part of the LGBTQ community. It’s her business, not ours. 

We’ve seen right-wing psychopaths on Twitter calling themselves ‘transvestigators’, breaking down images of celebrities and using pseudoscience to speculate on gender identity. It’s sickening behavior, and while nobody believes Marks was attempting to be so hateful or insulting in her article, I believe her analysis isn’t too different in practice. 

Marks rebukes this idea towards the end of her article, saying “Every time an artist signals queerness and that transmission falls on deaf ears, that signal dies. Recognizing the possibility of queerness — while being conscious of the difference between possibility and certainty — keeps that signal alive.” I understand her point here, and I’m glad she included it. It’s the best summary of her stance and it comes across as a very considerate and cautious opinion. I still do not agree with her. I don’t believe that Swift’s artistic expression is an invitation for labeling or questioning. It just isn’t fair.