Web Hype
The little search engine that should
Allison Glock’s article “I Blame Blogs” at the Poetry Foundation says two things: 1) blogs are bad and people who blog are bad, and 2) poetry is good and people who write poetry are good. (Of course, she doesn’t really say ‘bad’ or ‘good,’ but you can tell from the derisive rhetoric this is some kind of ‘moral’ issue with her.) She says that poetry does for the world what blogs fail to do, which is fine an all, but she’s just so mean about it:
[…] blogs inevitably activate our baser human instincts—narcissism, vanity, schadenfreude. They offer the petty, cheap thrill of perceived superiority or released vitriol. How easy it is to tap tap tap your indignation and post, post, post into the universe, where it will velcro to the indignation of others, all fusing into a smug, sticky mess and not much else in the end.
I will admit that’s quite a compelling passage, and somewhat true, but I think her real problem is that she feels the blogging world — as it grows ever more cacophonous and simultaneously hyper self-aware and yet unconscious of itself — will eventually smother, distract, confuse, and provoke into thought the audience traditionally reserved for her and the esteemed periodicals which publish her.
For what Glock is really saying is: I’m an established journalist published in Esquire, GQ, the New York Times, and the New Yorker; how dare ‘normal’ people assert their voice to others and seek forms of community and ‘lesser legitimacy’ by blogging. Can’t these untalented people just keep on serving my coffee (and silently go home to work on their novel which will never be published because they are not savvy like me) while I work on real important writing that will actually come out in print?
My issue with Glock is not so much her cultural and/or aesthetic assessment (I personally dislike facebook too, and am often hesitant about my own blog), it’s just the smug elitism and reactionary attitude towards blogs and — though she doesn’t explicitly say, I bet — online journals.
And it’s not just her. As long as writers subscribe to the ever pervasive/persuasive notion that print is better, and reserve their stronger work for it, print will always be on top. I guess a story exists embedded in the fibers of a page more so than as a file in a server somewhere. The ‘archived’ direct-URL is an inherent contradiction in this 404 Not Found world. With print, is it immortality or just prestige we are after? The online story is a delicate, new, and wonderful thing that passes under the eyes of another person — its entire manifestation marked by that incident of virtual sharing. It seems that Allison Glock would rather us hand over $49 dollars for some subscription fated for the recycling bin. I don’t read GQ, I just rub the cologne ads on my balls (homoerotic or just frugal?).
From colonialism, to football, to chess, to graffiti’s ‘tagging’ — all the way to the table of contents in the Paris Review, territory is the new darwinian playground. The pawns are coming steadily, one egosurf at a time. Search for yourself my friends, you just might ‘find yourself.’ Our Queen here simply feels encroached upon and ‘Indian train maximum capacity unhappy’; it’s human, and human — crown or no crown — is all we are.
Tags: Allison Glock, I blame blogs
I love this. Some really good points here, Jimmy. Well done.
I love this. Some really good points here, Jimmy. Well done.
my god, this blog is getting bad. allison glock overstates her case about blogs and now she’s a “smug elitist.” so, she thinks poems are a better product. great. your attacks on her “motivations” are incomparably worse than her hyperbole b/c they bring nothing to the debate she attempted to start. whether you think she’s disingenuous or not, you didn’t link to the article because you thought it a worthy discussion topic. you linked to her to mock her “reactionary attitude”, which, embarrassingly for you, proves her point about blog entries (at least this once).
my god, this blog is getting bad. allison glock overstates her case about blogs and now she’s a “smug elitist.” so, she thinks poems are a better product. great. your attacks on her “motivations” are incomparably worse than her hyperbole b/c they bring nothing to the debate she attempted to start. whether you think she’s disingenuous or not, you didn’t link to the article because you thought it a worthy discussion topic. you linked to her to mock her “reactionary attitude”, which, embarrassingly for you, proves her point about blog entries (at least this once).
sorry michael — you know, it’s hard to always come up with stuff, like every other day to write about. this felt like the most compelling thing for which i had some thoughts about. anyways, don’t be a stranger to htmlg. hopefully other contributors won’t piss you off so badly.
sorry michael — you know, it’s hard to always come up with stuff, like every other day to write about. this felt like the most compelling thing for which i had some thoughts about. anyways, don’t be a stranger to htmlg. hopefully other contributors won’t piss you off so badly.
“Problem is, most of us are insignificant,” she says. I imagine she originally wrote “most of you” and was corrected by her editor.
“Problem is, most of us are insignificant,” she says. I imagine she originally wrote “most of you” and was corrected by her editor.
hi michael,
im not sure i understand how your comment ‘brings’ anything ‘to the debate’ either. i have a lot of questions that maybe you could answer. im not trying to attack you; im just trying to get more information/understand your position here: are jimmy’s supposed attacks worse? or incomparable? what does ‘incomparably worse’ even mean? where does glock write in her essay that she intended to start a debate? or did you infer that motivation (much like jimmy inferred a different understanding of her motivations) from the article? if so, what quotes from her essay imply that she wishes to start a debate?
this one probably not: ‘You know those dinners at chain restaurants, where they pile the plate with three kinds of pasta and five sauces and endless breadsticks and shrimp and steak and bacon bits all topped in fresh grated cheese? Blogs are like that: loads of crap that fill you up. With crap.’?
nor this one: ‘Read enough of them and they begin to feel like pornography: stirring for a bit but ultimately creepy, conflating titillation with a low-grade depression, a way to waste hours of time that could have been spent recycling or knitting or walking shelter puppies.’?
ok, i admit. im cherry picking some. but honestly, i dont get a sense here that glock sincerely wishes to start a debate; im working from the understanding that a debate is a process of using forms of argument to come to a solution to a complicated problem. my reading of the essay was that glock had already figured out a solution the problem and wished to communicate her solution. the essay is two parts: part one explains that there is a problem with our ‘cultural landscape’ and that blogs are to blame. glock simply writes: ‘i blame blogs.’ part two of the essay offers the solution to this cultural problem. glock writes: ‘which brings us to the antidote: poetry.’ i like what she says about poetry. i tend to agree with her that blogs can bring about some awful things, but i also think blogs are uniquely useful as well.
maybe you have different quotations that suggest she instead wishes to begin a debate?
also: what quotations from jimmy’s post imply that he linked to the article to mock glock? how does jimmy’s linking to this article prove anything? i can understand if you think it suggests, or supports that interpretation, but it certainly doesnt prove it.
anyhow, those are my questions/thoughts.
hi michael,
im not sure i understand how your comment ‘brings’ anything ‘to the debate’ either. i have a lot of questions that maybe you could answer. im not trying to attack you; im just trying to get more information/understand your position here: are jimmy’s supposed attacks worse? or incomparable? what does ‘incomparably worse’ even mean? where does glock write in her essay that she intended to start a debate? or did you infer that motivation (much like jimmy inferred a different understanding of her motivations) from the article? if so, what quotes from her essay imply that she wishes to start a debate?
this one probably not: ‘You know those dinners at chain restaurants, where they pile the plate with three kinds of pasta and five sauces and endless breadsticks and shrimp and steak and bacon bits all topped in fresh grated cheese? Blogs are like that: loads of crap that fill you up. With crap.’?
nor this one: ‘Read enough of them and they begin to feel like pornography: stirring for a bit but ultimately creepy, conflating titillation with a low-grade depression, a way to waste hours of time that could have been spent recycling or knitting or walking shelter puppies.’?
ok, i admit. im cherry picking some. but honestly, i dont get a sense here that glock sincerely wishes to start a debate; im working from the understanding that a debate is a process of using forms of argument to come to a solution to a complicated problem. my reading of the essay was that glock had already figured out a solution the problem and wished to communicate her solution. the essay is two parts: part one explains that there is a problem with our ‘cultural landscape’ and that blogs are to blame. glock simply writes: ‘i blame blogs.’ part two of the essay offers the solution to this cultural problem. glock writes: ‘which brings us to the antidote: poetry.’ i like what she says about poetry. i tend to agree with her that blogs can bring about some awful things, but i also think blogs are uniquely useful as well.
maybe you have different quotations that suggest she instead wishes to begin a debate?
also: what quotations from jimmy’s post imply that he linked to the article to mock glock? how does jimmy’s linking to this article prove anything? i can understand if you think it suggests, or supports that interpretation, but it certainly doesnt prove it.
anyhow, those are my questions/thoughts.
Jimmy, I want to stand up and applaud this post. But I’m in the office. And so people would undoubtedly stare.
A few years ago, I remember the arguments over blogging being the new journalism. It wasn’t, of course – blogging was blogging. But journalists got indignant and wrote at length about how it absolutely *wasn’t* the new journalism. Oh no. Definitely not. Their tone was ‘we are journalists and we do something that you couldn’t possibly do’. Snobbery, plain and simple. Result? There are now some excellent journalistic blogs that break stories better and more quickly than conventional journalists can or do. Oh, and not to mention that just about every newspaper worth mentioning has a website with blogs galore. Funny, that.
I think what Ms Glock forgets, too, is that blogs, litmags, online journals probably do a hell of a lot to reach new audiences for poetry (and prose and non-fiction) than elitist print publications read by, well, an elite. There’s something in her article that strikes me as saying ‘anything that’s online can’t be good’. But surely we want to encourage people to explore literature more? And if that journey starts online and then continues into print, into exploring bookshops and library shelves and dredging up works that you might never have read, then so be it. I, for one, think that’s a good thing.
Jimmy, I want to stand up and applaud this post. But I’m in the office. And so people would undoubtedly stare.
A few years ago, I remember the arguments over blogging being the new journalism. It wasn’t, of course – blogging was blogging. But journalists got indignant and wrote at length about how it absolutely *wasn’t* the new journalism. Oh no. Definitely not. Their tone was ‘we are journalists and we do something that you couldn’t possibly do’. Snobbery, plain and simple. Result? There are now some excellent journalistic blogs that break stories better and more quickly than conventional journalists can or do. Oh, and not to mention that just about every newspaper worth mentioning has a website with blogs galore. Funny, that.
I think what Ms Glock forgets, too, is that blogs, litmags, online journals probably do a hell of a lot to reach new audiences for poetry (and prose and non-fiction) than elitist print publications read by, well, an elite. There’s something in her article that strikes me as saying ‘anything that’s online can’t be good’. But surely we want to encourage people to explore literature more? And if that journey starts online and then continues into print, into exploring bookshops and library shelves and dredging up works that you might never have read, then so be it. I, for one, think that’s a good thing.
it would be so gnarly to be sat right on the fucking front of a train
typewriter viral marketing:
http://9.media.tumblr.com/XFnUrTnElndd48j608YghjOTo1_400.jpg
it would be so gnarly to be sat right on the fucking front of a train
typewriter viral marketing:
http://9.media.tumblr.com/XFnUrTnElndd48j608YghjOTo1_400.jpg
I think this post most definately adds to the debate. And it a debate that i think is very important. The problem is that all those things that are apparently so wrong with blogs, are also wrong with print media, and have been for a long time. Its like saying all hip-hop is bad because of some misogynistic lyric that 50 Cent raps.
Blogging does have it’s dangers, falling into traps of narccism, triteness, or straight-up stupidity (even the Big Man Ron Silliman does this at times – see his School of Quitism rants, or worse his post about Watchmen – read the comments stream:
http://ronsilliman.blogspot.com/2006/12/perhaps-this-is-question-for-gary.html)
BUT it is an important tool in nutting out ideas- i for one have found the poetics community to be amazingly inforative, and one has the opportunity to discuss ideas on a scale that could never be achieved locally outside of an academic conference type scenario (and then us young bastards wouldnt get a shot in).
I
I think this post most definately adds to the debate. And it a debate that i think is very important. The problem is that all those things that are apparently so wrong with blogs, are also wrong with print media, and have been for a long time. Its like saying all hip-hop is bad because of some misogynistic lyric that 50 Cent raps.
Blogging does have it’s dangers, falling into traps of narccism, triteness, or straight-up stupidity (even the Big Man Ron Silliman does this at times – see his School of Quitism rants, or worse his post about Watchmen – read the comments stream:
http://ronsilliman.blogspot.com/2006/12/perhaps-this-is-question-for-gary.html)
BUT it is an important tool in nutting out ideas- i for one have found the poetics community to be amazingly inforative, and one has the opportunity to discuss ideas on a scale that could never be achieved locally outside of an academic conference type scenario (and then us young bastards wouldnt get a shot in).
I
blogs rule, ali glock drools. case closed.
blogs rule, ali glock drools. case closed.
blogs are scary to the blogger because it means taking some sort of stand and when they become art they are scary because they take away a lot of the power of stratified societies held over such things, something like that…
blogs are scary to the blogger because it means taking some sort of stand and when they become art they are scary because they take away a lot of the power of stratified societies held over such things, something like that…
The funny thing about all this? Glock used a blog to air her disdains for blogging. Chen used a blog to air his disdains for her disdain of blogging.
It is all very interesting to me.
The funny thing about all this? Glock used a blog to air her disdains for blogging. Chen used a blog to air his disdains for her disdain of blogging.
It is all very interesting to me.
correction, HtmlG is slightly above a blog. Or way above. It is very well a newspaper but online. So, a newssite. There we go…
correction, HtmlG is slightly above a blog. Or way above. It is very well a newspaper but online. So, a newssite. There we go…
I didn’t think this post was um uh even all that mocking. Seemed reasoned and generous.
I didn’t think this post was um uh even all that mocking. Seemed reasoned and generous.
still waiting to hear from michael here.
still waiting to hear from michael here.
i think he’s ‘michael j’ below, maybe.
thanks for ‘getting my back’
i think he’s ‘michael j’ below, maybe.
thanks for ‘getting my back’
dang.
dang.
re: online journals vs. print, I agree absolutely, and yet I don’t at all. Like anybody who raised himself on books, I have a real print fetish. I have been trying to let go of that on the realization that print lit journals don’t pay anyway, are barely read by anybody, and actually cost money to support, while online journals still don’t pay, cost no money to support, and are sometimes read by hundreds of thousands. (Diagram claims 250,000, ferinstance.) Ultimately the primary utility of print publications is that they look better, for the moment, on a CV, if you have to make one, which I might if I go on enjoying teaching.
And so I’ve been publishing online some, which has proven easier for me because online journals seem more willing to take risks with my work.
And yet on the other hand online journals are even worse than print journals, in general, when it comes to length — your story has to be impossibly short to have a chance in most venues. But I like to do long work. Supposedly people will not read full-length stories online. I’m not sure about that, or if people were reading them any more consistently in print, but this is the CW. But this limits the impact of stories. Short shorts are fine, but they rarely stay with you. (Or at least, me.) So I forget most of what I read online.
So I submit a lot to both and I cross my fingers and I hope that someday more of them can find a place in their culture for my work.
re: online journals vs. print, I agree absolutely, and yet I don’t at all. Like anybody who raised himself on books, I have a real print fetish. I have been trying to let go of that on the realization that print lit journals don’t pay anyway, are barely read by anybody, and actually cost money to support, while online journals still don’t pay, cost no money to support, and are sometimes read by hundreds of thousands. (Diagram claims 250,000, ferinstance.) Ultimately the primary utility of print publications is that they look better, for the moment, on a CV, if you have to make one, which I might if I go on enjoying teaching.
And so I’ve been publishing online some, which has proven easier for me because online journals seem more willing to take risks with my work.
And yet on the other hand online journals are even worse than print journals, in general, when it comes to length — your story has to be impossibly short to have a chance in most venues. But I like to do long work. Supposedly people will not read full-length stories online. I’m not sure about that, or if people were reading them any more consistently in print, but this is the CW. But this limits the impact of stories. Short shorts are fine, but they rarely stay with you. (Or at least, me.) So I forget most of what I read online.
So I submit a lot to both and I cross my fingers and I hope that someday more of them can find a place in their culture for my work.
i picture her computer terminal with a cane and grumbling, “new fangled machine!” seems a bit of the old-guard-vs.-new-guard generational schism going on here in addition to all the spot-on bits jimmy and vaughan mentioned. increasinly important subject matter as the web elbows its way and nests deeper in the worlds of literature and publishing — evolve or die, i say.
interesting tangential topic: Esquire is building a section of its website for fiction. seems they both want to recapture their role as purveyors of stories, if not in monumental way they did during the lish years, maybe at least the will blythe years. but, why only online? surely it’s an economic decision, like the atlantic’s years back, so then it comes off as a slight, as if the web is second fiddle to paper. but also, maybe it’s a legitimizing nod as well. they’re using the clmp sub manager, like other lit mags, and in this new world were numerous online mags are on par w/ print quality-wise, maybe they’re also saying “hey, the web is a worthy forum for great fiction, that we’re not ‘wasting it’ by publishing it here.” i don’t know, i thought it was interesting. then again, i can stare into space for 20 minutes w/out noticing.
i picture her computer terminal with a cane and grumbling, “new fangled machine!” seems a bit of the old-guard-vs.-new-guard generational schism going on here in addition to all the spot-on bits jimmy and vaughan mentioned. increasinly important subject matter as the web elbows its way and nests deeper in the worlds of literature and publishing — evolve or die, i say.
interesting tangential topic: Esquire is building a section of its website for fiction. seems they both want to recapture their role as purveyors of stories, if not in monumental way they did during the lish years, maybe at least the will blythe years. but, why only online? surely it’s an economic decision, like the atlantic’s years back, so then it comes off as a slight, as if the web is second fiddle to paper. but also, maybe it’s a legitimizing nod as well. they’re using the clmp sub manager, like other lit mags, and in this new world were numerous online mags are on par w/ print quality-wise, maybe they’re also saying “hey, the web is a worthy forum for great fiction, that we’re not ‘wasting it’ by publishing it here.” i don’t know, i thought it was interesting. then again, i can stare into space for 20 minutes w/out noticing.
haven’t read glock’s article yet, i will, but from the excerpted quotes of jimmy and ryan, am i just really stupid and unhip and her article is all some sort of self-ironic meta-criticism feedback loop that i don’t get, but does she not see the much simpler no-meta irony of producing in print the same kind of smug, narcissistic vitriol she chastises bloggers for?
haven’t read glock’s article yet, i will, but from the excerpted quotes of jimmy and ryan, am i just really stupid and unhip and her article is all some sort of self-ironic meta-criticism feedback loop that i don’t get, but does she not see the much simpler no-meta irony of producing in print the same kind of smug, narcissistic vitriol she chastises bloggers for?
oh. just read it. should have first. thought maybe it was worth worrying about. oh well, she needed copy.
oh. just read it. should have first. thought maybe it was worth worrying about. oh well, she needed copy.
god i hate “poets”
god i hate “poets”
Most of my fiction is in the 5 to 7 thousand word range. So I hear you about the short thing.
pr, menda city review has a 8000 word max. you could try them : )
i can’t believe i just made a smiley face. pr, the things you do to me.
pr, menda city review has a 8000 word max. you could try them : )
i can’t believe i just made a smiley face. pr, the things you do to me.
Jimmy – this was great. Thanks so much for posting relevant, interesting topics and taking a stand- and the right one.
Ryan- good stuff. Your questions were right on. But man, the quotes you pulled from her piece? Really? It’s so nasty. Ten times nastier than anything Jimmy wrote. It’s that sort of knee jerk smug stuff that is why I no longer read so many magazines, unless I’m on an airplane. And then I usually get Maxim because they often have great articles on potato chips and stuff like that.
I don’t know if I think the two Michaels are the same- I think not. Michael J Martin often comments and hostility has never seemed to be his thing. But “my God this blog is getting bad”? People lose me with those comments- “the decline of htmlgiant”, the name calling, the complaints. Firstly, what a strange sense of entitlement. You see people like that everywhere- on line at the deli, in restaurants, at the gym. Why does anyone feel entitled to anything? I find it so odd. If I don’t like something- I stop reading it, rather than lash out. Really, like is that simple. I’m raising two sons and if either of them left that sort of flamey crap on a blog, I’d punish them- manners people. Manners.
Anyway, back to Glock. Like many (not most) things that people write, what she writes reveals much more about herself than the subject at hand. This is not a bad thing, just occasionally inevitable. She teaches me nothing about the value of poetry (and seems to forget how poetry has often been used in dubious ways, like when Lowell published his ex wife’es letters in his poems, and well, fifty million other instances)- nor tells me anything about the blogosphere, but reveals herself to be an angry, misguided curmudgean, easily threatened, worried (and therefore staunchly defensive) of her importance.
Lastly, none of us are insignificant. So I see the world in the exact opposite way than her. That’s because I’m a communist at heart.
I think the scroll bar on HTML Giant is what really lets me down. Time and time again. Also what is with the light green background? It used to be darker, more vibrant. Now it makes me want to throw up. For shame, HTML Giant.
I think the scroll bar on HTML Giant is what really lets me down. Time and time again. Also what is with the light green background? It used to be darker, more vibrant. Now it makes me want to throw up. For shame, HTML Giant.
Thanks for the tip, Jimmy. I feel honored you smiley faced me. Great piece, like I say below, Honestly, the more I think about her article, the more I am sort of embarrassed for her.
Negative. The Michael above is not the Michael J below.
Unless I blacked out again and started typing using my alternative personality…. but that hasn’t happened since the phoenix lights, so….
fo real…
Negative. The Michael above is not the Michael J below.
Unless I blacked out again and started typing using my alternative personality…. but that hasn’t happened since the phoenix lights, so….
fo real…
I didn’t think it was you, as I stated below. I know you have your issues occasionally with this blog, but you usually state your case in a different manner.
Also-sorry- too much caffeine- I find it quite tricky when comparing poetry with anything other than poetry. This is sort of like comparing poetry with television. Or radio. I would even stand by the idea that poetry should not be compared to fiction.
So, the basic premise of her article is wrong.
Now, if she were too compare print journals of poetry to blog journals of poetry, then I think she may- may being the big word here- have sounded less- sorry- idiotic.
Blogs are not things. They are a medium of technology, that carry a wide variety of words, pictures and videos. To compare a medium of technology to poetry- which is a form of words, carried historically by various different mediums- that handwritten, the printed press, the oral tradition- is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. Which can be done, if done correctly, and with the knowedlge that that is what is being done. I’ll give an example below:
Sorry, Ms. Glock, but print literary magazines appear to be next:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/05/14/ner
“experts on literary magazines are nonetheless surprised — and worried — by the announcement this week out of Middlebury College that it will cease sponsorship of The New England Review by 2011 if the publication doesn’t become self-supporting.”
According to the article, NER has less than 2,000 subscribers. Is it worth saving? Should it become an online production, as did Gulf Coast?
Also take a look at the comments section–Ted Genoways, editor of Virginia Quarterly Review, gets called out by Alan Cordle, of Foetry.com fame. And so it begins.
Sorry, Ms. Glock, but print literary magazines appear to be next:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/05/14/ner
“experts on literary magazines are nonetheless surprised — and worried — by the announcement this week out of Middlebury College that it will cease sponsorship of The New England Review by 2011 if the publication doesn’t become self-supporting.”
According to the article, NER has less than 2,000 subscribers. Is it worth saving? Should it become an online production, as did Gulf Coast?
Also take a look at the comments section–Ted Genoways, editor of Virginia Quarterly Review, gets called out by Alan Cordle, of Foetry.com fame. And so it begins.
Benjamin compares the cameraman to the painter in “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” (and agree or not, at least he is trying to understand the differences and explain them, rather than resort to simplisitic value based judgements, although it can be argued he feels nostalgia for old mediums at times in the essay):
“How does the cameraman compare to the painter? To answer this we take recourse in an analogy with a surgical operation. The surgeon represents the polar opposite of the magician. The magician heals a sick person by laying on of hands; the surgeon cuts into the patient’s body. The magician maintains the natural distance between the patience and himself; though he reduces it very slightly by the laying on of hands, he greatly increases it by virtue of his authority. The surgeon does exactly the reverse; he greatly diminishes the distance between himself and the patient by penetrating into the patient’s body, and increases it but little by the caution with which his hand moves among the organs. In short- in contrast to the magician-who is still hidden in the medical practitioner- the surgeon at the decisive moment abstains from facing the patient man to man; rather, it is through the operation that he penetrates him.
Magician and surgeon compare to painter and cameraman. The painter maintains in his work a natural distance from reality, the cameraman penetrates deeply into its web”
I don’t agree with everything in this essay, but what it is is a deeply thought out discussion of how technology effects art. I find it never hyperbolic- this is good! this is bad- and really striving to delve into the mystery of change.
Bla.
“
here’s what ‘incomparably worse’ means. glock’s article wasn’t very well written. it wasn’t intellectually generous and it presupposed an answer to the false question, “how can we fix this problem blog’s have started?” saying she was trying to start a debate was generous on my part, but one could have written a response that pointed out the fallacies in her argument, while at the same time speaking passionately about blogs/blogging.
however, jimmy didn’t mention ONE thing she said. instead he attacked her supposed character. either he knows glock personally and knows her to be an elitist, or he’s guessing. either way, character attacks do not, or should not, convince readers that blogs are great and not at all bad. secondly, jimmy didn’t stick to the topic. instead he talked about some print v. online debate, which she didn’t even mention.
the reason jimmy’s article seems cock-eyed to me is that i assumed he would want to defend blogs against glock’s tirade. maybe he thinks he did that, but for reasons already pointed out, i think he didn’t provide much of defense, and worse, kinda proved her point.
not that i even agree with glock necessarily. like i said, i didn’t think her article was anything special (could be why it was found online ; ) ) but i whole-heartedly disagree with this:
“For what Glock is really saying is: I’m an established journalist published in Esquire, GQ, the New York Times, and the New Yorker; how dare ‘normal’ people assert their voice to others and seek forms of community and ‘lesser legitimacy’ by blogging. Can’t these untalented people just keep on serving my coffee (and silently go home to work on their novel which will never be published because they are not savvy like me) while I work on real important writing that will actually come out in print?”
if you can find away to defend this, fine. but i can’t. if you’re wondering what the difference is btw her hyperbolic paragraphs, such as the ones you quoted, and this one of jimmy’s, notice that she didn’t say that jimmy or any one blogger was horrible, peddles porn, etc. rather, she was giving a reaction that she has after hours of blog reading. it seemed honest, if derisive. jimmy would have done better, i think, if he had mentioned the good things that come from reading blogs, rather than basically saying we needn’t listen to glock because she has worms for brains.
here’s what ‘incomparably worse’ means. glock’s article wasn’t very well written. it wasn’t intellectually generous and it presupposed an answer to the false question, “how can we fix this problem blog’s have started?” saying she was trying to start a debate was generous on my part, but one could have written a response that pointed out the fallacies in her argument, while at the same time speaking passionately about blogs/blogging.
however, jimmy didn’t mention ONE thing she said. instead he attacked her supposed character. either he knows glock personally and knows her to be an elitist, or he’s guessing. either way, character attacks do not, or should not, convince readers that blogs are great and not at all bad. secondly, jimmy didn’t stick to the topic. instead he talked about some print v. online debate, which she didn’t even mention.
the reason jimmy’s article seems cock-eyed to me is that i assumed he would want to defend blogs against glock’s tirade. maybe he thinks he did that, but for reasons already pointed out, i think he didn’t provide much of defense, and worse, kinda proved her point.
not that i even agree with glock necessarily. like i said, i didn’t think her article was anything special (could be why it was found online ; ) ) but i whole-heartedly disagree with this:
“For what Glock is really saying is: I’m an established journalist published in Esquire, GQ, the New York Times, and the New Yorker; how dare ‘normal’ people assert their voice to others and seek forms of community and ‘lesser legitimacy’ by blogging. Can’t these untalented people just keep on serving my coffee (and silently go home to work on their novel which will never be published because they are not savvy like me) while I work on real important writing that will actually come out in print?”
if you can find away to defend this, fine. but i can’t. if you’re wondering what the difference is btw her hyperbolic paragraphs, such as the ones you quoted, and this one of jimmy’s, notice that she didn’t say that jimmy or any one blogger was horrible, peddles porn, etc. rather, she was giving a reaction that she has after hours of blog reading. it seemed honest, if derisive. jimmy would have done better, i think, if he had mentioned the good things that come from reading blogs, rather than basically saying we needn’t listen to glock because she has worms for brains.
thanks michael. im going to think about your response. im sorry i got impatient earlier (sometimes i forgot there are lives beyond blogworld). i have things im dealing with this afternoon and wont be abel to respond until late tonight
thanks michael. im going to think about your response. im sorry i got impatient earlier (sometimes i forgot there are lives beyond blogworld). i have things im dealing with this afternoon and wont be abel to respond until late tonight
But she does compare blogs to pornography. Because she speaks generally, it matters less that singling out a person or blog? It’s the generalization that offends me because of course there are pornographic blogs.
Also, “most of us are insignificant?” This doesn’t smack of elitism? I don’t know Michael, I feel like you and I read two different Glock articles.
And it isn’t very nice of you to start a comment with “my god this blog is getting bad”. In fact, it’s very rude. If I were you, I’d apologize. But I’m me.
And as many of us have pointed out, htmlgiant is not our “job.” We post some things casually, casually stating opinions, and that is the nature of THIS blog. To condemn Jimmy for what he was supposed to do, you are ignoring what he did do- that he brought to attention to the readers of this blog a pertinent thing online and expressed him opinion of it. As is clear by the comment thread on the poetry foundation blog, many others were offended by the tone of her article. So if you fault Jimmy, just keep in mind he has good company with his opinion of her piece, and for good reason.
pr,
i too think her generalization of blog being like porn is, well, not offensive, but wrong. so we agree on that. however, that was her reaction to a thing, blogs, not a person. i took jimmy’s blog post to be more personal and not on topic.
“most of us are insignificant.” i can see this going both ways. most of us are insignificant in that we won’t be widely appreciated as artists/writers, most of us won’t put up with the pain and effort it takes to become great, lets say. i think this is true. however, more importantly, we’re all significant in our particular spheres. i think we’re all capable of producing art, and that’s significant. but at the same time i don’t think her saying most of us are insignificant is elitist or even wrong, she’s just saying we all won’t have a noticeable cultural impact. (i don’t think i’m defending her necessarily, b/c i don’t recall how she used the phrase. anyway)
you’re right. this blog isn’t getting worse. personal apology to jimmy. i’m sorry. i’m not sure why i said that, other than being confused by the intent of your response to the article you posted.
also, i didn’t mean to “condemn jimmy.” i’m not in the position to do so. but i don’t see how we are still debating whether or not his response to her article presented a valid argument considering he didn’t address anything she said.
pr,
i too think her generalization of blog being like porn is, well, not offensive, but wrong. so we agree on that. however, that was her reaction to a thing, blogs, not a person. i took jimmy’s blog post to be more personal and not on topic.
“most of us are insignificant.” i can see this going both ways. most of us are insignificant in that we won’t be widely appreciated as artists/writers, most of us won’t put up with the pain and effort it takes to become great, lets say. i think this is true. however, more importantly, we’re all significant in our particular spheres. i think we’re all capable of producing art, and that’s significant. but at the same time i don’t think her saying most of us are insignificant is elitist or even wrong, she’s just saying we all won’t have a noticeable cultural impact. (i don’t think i’m defending her necessarily, b/c i don’t recall how she used the phrase. anyway)
you’re right. this blog isn’t getting worse. personal apology to jimmy. i’m sorry. i’m not sure why i said that, other than being confused by the intent of your response to the article you posted.
also, i didn’t mean to “condemn jimmy.” i’m not in the position to do so. but i don’t see how we are still debating whether or not his response to her article presented a valid argument considering he didn’t address anything she said.
“He didn’t address anything she said.” By that do you mean he didn’t quote her? That his reaction to her piece is too general? Because Jimmy’s blog post is very much a reaction to her article. And a valid one. I especially like how he ends it:
“The pawns are coming steadily, one egosurf at a time. Search for yourself my friends, you just might ‘find yourself.’ Our Queen here simply feels encroached upon and ‘Indian train maximum capacity unhappy’; it’s human, and human — crown or no crown – is all we are.”
This is in DIRECT response to the tone of her article and that he rounds it out with aknoweldging her humanness is both compassionate and- fantastically- a pointed response to her idea of human insignificance.
I just disagree with you Michael and you didn’t only offend Jimmy with your “this blog is getting bad”- you offended me, too. I too write for this blog.
And honestly, as I address below, the whole premise of comparing blogs to poetry is deeply faulted and her execution of it terrible in my mind. And like I said, it seems as if you and I read different articles in that you say “I can see this going both way” in regard to her insigificant comment. I just don’t understand your understanding of her article, nor do I get, in any way, how Jimmy didn’t address the premise of her piece.
pr, i’m sorry for offending you. i’m sorry for offending anybody who read my initial post. it wasn’t a good one. sorry.
i think the blog/poetry comparison is clunky and perhaps useless. i have no reason to defend the article. but neither can i defend the notion that glock is insecure, reactionary, elitist, etc. that is no basis for a sound argument. and that *is* the foundation of his argument.
glock=print=elitist=greedy=status-seeking
online=pure=wonderful
that argument is as false as glock’s comparison. nothing is better or worse for being online. same for print.
pr, i’m sorry for offending you. i’m sorry for offending anybody who read my initial post. it wasn’t a good one. sorry.
i think the blog/poetry comparison is clunky and perhaps useless. i have no reason to defend the article. but neither can i defend the notion that glock is insecure, reactionary, elitist, etc. that is no basis for a sound argument. and that *is* the foundation of his argument.
glock=print=elitist=greedy=status-seeking
online=pure=wonderful
that argument is as false as glock’s comparison. nothing is better or worse for being online. same for print.
i like michael’s cheap shot he took on internet publishing. really i dont get why there is even a debate. for me its all about exposure.
there are many many pretty great online literary journals that get over 100,000 hits a month.
there are very very very very few if any, print journals with that circulation.
i rather have 100,000 people a month have exposure to my words than a handful of folks who actually subscribe to the – review.
no? am i a fucking idiot or is there something else involved that i dont understand?
well… yes… i am a fucking idiot… but nonetheless….
i like michael’s cheap shot he took on internet publishing. really i dont get why there is even a debate. for me its all about exposure.
there are many many pretty great online literary journals that get over 100,000 hits a month.
there are very very very very few if any, print journals with that circulation.
i rather have 100,000 people a month have exposure to my words than a handful of folks who actually subscribe to the – review.
no? am i a fucking idiot or is there something else involved that i dont understand?
well… yes… i am a fucking idiot… but nonetheless….
god i hate the “mfa” crowd.
seriously, though. i do hate most of the mfa crowd. i also hate “poets”.
a few people have called me a “poet”. I fucking hate it.
god i hate the “mfa” crowd.
seriously, though. i do hate most of the mfa crowd. i also hate “poets”.
a few people have called me a “poet”. I fucking hate it.
jimmy,
don’t apologize when you haven’t done anything wrong. in fact never apologize.
be with fault and without excuse.
wax on wax off.
michael,
please suck on my toes.
poetry is personal. blogs are personal. the same is the same.
shut the fuck up. all of you.
jimmy,
don’t apologize when you haven’t done anything wrong. in fact never apologize.
be with fault and without excuse.
wax on wax off.
michael,
please suck on my toes.
poetry is personal. blogs are personal. the same is the same.
shut the fuck up. all of you.
are you gonna give me a car mr. miyagi? or just some dying bonsai tree? every time i speak to jereme, i will incorporate the karate kid franchise.
are you gonna give me a car mr. miyagi? or just some dying bonsai tree? every time i speak to jereme, i will incorporate the karate kid franchise.
must catch fly with chopstick
must catch fly with chopstick
“rook eye, always rook eye”
“rook eye, always rook eye”
at this point jimmy you are at Karate Kid IV level. yeah that’s the one with the chick who later goes on to pretend to be a boy who doesn’t cry in some other fucked up movie.
at this point jimmy you are at Karate Kid IV level. yeah that’s the one with the chick who later goes on to pretend to be a boy who doesn’t cry in some other fucked up movie.
jereme, I’d have to disagree with the statement that poetry is personal – some is some isn’t. Isn’t fiction personal too? perhaps more so than poetry (at least some times)
jereme, I’d have to disagree with the statement that poetry is personal – some is some isn’t. Isn’t fiction personal too? perhaps more so than poetry (at least some times)
Hey, thanks for apologizing. I really appreciatet that, because I can’t stand comments that generally dislike this blog. This blog is made up of -about- a dozen contributors. We all differ tremendously in our views and backgrounds.
That said, I see in no way how Jimmy ever said that “online is pure and wonderful”- so please point that out ot me. What I got from his post was that she was being elitist by the many examples, fast food comparisons being one of them. Pornography another.
So, just tell me- where did Jimmy ever refer to online as “pure” or :wonderful”. I may have misssed that. I want you to point that out to me. Thanks.
yes fiction is personal too. and personally, i don’t give a shit. i just pooped myself and none of the nurses have come in to change me.
yes fiction is personal too. and personally, i don’t give a shit. i just pooped myself and none of the nurses have come in to change me.
It’s this quote,
“The online story is a delicate, new, and wonderful thing…”
but mostly it’s that his premise seems to be that “people like glock” are trying to stamp out digital work because they want your money, don’t want too many people to join the in-crowd of writers, and want to make you feel bad for impulsive writing. whereas online work is all-inclusive, “new,” and mostly free “virtual sharing” (by def. not beholden to any phony aesthetic philosophy, ergo, “pure”). i don’t know, i really don’t think of online writing being anything other than writing. i don’t give it any extra kudos for the fact that it is online/free/or”new”. mostly, i just hope that it has a pulse, like that night train story you blogged. that was great.
It’s this quote,
“The online story is a delicate, new, and wonderful thing…”
but mostly it’s that his premise seems to be that “people like glock” are trying to stamp out digital work because they want your money, don’t want too many people to join the in-crowd of writers, and want to make you feel bad for impulsive writing. whereas online work is all-inclusive, “new,” and mostly free “virtual sharing” (by def. not beholden to any phony aesthetic philosophy, ergo, “pure”). i don’t know, i really don’t think of online writing being anything other than writing. i don’t give it any extra kudos for the fact that it is online/free/or”new”. mostly, i just hope that it has a pulse, like that night train story you blogged. that was great.
that “chick” played a sorta-dude and somehow won an oscar for doing so and then somehow won another one for falling on a boxing stool and then parlayed that into dangerous minds 2. show her some GOD DAMNED RESPECT (she also had a cameo in “In the Line of Fire”)
that “chick” played a sorta-dude and somehow won an oscar for doing so and then somehow won another one for falling on a boxing stool and then parlayed that into dangerous minds 2. show her some GOD DAMNED RESPECT (she also had a cameo in “In the Line of Fire”)
i just like augmenting jereme’s posts sometimes.
i just like augmenting jereme’s posts sometimes.
The Wire Season 5 should have added the death of literary print journals into the mix. McNulty could have passed Bunk a copy of “some shitty draft” and Bunk could have read it while they drank beers by old railroad tracks (flashlight needed I guess). At the end of the final episode, McNulty could have e-mailed from his desk the the story to some print journal, only to find out they don’t accept electronic submissions.
The Wire Season 5 should have added the death of literary print journals into the mix. McNulty could have passed Bunk a copy of “some shitty draft” and Bunk could have read it while they drank beers by old railroad tracks (flashlight needed I guess). At the end of the final episode, McNulty could have e-mailed from his desk the the story to some print journal, only to find out they don’t accept electronic submissions.
david,
you my wingman yo. now let’s go get laid.
david,
you my wingman yo. now let’s go get laid.
Ross,
i guess we need to define poetry? I mean if you are talking about me writing some words to fit a certain type of form, well that’s form and not poetry.
Poetry is from the soul. A good poem evokes emotions, sadness, happiness, loneliness, etc.
fiction rarely does that. it can yes.
the comparison between poetry and blogs i think is patent: i want to convey something on my mind.
Isn’t that what most blogs are for? Getting shit off your mind and on page?
Personal.
I mean we can argue it until my dick falls off i guess and i will probably get bored and start to find ways to frustrate you and i really don’t want to do that because i got laid last night by a chick half my age, watched the entire first season of boondocks on dvd and feel pretty good plus it’s friday.
with that said, what type of poetry are you talking about?
doesn’t sound like poetry to me.
“UPPPP! DOWNNNN! UPPPPPPPP! DOWNNNNNNNN!”
“Paint fence like this jimmysan”
Ross,
i guess we need to define poetry? I mean if you are talking about me writing some words to fit a certain type of form, well that’s form and not poetry.
Poetry is from the soul. A good poem evokes emotions, sadness, happiness, loneliness, etc.
fiction rarely does that. it can yes.
the comparison between poetry and blogs i think is patent: i want to convey something on my mind.
Isn’t that what most blogs are for? Getting shit off your mind and on page?
Personal.
I mean we can argue it until my dick falls off i guess and i will probably get bored and start to find ways to frustrate you and i really don’t want to do that because i got laid last night by a chick half my age, watched the entire first season of boondocks on dvd and feel pretty good plus it’s friday.
with that said, what type of poetry are you talking about?
doesn’t sound like poetry to me.
“UPPPP! DOWNNNN! UPPPPPPPP! DOWNNNNNNNN!”
“Paint fence like this jimmysan”
sounds like you’re having more luck than me.
sounds like you’re having more luck than me.
what the fuck is a fuzzy dunlop?
what the fuck is a fuzzy dunlop?
duh you’re the wingman!
duh you’re the wingman!