The Straw Man Attack

Here we go again.

The piece suggested that this might not be an entirely bad thing. Into the breach, it argued, will charge the bloggers, one of whom, a former quality-control manager for a car parts maker, last year wrote 95 book reviews for his website.

I have never met Dan Wickett, and I have made no effort to find out about him, but I feel completely at liberty to belittle him because he worked for a car parts maker. (Now, if he had been an insurance exec . . .)

Anyone? Did I read that right?

And while I'm on the topic, what's up with letting anyone (Anyone? Did I read that right?) vote?

Let me put this bluntly, in language even a busy blogger can understand: Criticism — and its humble cousin, reviewing — is not a democratic activity. It is, or should be, an elite enterprise, ideally undertaken by individuals who bring something to the party beyond their hasty, instinctive opinions of a book (or any other cultural object).

But hasty, instinctive opinions about blogs--now we could really use more of those.

He was more pointedly political than Wilson, and more attuned, perhaps, to the vagaries of trash culture

To which you belong, and I do need to spell that out, because you're a blogger.

None of these men affected the supercilious high Mandarin manner of, say, George Jean Nathan — as annoying in its way as hairy-chested populism is in its.

This is the part where I talk about things you couldn't possibly understand just to impress on you how stupid you are.

We do not — maybe I ought to make that "should not" — read to confirm our own prejudices and stupidity.

But we certainly do write op-eds to.

I don't think it's impossible for bloggers to write intelligent reviews.

Not impossible . . . of course not. (Nothing's impossible, what with string theory.) It's just that you're about as likely to observe it as you are to observe a proton decay.

It is the difference between cocktail-party chat and logically reasoned discourse

In case you were wondering, even though I'm almost at the end of this wonderful, almost frightfully erudite op-ed of mine and I still haven't cited a single blog as an example or made an effort to prove anything, this is an example of logically reasoned discourse.

that sits still on a page, inviting serious engagement.

Whereas blogging runs all over a computer screen and invites you to pull its finger.

Maybe most reviewing, whatever its venue, fails that ideal.

But not my reviews.

In related news, Dan Green pleads for Mister Richard's approval.

Comments

[Brian Hadd]

Received a letter from Mister Richard. Voting rights under review also.

[Alex]

Why do all the litbloggers feel the need to constantly defend themselves against every criticism of blogging that makes it into print? What purpose does it serve? Who are you trying to convince? I'm finding it all rather tedious.

[Scott]

Alex,

Why do print journalists feel the need to constantly attack us? Who are they trying to convince? What purpose does it serve? I'm finding it all rather tedious, and I'm finding you profoundly unintelligent.

(And on top of it all, I've already addressed this question--multiple times--so read my archives.)

[Alex]

Scott,

I enjoy your writing on literature, and have been a fairly regular reader of yours for several months now. Lately though, it seems every couple posts is a lengthy meta-commentary on the role of litblogging vis-a-vis traditional print criticism, and I just don't see what use it serves. It only make you seem petty-minded and overly concerned with how "the big boys" think of you. The lit-blogging community as a whole is far too wrapped up in itself. Now, I don't really care to scour your archives to find your initial justification for all the attention you're paying to these matters, so could you please give me a one- or two-line summary of it -- or point me to the original post -- without resorting to ad hominems?

[Brian Hadd]

I think books at least really become words right? And books control much intelligent conversation.

[Scott]

Alex,

First off, I didn't make an ad hominen attack. I thought your first comment was pretty dumb, and I said so.

I'm sorry that you're too lazy to go back and read for yourself. I've explained myself at points within the past 3 weeks, so if you're really such a constant reader, you should have already known. Anyway, here:

The topic of print vs blog is becoming very, very prominent, with articles in the NYT, the LAT, the Guardian, multiple comments on Critical Mass. I didn't ask for this, but increasingly people are feeling fit to pronounce on blogs.

If you think I'm just going to sit back and let other commentators--many who clearly have no understanding of the blog medium--define this emerging ground, then you're crazy. Right now there's a debate over how bloggers are being perceived, and I'm going to cast my voice. Other bloggers should and are doing likewise. If you don't like it, then feel free not to read these posts.

And it's absolutley not true that "every other post" is a lengthy metacommentary. So far this week there have been 2 posts out of about 15. Last week there were 2 also. I've been all but silent on meta topics up to this point, and I'm only commenting now because others are making an issue of it. Maybe you're the kind of person who lets others speak for him and avoids confrontation. I'm not.

[Richard]

Scott, I don't know why you're being so hostile here. Alex's first comment, while a bit curt, asked a couple of not unreasonable questions. And your first reply to him did indeed include what could easily be interpreted as an ad hominem attack ("I'm finding you profoundly unintelligent"). Nor do I think it's a sign of being "lazy" to not want to scour through your archives for your reasoning; it's not like you've categorized all such pieces.

Now your actual response: "If you think I'm just going to sit back and let other commentators--many who clearly have no understanding of the blog medium--define this emerging ground, then you're crazy. Right now there's a debate over how bloggers are being perceived, and I'm going to cast my voice."

Well, ok. At least you explained why you want to address these, though it's not clear why that makes Alex, or anyone else, "crazy" for wondering. It is of course your prerogative to post about whatever you want, and, as you say, readers are free to ignore those posts if they choose.

I understand being irritated by these pieces (they are extremely irritating), but do you really think they play ANY role in "defining this emerging ground"? I don't. I don't think there's any question at all that those who don't understand what blogs are about are not going to win the day. They've already lost. I (as both a blogger and a reader of blogs) tend to think it's not worth responding to such hit-pieces. Obviously you disagree, which is fine, but it seems to me that even that should be up for discussion.

The only "defining of ground" being done is by bloggers themselves, and their readers. When you started blogging, you opened up your own space, defining your own ground. When you started your Quarterly Conversation, you opened up still further ground. That's not a blog, obviously, but it's another example of opening up a additional new space for the discussion of books--that was an ambitious plan, but it's worked out pretty well, and people have responded. The opinions of old farts who don't understand doesn't mean shit in the face of the fact that blogging is happening and that readers are responding.

Anyway, sorry for the long-ass comment.

[Scott]

Richard,

I wish it were true that the only defining of the ground is being done by bloggers, but it's not. Places like the LAT and NYT have huge audiences, and many of these readers have never encountered a litblog. If we don't post responses, then whatever the LAT or NYT says about us is going to be the only voice in this debate.

There needs to be a counter-voice out there for those who want to see our side of the equation.

I know that litblogs have done pretty good in creating an alternative community, but there are still lots and lots more people out there who potentially could join our community. I want them to be able to read, in our own words, rebuttals to the attacks that people have been waging against us.

Not to mention, a debate is a great way to get people curious about litblogs and coming over to read us. I think it's pretty significant that we've rattled enough chains that people are writing hit-pieces about us on the op-ed page of the LAT. But if we don't engage the remarks being made about us, then there won't be any debate, and people will be able to write us off.

[Mark]

Scott,
Your argument about "defining ground" would make sense if you were publishing your critique of Schickel in the LA Times. As is, you're saying stuff that has already been thoroughly processed by everyone who reads your blog. Those who arrive late to the party will be won over by solid books commentary, not whiny blogger solidarity. I am more likely, rather than less, to write you off after reading such defensive, territorial responses to forgettable newspaper stories (stories which, by the way, I would not even be reading if you guys didn't all link to them).

The print/online thing is a false dichotomy, as anyone with half a brain can see. So the Richards Ford and Schickel, who clearly know nothing about blogs, are not going to be won over, and some publicist in Atlanta called you maggots--who cares?

[Richard]

I understand your frustration. But I honestly think you (and not just you), overrate the influence the LAT & NYT are having and will have. They have huge readerships, ok, but I think they just look stupid when they post these anti-blog screeds. I'm sure most people who are likely to care can see that on their own.

I think Dan Green's post this morning is useful. I agree with him that literary discussion is already only interesting to a select few. I imagine that the people who care about what the big papers' book sections are up to overlaps considerably with those who already look at blogs, who already know what they're like.

But let's consider those that would/could be interested in blogs, but had not considered them or heard about them before reading some idiotic piece from the likes of Richard Shickel. Maybe they find your site. Isn't this hypothetical person more likely to be persuaded of the worth of your blog, or any other, by your actual book discussion and coverage, rather than reading about the article he or she just read?

I think, then, agreeing with Mark, that to these new readers such posts are generally not going to convince them, and your existing readers already are convinced.

I'm not trying to argue that there can't be discussion of what blogs are and what they have to offer, of how they differ from other venues, etc, I just doubt the value of responding to every silly piece that comes along.

[Scott]

Mark,

The two stories written in the NYT and the LAT quoted litbloggers giving their side of the story. If we don't put our side out there, newspapers won't quote it/consider it when writing about us.

There's something to the argument that solid book discussion is going to win over people new to the medium. And, as anyone can see, I haven't stopped providing exactly that while also discussing the recent attacks. It is possible to do both at once.