Chekhov’s Mistess

My Response to Bob Hoover of the Post-Gazette

This is in response to the insipid little article from Bob Hoover, the Post-Gazette book editor, called “To blog or not to blog?” that I saw mentioned at the Emerging Writer’s Network (also see Ed’s response, scott’s, Kevin’s, and the Literary Saloon points out two editors who have embraced the blog, Frank Wilson and Peter Stothard).

Beware the journalist who begins an article trumpeting his own high standards:

“I’ve never written the column in a vacuum, but with the knowledge that it must pass through the hands of hawk-eyed editors and must meet the standards of serious readers who make books a part of their lives.”

Beware the journalist who proceeds to talk about a subject that he has not taken more than a cursory glance:

“And since there are so many of them, a glance or two is all the time I can devote to reading them.”

Beware the journalist who makes unwarranted, unintelligent and denigrating statements about a subject he’s admitted to not researching:

“Also, outside of their mothers, it’s hard to figure out whom these bloggers are targeting.”

This haughty bit, in my opinion does little more than Illuminate his ignorance of the subject at hand:

“My blog, however, would be run through the Post-Gazette editing grinder intended to force out rumor, mistakes, innuendo, obscenity, gossip and speculation — the very stuff that blogs are made of — and keep the truth and correct grammar.”

He then says:

“If I make a mistake, the newspaper requires me to correct it in print as soon as possible.”

What kind of mistake? A typo, perhaps, but what do those “hawk-eyed” editors require you to do, Mr. Hoover, when you make the egregious mistake of not even taking the time to investigate what you are writing about? Are you “horse-whipped at noon in Market Square” when you write an entire article without using examples or even think through the issue enough – not to mention, again, your lack of research – to say anything more than talk about people’s mothers?

I ask you sir: is it a wonder that many “serious readers” are turning to blogs instead of shallow writing in the “established media” such as your own?

Can you honestly say, Mr. Hoover, that articles about the physical weight of books (“Weighing in on novels by the pound” Sunday, October 30, 2005) are what “serious readers” are looking for? Maybe they turn to you to get reviews of books like “Marley & Me: Life and Love with the World’s Worst Dog” (Sunday, January 08, 2006). Perhaps they turn to you for your lists, sir, such as your article “Collections, anthologies and stuff” (Sunday, October 09, 2005), that included such serious “stuff” as Calvin and Hobbes cartoons.

You should be ashamed. My mother used to say to me that people in glass houses should not throw stones. It seems to me sir, that you are indeed sitting comfortably in a glass house of sorts, writing on garden-variety topics for garden-variety readers. You are not writing for serious readers.

I don’t believe that your article deserves a constructive response, but I will say this:

Blogs are written by and for serious readers. Blogs are not newspapers and their essence is such that they are not edited. They are edited, however, in the sense that if you make a habit of using “rumor, mistakes, innuendo, obscenity, gossip and speculation,” then your readers will not return; there are just too many sites out there for that not to happen. I’ve made errors on my site and when that happens readers respond quickly. The comment section of a blog serves a far greater interaction than, as you suggest, helping those who are “lonely and want mail.”

Blogs, sir, are more like a conversation than the articles you pride yourself on. This is why at first glance, they may seem to you to occupy the “modern version of Pithole, Pa., the rickety, raw oil boomtown of the 19th century.” The truth is, the short posts, the exclamative and reactive posts or personal anecdotes are part of what give blogs their personality. You pride yourself on being boring (your words), but I would submit to you that there is more than one way to engage readers. If you don’t understand that, you should consider the question you pose for yourself seriously, and probably not blog.

If you bothered to read with anything approaching the seriousness that bloggers – and I am strictly speaking of “lit-bloggers” – give to their sites, you would find book reviews or thoughtful impressions of books read (whether or not there exists some market demand for the book to be considered), championing of ideas, independent presses and unknown authors. You would find groups of people gathering together to write on the same topic to further their understanding of the book at hand. You would find sites popping up on one topic so that bloggers can write in depth on them. You would find writers supporting other writers. You would find people discussing in a very loose (and admittedly sometimes difficult for the newcomer to grasp at first) way, the articles of respected literary journalists. In short, you would find something with a great deal of breadth and occasional depth that can’t be matched in the revenue driven “established media.” I could supply you with a host of links to support the above, but that would be too easy.

My mother, Mr. Hoover, is dead. If she were alive, I guarantee you she would rarely look at my blog because she was not interested in literature to the same degree as me. Since I started my site several years ago, I’ve met – sometimes in person, often through email – many people who care about literature. I’ve met literature professors, school teachers, novelists, aspiring short story writers, poets, booksellers, cultural journalists, publishers, editors, publicists and finally, those like me with little more than passion and some time we’ve carved out of an already busy schedule. All of these people have one thing in common and that is that they share a great interest in literature and they’ve found this terrific medium; they write on the Web, use it to get the word out on their books, or just read and maybe take part in the comments section of their favorite blogs. They get it, sir, and you clearly don’t.

comments

But Calvin & Hobbes IS serious stuff!  At least that’s what it says on my Spaceman Spiff uniform!

    – ed (01/17  at  06:21 PM)

Great post Bud!

    – Stefanie (01/18  at  07:58 PM)

Saith the journalist you quote here:

“Also, outside of their mothers, it’s hard to figure out whom these bloggers are targeting.”

To which I must yield to temptation and reply, eyebrows raised, eyes rolling and fingers tapping my cigar a la Groucho:

“And inside of their mothers, it’s too dark to read.”

Badda bing.

Nice post on a nice blog.

AC

    – Andrew (01/19  at  06:24 PM)

Well done Andrew! and thanks.

    – Bud Parr (01/20  at  12:12 AM)

Page 1 of 1 pages of comments

Next entry: Marcus on NBCC Awards
Previous entry: The Passion of Osvaldo Golijov

« Back to main

About this Post

• Posted by: Bud Parr
• Date: January 17, 2006
• Filed Under:
  Litbloggers & Blog Floggers

• Comments:4
• Links to this Post: Technorati

Recommended Links

- top -