Chekhov’s Mistess

Blog Flogging

Topics: Blogging, The Conversation, Maud, Mark Sarvas at The Elegant Variation, Sam Munson at The New Partisan, Againsters.

It’s obvious that I’m fascinated by the blog world and the idea of having my own personal Op-ed page. I love getting “hits” (thank you Sitemeter) and I love thoughtful and challenging comments. This is a conversation, albeit a bit one-sided, but here we are. When I switched over to specifically being a bookish blog, I knew that it would be difficult to write content that provoked a relatively small universe of people to come back to, and those that did would hold me to a high standard. God and the Sitemeter only know if I will manage all that.

As usual, I’m taking a while to round the bend on my point here, but I was disturbed, a little, intrigued, a lot, today when I saw The New Partisan take Maud to task for her opinions on a book that she liked, and use that, I think, to be critical of bloggers in general. It is a tribute to the importance of blogging that this conversation is taking place, even if it appears hostile. In a way, that is what blogging is all about. We get nowhere by reading only opinions that we agree with and a conversation is dull if every one is of the same mind.

However, what made New Partisan’s article interesting was the Open Letter that Mark Sarvas at The Elegant Variation wrote in reply. Then the author of the original peice, Sam Munson replied again on the Elegant Variation’s blog the same day. THAT, my fellow bloggers, is a conversation, and that, I believe, is the point of all this useless beauty.

This all sounds a bit too diplomatic, so I will say that I don’t agree with Munson. I also have to say a couple things about New Partisan. First, I’m not sure that The New Partisan is anything more than a blog. Yes they call themselves a journal, have an editor and and have some of their pieces in print. But it’s hosted on a blog service, and it appears to be a blog to me in that I can’t see that anyone there get’s paid for what they do or how they are commercially distinct, like Salon, that would suggest that they are anything but a big blog.

But most importantly, as Sarvas pointed out:

7) Bloggers are accountable to their audience.

I checked out New Partisan months ago and chose NOT to make them one of my regular stops on the blog trail. It wasn’t always well written, didn’t meet the expectations it set for itself (see their about page), and I found some of the writing extremely tendentious for something that claims to be journalstic. A piece written by New Partisan’s editor, Harry Siegel, called “The Againsters,” was particularly sarcastic and in bad taste:

“Rushdie again lived up to his recent reputation as a man who prefers to date models, hang out with rock stars, and appear on Page Six than do serious work.”

and,

“But the crowd at the all-star-author hootenanny was, like the readers, united more in a lifestyle than a political movement, more interested in literature as a scene than as an art form.”

Thanks Mr. Siegel, for being critical of people for clapping. Againster, indeed.

This is the New Partisan baggage I took with me reading the Munson piece, and in balance, I think he is wrong and Mark Sarvas is right (read his post, no need to summarize here). Maud get’s picked on because she’s good and the quality of her blog has made it popular. She’s entitled to her opinions and she gives no more and no less, she’s not pretending, as the New Partisan does, to be anything other than what she says she is. Please don’t stop what you are doing Maud!

Lastly, if this conversation were taking place in the Times or NY Review of Books, it would take days or even months to play out – a testimony to blogging, again. As long as we’re not snarking (ergh, there I go using that word again) one another, there is room to be critical and to hold ourselves to a high standard; ultimately the blog world needs a degree of self-policing and will be better for it. But, be ready, because your opinions may just bite back.

In the words of Mr. Keillor, “Be well, do good work, and keep in touch.”

comments

In the wake of the vitriolic assaults flinging around over Munson’s article and Sarvas’ reply, Harry Siegel, the editor of The New Partisan sent me an email in response to my criticism of his “Againsters” article. Although our discussion was quite civil and informative, my opinion on that article remains firm. However, I have to say that, in a case of editorial laxation, when I said in regard to The New Partisan: “It wasn’t always well written, didn’t meet the expectations it set for itself,” I was being unduly harsh. I say that because I based that opinion primarily on my long simmering feelings on the “Againsters” article and not a thorough read of the site in general. Sorry for that New Partisan.

My primary reason for putting this comment up is that, as is clear from my post, blogging has great potential, but will only transcend its current form, which I think has to happen - this is the web afterall - if those of us taking the time to share our opinions in a way that might otherwise not exist, hold ourselves to high standards or risk eroding the very credibility we are trying to build. In short, “we are accountable to our audience.”

    – Chekhov's Mistress (07/23  at  07:00 PM)

Page 1 of 1 pages of comments

Next entry: If Bach were a Novelist
Previous entry: You Can’t be too Thin, too Rich, or Have too Many Books

« Back to main

About this Post

• Posted by: Bud Parr
• Date: July 20, 2004
• Filed Under:
  Wise Men Fish Here: Literature

• Comments:1
• Links to this Post: Technorati

Recommended Links

- top -