Chekhov’s Mistess

Village Voice Asks, “Could cyberspace be the novel’s best friend?” Or Does it?

Joy Press at the Village Voice discusses the Litblog phenomenon (Book Smart: Could cyberspace be the novel’s best friend? Litblogs take off—and grow up).

I think it’s quite clear from the first sentence that the article’s subtitle is not the question Ms. Press is hoping to answer:

The media have spent so much time gnashing their teeth over the influence of political bloggers that barely anyone has noticed something equally convulsive happening in the book realm.

Within a couple of paragraphs, Ms. Press starts to get to the real point of her article:

Inevitably, publishers have noticed the power of these informal networks to generate word-of-mouth buzz—the holy grail of marketing—and are looking for ways to harness it…So what happens now, when these amateurs are faced with the chance to wield influence and become insiders?

From there, she explores ethical issues and jumps right into money. When Mark Sarvas is characterized as an entrepreneur, implicitly saying that the Litblog Co-op is about making money, it’s clear that Ms. Press is not talking about cyberspace becoming the “novel’s best friend.”

And this is just plain wrong*:

Crispin, who expanded Bookslut into a full-fledged webzine with 40 contributors, says she’s not even sure what all the fuss is about. She describes the litblogs as a kind of parasite, feeding off the mainstream media. “They aren’t generally about content—they just link to it. So if something is dominating the print book reviews, that’s what the blogs have to work with.”

So a litblogger says they’re not a litblog anymore, but a “full-fledged webzine” and then characterizes the rest of us as parasites feeding off the mainstream media. Hmm – It’s nice to know that my own site is not being read by anyone so important.

Now to be clear, I’ve raised questions at this site on influence and money in blogging (Being a lit-blogger can be a lot like being the bridge in the Mona Lisa). I think they are legitimate issues to be explored as the role of blogs evolve. But why does “growing up” have to be so negative and filled with the intrigue of money and influence, when every litblogger I know of foots their own bill and spends countless hours maintaining and writing for their sites? All that time for a “public doodle.”

To her credit, Ms. Press quotes the novelist Sam Lipsyte, who seems to intuitively understand what we’re doing here. Interestingly, his opinion was formed from his experience working in the on-line world and not just as a beneficiary of the medium:

An editor at feed.com back in the Internet boom days of the ’90s, Lipsyte believes the new wave has a very different agenda from the Web pioneers who founded content-heavy sites like Feed and Suck. “These bloggers are not so evangelistic about the medium,” he says. “For them, it’s not about using technology to create a new world. It’s about creating a space that isn’t available elsewhere to talk about the thing they care about—which happens to be books.”

Thank you Mr. Lipsyte, you get it, don’t you.

Clearly, some grasp the phenomenon of litblogs and others grope for something interesting to say. I believe this medium is important and interesting in and of itself, so I will continue with my “ornery opinions” and be defensive about mischaracterizations of litblogs. I think Ms. Press missed an opportunity to explore the question so misleadingly posed as the subtitle to her article: Could cyberspace be the novel’s best friend?

I guess we will have to explore that on our own, here in the parasitic land of the litblog.

(*Scott Esposito brings home the point quite nicely.)

UPDATE: Mr. Champion on the Virtual Sweatshop. The Literary Saloon is a Voice of Reason.

Read widely, think well, and write often

comments

I realize that “parasitic” has a negative connotation but I think Crispin is correct in that most LitBloggers are of the “linker” not the “thinker” category.  In this way they depend on the media for content to discuss and criticize; even if it is the absence they critique.

I think perhaps you are a bit too hard on Ms. Press.  I found the article to be interesting and positive.  When discussing the publishing industry and the “success” of books one has to think money, sales, and other business issues will come into it.

What do you mean when you speak about LitBlogs being the novel’s best friend?

    – Kevin Holtsberry (04/19  at  03:26 PM)

Kevin,

Writers are not careless when they choose their words. Parasite is negative. The correctness of her statement is arguable, but the intent of using the word parasite in characterizing blogs is unmistakable.

Blogs are evolving, but the sites that I read (including yours) write original content and comment on writing they see elsewhere. To add your own opinion to something you read in the Times, or Rain Taxi, to use a non-mainstream outlet, is not feeding off of the media, but continuing the conversation where it was left off in one place.

Interestingly, the non-Blog “Blog of a Bookslut” mostly just parasitically links to other stories. Of course that’s not entirely fair because they have their own original content in other parts of the site, which I read and enjoy, but her characterization is unfair to a vast majority of people who spend their time writing on blogs.

Lastly, It was Ms. Press who brought up the question of litblogs being the novel’s best friend. It was in the title of her article and she didn’t address it. I’m surprised the copywriters at the VV let that pass.

p.s. I hope your baby is doing well, Kevin. I’m only about a year ahead of you there, so I know how great it is and how much you have to look forward to!

    – Bud Parr (04/19  at  03:46 PM)

I forgot to mention one thing. Besides the one dimensional reporting, the Village Voice clearly failed to do their fact-checking for this article.

The article says in regard to the Litblog Co-op:

“Several of the most established book sites—Maud Newton, Bookslut, MobyLives, and the Literary Saloon—are not participating in the Co-op.”

The Literary Saloon is participating in the Litblog Co-op. I have confirmation from the proprietor of that site that the Village Voice did not contact him to verify.

So when questioning my defensiveness, you should remember that a writer at the VV has the credibility of that apparantly lax-fact-checking organization behind them, where we litbloggers have to fight for our credibility. And fight for it we will.

-although, I’d really just like to get back to writing about literature.

    – Bud Parr (04/19  at  04:31 PM)

I am certainly not defending the Village Voice!  Nor was I implying the story was awesome or something, perhaps I am cynical and have lowered standards:-0 I thought it was a half decent fluff piece.

I think there are a lot of unique litblogs with original content; and certainly some blogs are great at blending interesting commentary to the stories they link.  But in many blogs the relationship is parasitic in a technical sense as they require the book media in order to exist (that includes everything from newspapers, magazines, and websites to the free books and access to authors that publishers and publicists bring to the table.  Blogs are in many ways begun as places to vent and praise.  Perhaps symbiotic is a better word.

I didn’t mean to put the onus on you, I would just be interested in how you think blogs can help novelists or the novel.

I should say inclosing that generalizing about blogs is a perilous thing.  The tool is so widespread at this point that it is next to impossible to accurately generalize even within categories.

P.s. My daughter Ella is doing great.  We are truly blessed.  Thanks for best wishes.

    – Kevin Holtsberry (04/19  at  06:02 PM)

Fluff indeed, Kevin.

As far as blogs helping novels goes, that is something to explore in the main pages of this and other blogs. The Litblog Co-op may have a positive impact on novels and generally this swirl of discussion that we are all a part of can’t hurt the novel.

Ella. That’s very nice. Reminds me of Louis and Ella (Armstrong and Fitzgerald). My son’s middle name is Louis, after Mr. Armstrong. When looking at board books, be sure to check out Sandra Boynton’s work. She’s terrific.

p.s. I think that the VV has been informed of and corrected the error that I mentioned in the comments.

    – Bud Parr (04/20  at  12:04 AM)

Bud,

I actually think I need to take the blame for the omission of LS; there was a period when the full blogroll wasn’t displaying, and the Saloon was not appearing.  If Ms. Press checked it on those days, she would have come away with that impression.  (Although an email to Michael asking why he wasn’t in would have cleared it up.)

And I did make clear to her - as I have to others time and time again (including to NY Magazine today) that this enterprise is NOT about money for us ... never has been and (hope) it never will be.  “Entrepreneur” is her unfortunate (and somewhat unimaginative) characterization - but what can you do?

    – TEV (04/21  at  02:03 AM)

Thanks for the insights Mark. Writers do indeed choose their words carefully; entrepreneur is an unfortunate characterization, particularly considering all the effort you’ve put into this at your own expense.

    – Bud Parr (04/21  at  08:34 AM)

Page 1 of 1 pages of comments

Next entry: Quixote Bibliographic Article
Previous entry: Pen World Voices Festival of International Literature: Report from the “Global Quixote”

« Back to main

About this Post

• Posted by: Bud Parr
• Date: April 19, 2005
• Filed Under:
  Litbloggers & Blog Floggers

• Comments:7
• Links to this Post: Technorati

Recommended Links

- top -