Regarding Free Speech, Community, and HTMLGIANT

December 15th, 2013 / 5:05 pm cats420—

thank you, blake! you’re a good dude. i definitely sympathize with your dilemma and understand your rationale.

December 15th, 2013 / 5:36 pm Morgan—

Maybe HTMLGIANT could keep that kind of “open” posting policy without the environment getting toxic if the contributors were balanced differently. The thing is, chauvinists and trolls will always shout the loudest, so you need like 2x to 3x Leigh Steins to balance every one Garret Strickland.

December 15th, 2013 / 6:01 pm Leigh Stein—

I agree with you Mike. I used to really love reading this site and wanted to be included in the “club.” Many people have told me to just ignore/boycott, but I think it’s possible to take back the site, if enough interesting writers sign onboard, as you suggest.

December 15th, 2013 / 6:08 pm elias tezapsidis—

whoa! WHAT $_$

December 15th, 2013 / 6:19 pm jereme_dean—

“the htmlgiant”

December 15th, 2013 / 6:41 pm mimi—

Kitchell –

werd re: “Janey posted Stephen Michael McDowell’s… ”

i read the post, searched/linked to/read a few other things, and was reminded by it of several recent ‘local’ news items – discussions at Mills College about use of non-gendered pronouns (‘They’), and the lighting on fire of Sasha’s skirt (horrible incident) on an AC transit bus in Oakland – even tho i didn’t comment to the post

December 15th, 2013 / 6:51 pm John Minichillo—

It’s been Mean Week every week for a long time, it seems. Even a simple call for submissions gets attacked.

In that atmosphere, whenever there is serious criticism, it’s not going end well.

December 15th, 2013 / 7:12 pm Christopher Higgs—

I don’t understand why you felt the need to take a swipe at me, Mike. If there was any doubt, I now know where you and I stand. Too bad, really.

As for my “gross” comment, I presume the reason it got 50 upvotes is because I was one of the only contributors to speak up. Furthermore, I believe my “gross” comment conveyed the complete opposite of “look I’m a good guy.” It conveyed my attempt to take responsibility. To say: I know I am part of the problem. I am not a good guy. And I’m sorry for that.

But your comment is basically indicative of why I tire of participating in the comment section here. All the vitriol. All the nastiness. All the meanness. Not sure what you gain by it, Mike. Not sure what other commentors gain by it either. But I am sure that’s why I resist commenting in general.

December 15th, 2013 / 7:26 pm M. Kitchell—

also, just as an aside, this does not indicate where i stand on “you” as a person, i’m sure if we were put in the same room a conversation could be had over drinks that was pleasant and enjoyed by both parties. regardless of this, there are certain things that happen on the internet that i feel are frustrating and worth calling out, that’s all that’s happening here.

December 15th, 2013 / 7:55 pm Timmy Reed—

But He is, you know, bigger…

December 15th, 2013 / 8:13 pm Ross Sélavy Brighton—

very similar. And I’ve missed your writing online (though I’ve been loving it off-line, what I’ve been able to read so far)

December 15th, 2013 / 8:26 pm mimi—

thanks

December 15th, 2013 / 9:46 pm Mark Cugini—

This is exciting. But if the star background is 86’ed in the redesign, I will throw a temper tantrum.

December 15th, 2013 / 11:03 pm Mike Meginnis—

Brooks — I would describe myself as a pretty marginal contributor (I think I did decent posts, but I didn’t do very many) who has mostly lost interest. And, I apologize, you’re right that my language here is a bit insulting, though it’s not meant to be cruel or mean; some people here are doing fine work in and of itself, but the majority of the work coming from regular contributors is pretty marginal stuff.

December 15th, 2013 / 11:18 pm Brooks Sterritt—

Also, apologies for my own tone–it’s 12 degrees outside and the whole shitstorm has everyone in a weird mood, I think

December 16th, 2013 / 12:55 am Mike Meginnis—

You’re making a fair point, so I don’t mind. I think we can just disagree here.

December 16th, 2013 / 2:02 am A D Jameson—

Brooks, you’re wrong, it’s 13 degrees outside.

December 16th, 2013 / 2:19 am A D Jameson—

You know I’m your fan.

That’s the way life works, right? People all around us are going to say all kinds of stuff. And all we can do in response to that is say our stuff.

Ideally, everyone gets to say their stuff. And then history judges the stuff.

FWIW, I like your stuff.

Also, it’s extremely cold where I am, and I’m huddled indoors, and extremely tired.

But wherever it is that you continue writing, whether here or there, do let me know; I want to continue reading it.

December 16th, 2013 / 2:42 am Brooks Sterritt—

You want to argue about it on the internet?

December 16th, 2013 / 3:29 am rawbbie—

and some of the newer folks I haven’t had a chance to get to know, Elias, Janice… haven’t really read enough posts. ya’ll seem legit though.

December 16th, 2013 / 10:21 am A D Jameson—

Wanna fight?

December 16th, 2013 / 12:05 pm Lisa Marie Basile—

I’m glad that this conversation has been had, sad that it hasn’t happened before and annoyed that I’m even paying attention to HTML giant.

Dena did a tremendous job writing up her response on Luna Luna and, as the site’s editor, I’m happy to say a lot of people are commenting. A lot of women. If you’re interested in actually talking about everyday sexism in literature, the Luna conversation and Leigh’s initial post really are open to more male opinion.

This dialogue gets Reposted here (I almost feel there could have been a thoughtful response and not a seemingly lazy paste) and that’s great, but I wish more people–males–took part in the dialogue at hand as a whole.

This thread, while necessary, became a now me! Now me! “what I think about HTML giant” chat. I think that’s sort of reductionist, but whatever. Since we are on the topic, I’ll say my two-cents, of course if you’ll hear me out- I’m not a “cool kid.” Nor do I want to be.

We need open-minded, creative, thoughtful people to stop literature from becoming a joke. I don’t wanna say “alt-lit” because it has so many definitions according to who you talk to, but just ugh. Honestly, just no more shitty blogger permissions. Even if they’re “popular.” Shudder.

I think the idea for HTML is great, but I wish there was more attention to literary thought and less to random gurgling of pseudo-theory and masturbatory la-di-da here. I never read it because I never felt welcome. I had a review here once, but, you know, it wasn’t about my clothes or being a princess.

In ending, agree with this comment: “All of which is to say, if we want this blog to be interesting again, I think two things need to happen: 1) More interesting writers need to write more enjoyable posts. I was trying to do this for a while, but recently I’ve lost all enthusiasm for the project, as it seems hard to see the point. 2) I would suggest that boring, ugly shit needs to be more aggressively discouraged. Oelbaum’s writing is ugly and boring, and we don’t need it here, just for instance.”

Leigh, Dena, yes. Blake, thanks for getting involved.

December 16th, 2013 / 12:47 pm deadgod—

the freedom to be heard when, where, and how we choose

No one has made an argument for this preposterous “freedom”.

HTMLG is one place where one can mostly be heard or ignored, not every place where one can say anything.

The site publishes blogicles from its contributors and comments from the public with little interference. Not no filtration: there’s no absolute freedom of speech anywhere and no perfectly open platform.

Sure, somebody can put their stupid shit on their own blog, where they delete anything they don’t like or want to understand. If some ‘fan’ wants to devote a blog exclusively to castigating another writer (?), well, sure.

But if somebody wants to, uh, raise issues in an insulting way by posting a blogicle or comment here, anybody can tell ‘that guy’ what a piece of shit they think that person is (as well as saying so on their own blog, if that’s worth their time).

Publicly and in the same place those issues were offensively raised.

Except for (to my knowledge) two banned commenters, I don’t think anyone has ever NOT been included at HTMLG. It’s that kind of club.

That’s the ‘free speech’ invocation: you’re already in! Speak!

–or if you don’t, also cool. But either choice is your property.

Mike, it’s dismaying to me that people will misconstrue the value of this privilege here, even as they arrogate it to themselves.

December 16th, 2013 / 1:41 pm JosephYoung—

i like zambrino’s writing quite a bit. i like how it expands and complicates my understanding of gender/society/feminism/etc. i read strickland’s piece with interest because–the obviously petty, puerile stuff it contained notwithstanding–it presented an opportunity that, in more capable hands, might have challenged, expanded, and complicated zambrino’s ideas in particular and my ideas of gender/society/feminism/etc in general. i guess it seems to me that more than calling for an end to misogyny on htmlg–however necessary that might be–that a call for writers that would challenge and engage and complicate my ideas of these things in a interesting and meaningful way, from varying sides of the aisle, so to speak, would be for me an ideal situation. as i said in an argument/discussion the other night regarding this whole situation, as someone who supports feminist-style thinking i find it exciting when someone can challenge me in those thought patterns. that’s “free speech.”

December 16th, 2013 / 2:18 pm Dena Rash Guzman—

also, Strickland’s apology was not really an apology. It was a nice try, but I don’t think we will see it on Bitch.

December 16th, 2013 / 2:49 pm jereme_dean—

Uh, what are you talking about. People defended Leigh and Kate in the respective posts. Did you not read the comment threads?

Also, really confused why an ally–a man– is needed to validate/condemn the issue.

Seems, I dunno… sexist.

December 16th, 2013 / 2:55 pm Leigh Stein—

Let’s give credit to the rational, intelligent people who HAVE spoken up (here, in the comments on the Zambreno doll post, and in the comments on my post). I’ve also received many private messages of solidarity and support. I didn’t send that letter so I could get a round of applause; I’d rather have contribs who’ve voiced their support put their money where their mouth is and work to make this a space where people of both genders feel safe to share ideas.

I know a lot of people are tired of talking about this. A lot of people have decided to boycott the site altogether. I’m a stubborn optimist, so I’ll wait to see what happens. Meanwhile, I’m not sure what else there is to say here.

December 16th, 2013 / 3:29 pm deadgod—

Here’s a link to Dena Rash Guzman’s luna luna “open letter” that she’s quoted mentioning at the top of this Facebook assemblage: http://lunalunamag.com/2013/12/15/leigh-stein-vs-htmlgiant-why-we-have-to-be-our-own-vida/ .

Higgs’s suggestion – on that blogicle’s comment thread – of a women-on-misogyny series here is excellent.

Edit: I see that the suggestion isn’t worded for an exclusively women-on-misogyny series.

December 16th, 2013 / 3:50 pm Reb Livingston—

Because men tend to listen to other men. Ten women can say “hey, that’s sexist” to a man, he will scoff, you know, cause they’re whiners or bitches or just need to get . . . But when one man says, “hey, that’s sexist” — the man tends to at least consider the possibility.

I’ve observed the same thing with racist comments/situations. When it’s not the “other” pointing it out, but someone like the person making the comments/situation, it tends to be given more validity.

Also, if we’re going to talk about how we’re all just humans and these distinctions are simply being conflated–then why wouldn’t a man point out a wrong, even if it didn’t involve his gender? And why wouldn’t a white person stand up against racism, even if it didn’t directly affect her?

Why is it such a big deal to ask men to take off their blinders and stand with women against sexism? Why do so many men not consider this their problem too?

December 16th, 2013 / 3:57 pm Dena Rash Guzman—

I liked his suggestion too.

December 16th, 2013 / 4:33 pm Reb Livingston—

I’m going to say this and then peace out from the comments. If people spent a fraction of the time speaking against sexism as they did defending their fellow human being’s “right” not to have to face the consequences of his/her sexism, WE WOULDN’T HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THIS ALL THE TIME.

December 16th, 2013 / 4:44 pm Guest—

You don’t help your cause, which I generally support, with this kind of hyperbole and gross misrepresentation. This is the kind of stuff that makes people roll their eyes, this paint-by-numbers identity politics template that assumes that because something is generally true, certain facts can be glossed over or exaggerated. Like, for instance, the fact that the Strickland gun post was live on the site for less than an hour, then, uh, removed by a male by the name of Blake Butler. Like the fact that a poster, Matthew Simmons, told Garrett to “calm down” minutes within the post. Like the fact that several men on the Zambreno doll thread did stand up for her and spoke out against Strickland. One of the first posters to do so was named “Don,” I’m assuming “Don” is male. In fact, I’m almost certain Don is male because I recognize his posting style and have seen his website and pictures before. Don sports a shaggy bear, IIRC.

Has misogyny been a problem here before: Absolutely. Do you misrepresent facts to prove that point? Unfortunately, you do…and it’s completely unnecessary.

December 16th, 2013 / 4:58 pm Guest—

But many men did in fact stand up for her on that thread. Does this not fit the general narrative you’re trying to force down our throats? Yeah, I think you are “generally” right but that doesn’t mean you get to misrepresent what actually happened on those comment threads.

December 16th, 2013 / 5:07 pm Tim Jones-Yelvington—

Janice is responsible for all the great reviews and other outside content that have been here the last 1-2 years.

December 16th, 2013 / 5:14 pm Guest8954—

Do you have any other suggestions that might help civilize me? What about chewing gum? Is there a special gum that I can purchase?

December 16th, 2013 / 5:20 pm Guest8954—

It appears that we’re not tracking the same thread within the larger conversation. I began with Dena’s post, which did in fact misrepresent what happened on the comment threads. Some of the most passionate posts in defense of Kate were written by Don, and he didn’t wait to jump in after everyone else already got in their licks. Silly me for thinking that it actually hurts one’s anti-sexism cause to misrepresent facts and ignore or gloss over the deeds of “good men.”

December 16th, 2013 / 5:30 pm Reb Livingston—

Also, GOOD JOB not kicking that puppy on your way to work this morning.

December 16th, 2013 / 5:43 pm Dena Rash Guzman—

I apologize for being dismissive of those who’ve done the right thing.

December 16th, 2013 / 5:46 pm Guest8954—

That’s not the same thing and you know it. I was not asking you to pat men on the head for “doing the right thing.” Again, you know this. You wrote the following:

“What’s missing nearly entirely from this conversation is discussion about how it took two women nearly totally unknown to this site’s regulars to stand up and say something.”

Um, okay.

December 16th, 2013 / 5:54 pm Mike Young—

Thanks Dena and Leigh for launching speaking out/up and launching this discussion. And thanks Blake for posting this clarification of HTMLGIANT’s structure/vision. As I’ve been reading and “lurking” (a pretty common/calm word in internet parlance, but it’s a funny word in the context of conversations like this, right?), I’ve felt bummed/exhausted about how this particular round of this ongoing discussion has gone down, esp. by the ways in which it has involved same ol’-same ‘ol annoying institutionalized/privileged shittyness against Leigh (whom I’ve gotten to know through liking her work, and whom I’ve hyped and published and tried to support and ring the good bell about for a long while now—and who most importantly is a human being deserving of simple empathy and respect) and Kate Zambreno (whom I don’t know but who seems great—and who most importantly is, duh, a human being deserving of simple empathy and respect).

Mostly everything has all seemed more depressing than even the already depressing winter! I mean, the winter is really who we should direct our weirdly human/humanly weird capabilities for violence and terrible destructive energy against, like kicking all this ugly gray slur that has never and won’t ever care about us. When other people are around, it seems to make the most sense to check our violence and be mindful and compassionate and attentive and historically/socially aware and acknowledging of what we can’t ever know about another’s experience through the world.

As a boring straight white dude who isn’t even as cool as my professional wrestler aunt, I always feel uncomfortable with how exactly to express solidarity in a way that doesn’t feel solicitous or “ally-trolling,” which is a phrase I feel like must already exist. If it exists, I think maybe it means waving a flag of allyhood solely for ally points in the mis-interpretive game that can result from treating “radical politics” as something you do on jetskis of rhetoric rather than via concrete actions. Which is totally a strawman slam re: this particular conversation. In other words, I’m not trying to subswipe or disrespect any straight white dudes’ genuine expressions of allying that have already taken place in this conversation—it’s just that I agree with a comment Dena made somewhere along the line that it’s not really about “us” or “our” relationship to the site, being a contributor, not being a contributor, grandstanding about former contributions, etc.

But even saying that feels dumb. Reb Livingston says in a comment on this thread that if we spent a fraction of our time speaking out against sexism as we do defending folks’ “right” to not face the fact other people exist and can speak too, we wouldn’t have to talk about this all the time—and I agree with that. And I think the same goes for how poisonously easy it is to fall into the trap of reductive/defensive feelings because our brain thinks it will be easier to deal with smaller petty bullshit than it is to deal with larger real shit. And I want to try hard not to bring negative/exasperated energy toward this conversation. Seems petty/small/unfair/shortsighted/defensive/narcissistic, none of which are particularly fun or useful ways to be. None of which seem like routes into that wacky human capability to use communication to open bridges of understanding/insight into the lives of others and give our terrifying echo chamber heads a few air holes.

Like I’ll give you an embarrassing personal example: If I’m reading through the comments on this thread, and I feel personally insulted by Mike Meginnis saying that “the majority of the work coming from regular contributors is pretty marginal stuff,” I really need to do a self-check and be like “Mike Young, is this conversation really about how one Mike with a British-ish last name feels about something another Mike with a British-ish last name said, probably without even thinking about you? No way, dude. You’re not in third grade, you’re not the king of the world.”

I’m embarrassed to admit I even had to have that conversation w/ myself! But it seems relevant b/c it really does take constant work—especially for straight white dudes who are not as cool as their aunts!—to beat our sick brains back with the sticks of self-awareness from the comfortable swamps made by a shitty world whose oppressive dominant murmuring is that every conversation/feeling/feeling-felt-by-another is secretly about us.

And I am trying to work on a longer post that clarifies what I find interesting about HTMLGIANT and how I see one kind of role to be played in contributing to it. Like, I have conflicting feelings about “posts” and “commenters” and “contributors,” and mostly when I post here I like posting things that invite people to have private experiences with interesting concrete projects elsewhere that people have put a lot of hopeful sweat into, like online magazines, small presses, The Volta, Flying Object, Mellow Pages, APRIL, etc. In doing this posting, I try hard to be self-aware and mix my kneejerk aesthetics (which are always a cocktail of inherited blinders and considered choices) with a searching attitude of “Who can I use this platform to give attention to that might not normally get attention in a world full of shitty George Clooney Mad Men nostalgia and anonymous white-haired white men wearing cow shoes declaring that water should be a private resource and movies venerating evil-ass Walt Disney and whitewashing the complicated women he bullied into giving up their stories.”

In other words, I like sharing and using HTMLGIANT to share, and I think if that’s done with some mindfulness and consideration, it perhaps represents a concrete model of “being about it,” but I’m open to the idea that maybe nobody is reading HTMLGIANT anymore for links to online magazines, or maybe nobody trusts what some straight white dude shares with them to read on a platform they have given up on for other reasons.

So even though I don’t really think I’m all that important/interesting, and it feels uncomfortably self-regarding to think that anyone would care what I think, I do see my name listed in the contributor list and I know a little bit about how much my mirror cost and whose field-of-kale beard is staring into it and who made it vs. who uses it vs. whose blood is outside its frame of reference, so I wanted to say that I’m listening and trying to learn from all y’all. It seems like this is, as always, a good opportunity for self-reflection, listening, and vacuuming the lint off the blinders of privilege.

If people are interested in what HTMLGIANT can do besides annoy you, I’d recommend (in addition to the many many thoughtful/interesting/varied/wild reviews that Janice Lee curates) the following recent posts:

http://htmlgiant.com/random/twoclosewords-refusal-refusal/
http://htmlgiant.com/random/twoclosewords-haunting-hunting/
http://htmlgiant.com/i-like-__-a-lot/i-like-marcus-kelly-a-lot/
http://htmlgiant.com/author-spotlight/in-tornado-wreckage-by-david-blumenshine/
http://htmlgiant.com/random/mass-effect-and-the-self-imposed-strictures-of-interactive-storytelling/
http://htmlgiant.com/random/where-i-learned-to-escape/

December 16th, 2013 / 6:51 pm februaryy—

Who cares? You’re nitpicking. You agree there’s a problem. Why are you trying to shoot down the people trying to speak up about it?

December 16th, 2013 / 7:04 pm Leigh Stein—

I love you Mike Young, you’re a good dude. But I’m really really upset that this is the 1st time I’m hearing about your aunt.

December 16th, 2013 / 7:10 pm jereme_dean—

I don’t know how you, or me, can speak for all men. If a man is blatantly sexist, he’s sexist. Another man pointing out his sexist nature isn’t going to do anything, really. That type of person will think of the other man as a “bitch” or “fag” or whatever.

Anyways, this has nothing to do with the question I raised.

Dena said “I am waiting for an ally – a man – to stand up to this issue here or anywhere. I am waiting.”

In other words, she’s trying to shame/guilt a man/men for the sake of validating her cause, which is empty validation–in my opinion.

If a person wants to speak out against something, they will. Forcing such a thing is bullying.

Dena also denies the fact that men already have stepped up and condemned Garrett’s post.

It’s just difficult to embrace someone who implements the same methodology they’re allegedly against even if their usage is less aggressive.

That’s all.

Personally, I don’t know if I consider what Garrett did as misogynistic. It isn’t that I agree with him or what he did, just have a difficult time thinking a person *hates* an entire gender for using gender to attack a single person.

To me, Garrett wasn’t attacking women, just a woman.

Now, i’ll admit, his Kate Doll post was my introduction to him. Maybe he has a long history that I’m not aware of.

“Also, if we’re going to talk about how we’re all just humans and these distinctions are simply being conflated–then why wouldn’t a man point out a wrong, even if it didn’t involve his gender? And why
wouldn’t a white person stand up against racism, even if it didn’t directly affect her?

Why is it such a big deal to ask men to take off their blinders and stand with women against sexism? Why do so many men not consider this their problem too?”

I don’t think it’s a big deal. Why people don’t speak out more is a mystery to me. Like I said in a different thread to you, if this was purely about Garrett being a petty dick, then you wouldn’t have me here arguing certain points.

That’s it.

I mean, seriously, what man read Garrett’s post and took something positive away from it.

Identify yourselves.

December 16th, 2013 / 7:23 pm februaryy—

I am tired of derailing tactics.

December 16th, 2013 / 7:31 pm MichaelFi—

PS–I’m tired of fellow liberals thinking that their shit can’t stink because the general position they hold is true.

December 16th, 2013 / 7:54 pm Brooks Sterritt—

Agree 100%

December 16th, 2013 / 7:56 pm Dena Rash Guzman—

Hey micahelfi or whatever your “name” is. I don’t know how the fuck to work this comment system so I don’t know if this is going directly to you. I apologized for being dismissive of effort and I will again but I said nearly entirely. Nearly. Not all. Don’t tell me what I said in quotes and then respond like I didn’t say it exactly that way. I patted no one on the head – least of all you . I made an apology. I’m sorry I was being dismissive. I’m not sorry for anything else. I’m not sure how to type slowly enough to make you understand that.

December 16th, 2013 / 9:09 pm Free Speech or ? | About that Writing thing.—

[…] Now go read this at HTMLGIANT. […]

December 16th, 2013 / 10:03 pm alanrossi—

yeah, or i mean, no: she spoke up repeatedly. sorry thought that was clear, like, she didn’t want me speaking up for her, so, you know, she could for herself – thought that was implied. sorry it wasn’t clear enough.

December 16th, 2013 / 10:58 pm MichaelFi—

“Here’s the thing. What’s missing nearly entirely from this conversation is discussion about how it took two women nearly totally unknown to this site’s regulars to stand up and say something. There’s no discussion about how no one really stood up for Leigh in the comments to her post here and neither did anyone really stand up for Kate.”

You applied “nearly entirely” to the conversation about the discussion, not the original discussion itself–at least that’s how I read your post. It doesn’t read as, “what’s missing from this conversation is the near entire absence of male voices” or whatever. The other use of “nearly” is obviously used in a different context. I’m sorry if this comes off as cherry-picking, I really don’t see it that way; it’s not like I’m the only who noticed the same thing.

December 16th, 2013 / 11:46 pm alanrossi—

Appreciate your taking the time to read it a couple times.

And I’m with you about “shaming/guilting” not being the way to encourage people to be involved/care.

December 16th, 2013 / 11:50 pm MichaelFi—

Fair enough. I shouldn’t have conflated her posts with yours so easily.

December 17th, 2013 / 12:03 am MichaelFi—

Yeah, I can see the benefit of men speaking out. It’s all in how it’s handled, and–let’s be real–the kind of men we’re dealing with. The elephant in the room is, of course, how the men who would react with “bitch” and “fag” if challenged in front of their peers might be working class men…men who might have to act tough as a reaction to economic inequalities. I didn’t come up under great circumstances and most of my friends are not literary dudes. They are working class dudes who will sometimes act completely different in a crowd vs. one-on-one. There’s a reason for their posturing, and it’s rooted in economic disenfranchisement.

Lately, I’ve also thought about the tensions between upper class feminists lecturing blue collar, working class men about how they should behave “properly,” like those men are overgrown versions of Huck Finn or something. I’m not dismissing feminism at all–I’m a feminist myself–but it is an interesting point to consider

December 17th, 2013 / 2:29 am jereme_dean—

I feel you. I’m an equal opportunity offender though.

Always enjoy when someone spam requests me on facebook, then realizes their mistake and quickly unfriends me.

December 17th, 2013 / 1:53 pm James Embry—

I just wanted to say thanks for this list. I just read the first two articles, and I was impressed by the quality of the thoughts curated, and the analysis performed upon them. I think it says something about the quality of content currently on this site that articles like these actually escaped my notice the first time around, while so many others, posted contemporaneously, drew me in and inspired engagement and reflection. Maybe this says something about me, also.

I’ll admit that I have more often been drawn to articles by some of the regular male contributors on this site, which engage in some way with what might be called “mass” or popular culture (ironically, in both a sincere and, yes, a punning way, the only article on this list which I read previously was the one on “Mass Effect,” a popular video game series). I feel, at this point, tempted to “sanitize” this admission by listing a couple of female contributors whose work I have similarly engaged with, but, since I could not, honestly, come up with names (other than Roxanne Gay and Melissa Broder, the latter of which I have also often skimmed over, despite finding her posts–those that I have read–interesting) without “cheating” by looking back through articles, I feel that it is more honest–more in keeping with the spirit of “radical openness,” which has been used as of late (wrongly, I think) to justify some of the knee-jerk bloodletting which instigated this particular “scandal”–to pursue along a course of self-interrogation, and–I think, possibly–castigation.

Specifically, I ask myself, if there is a “bad” kind of HTMLG reader, am I of that sort? Admittedly, I haven’t been reading this site since the beginning and when people speak of the site’s “Golden Age” I often feel that it is something I have only experienced in fragments. I have also, in the past, dismissed easily the suggestion that HTMLG is–or has become, or is in danger of becoming–a “boys club,” confident that, if I were to scroll through the various contributions, noting the (assumed) gender of each author, I would find a comfortably even distribution by gender (to be clear, I haven’t done this, so I am counting this “assumption” against myself as well).

I’ll also admit that, perhaps as a result of my reading habits, I may have become desensitized to writing which is “sexist.” I put in that term in quotes not to deny or minimalize its existence or impact, but because I tend to feel uncomfortable in most cases admitting it as a category–that is to say, I can recognize that certain writing and other media exists which is worthy of condemnation on this grounds alone, yet I often find myself making excuses for why a particular piece does not cross that line, probably due to an almost instinctual identification with writers whose background mirrors my own, and a corresponding alienation of the concerns voiced in opposition as minor or abstruse. It is that identification that tempted me to defend the Strickland article, not on the merits, but rather because I “didn’t understand” the criticism. I don’t know–nor have any opinion pre-dating this debate of–Garrett, but I stronly suspect that it was a similar identification which led him to comment on Zambreno’s facebook post concerning James Franco. Franco, in addition to being of, presumably, similar heritage as myself, shares my first name and even attended, at a different time, the same school that I did. Dude even directed and starred in an adaptation of one of my favorite (white, male-authored) books and is apparently preparing to adapt another one. Consequently, as far as he might overreach (and underperform), it is hard for me to see him as other than a “cool, funny bro.” Even when he and Seth Rogan do a shot-for-shot parody of Kanye’s “Bound 2” video, I feel like the joke is targeted directly at me because, man, isn’t it funny to see two dudes who look like me acting like that?

So, is my interest in seeing any content related to “bros being bros” “bro-ing out” or any sort of “bro-down” inherently oppositional to the idea of HTMLG as a welcoming and inclusive forum? I’d like to think not, although maybe my own reading habits have been, at times. After all, HTMLG can only continue to function, at this point, by behaving somewhat like a “business” and I know all too well that, in the age of electronic publication, that translates directly into “clicks” and “shares.” If there’s quality content on this site being written by people outside my comfortable circle of “identification”–moreover, if I’m actually USING that content’s existence, rhetorically, to refute the site’s detractors–without my personally engaging with it, then am I contributing to making this environment less than it could be?

I don’t know. I feel like we are all on this site, to a certain extent, to read/be open books. We are all raging against machines, even if they are different machines. The day I stop being an open loop is the day I start being a closed loop, and the day the loop starts shrinking. Even though this reply is largely off-topic and mostly self-obsessed, it started as a “Thanks for showing me some things that I was, for whatever reason, unable to come to on my own” and a sincere wish for anyone, everyone, in this community to show me more new things.

December 18th, 2013 / 2:19 am Brooks Sterritt—

this movie probably blows and i’m going to write an open letter on htmlgiant about it jk

December 18th, 2013 / 2:15 pm bushwick mom—

cats420 you rule thanks for putting up such a valient fight in the face of unrelenting bullshit html giant should be honored to have a reader like you. i have not been such an avid reader of this site for many of the reasons discussed above but i would love to buy you a beer and support you on all social media platforms.

December 18th, 2013 / 9:49 pm That’s it, this site is dead—I’m outta here | HTMLGIANT—

[…] resonating: Blake’s reminder to “Please act like a person.” The different names at this site, the handles belonging […]

Regarding Free Speech, Community, and HTMLGIANT

115 Comments

Archives

Meta