"Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady" <7zcm9001@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
message news:d9m1qvkj9265dbmv5tap7vlj6s7akiks7j@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm sorry, Davida, but I have to take you to task on this one.
> NOTE: My Correct Address is in my signature (just remove the spaces).
> On 29 Oct 2003 11:18:17 -0800, cmclaugh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Chris McLaughlin)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >So is there external value to blogs, IYO? (The internal ones are
> >obvious.) And do blogs by writers achieve good prose? Are they more
> >disciplined and less self-indulgent?
>
> If you're an everyday, unknown, slob like most of us, then they have
> no external value whatsoever (external meaning aside from the bloggers
> themselves and their friends and families).
You know, Davida, if I were reading this in misc.forsale.autos or
alt.pets.cats, I might let your silly remarks pass without being
challenged for the cluckings they are
Have you forgetton, dear clucking creature, that misc.writing is a WRITING
group? People--those who are here for sincere purposes, I mean--
are not here to be "slobs."
(Yes, I will agree that we are dealing with a newgroup warthog right now,
but everyone knows the ugly critter does not belong in the group, at
least until he can be convinced to leave his bristles and warts at the
corner bar and keep them out of his "postings.")
People are in misc.writing because they either are writers or they
want to become writers. And, regarding those who are writers,
I assume they want to gain readers, because I don't remember
seeing any of their names on bestseller lists. There are newsgroups
for slobs and there are bricks-and-mortar places--such as bars
and fast food restaurants--where slobs are always welcome.
Must I tell you, dear lady, that those venues do not include
misc.writing?
Anyway, what is far more im****tant than my little rant there is the
fact that writers should be trying to create VALUE in their blogs.
It is really the same with Usenet. Some people have improved
their writing remarkably and have gained thousands of regular
readers as a result of their Usenet activity, while others have taken
the ****ftless, self-defeating approach that "no one puts good writing
in Usenet," (a quote from the Hopeless Dopester, echoed frequently
by others of his lowly, loitering ilk).
>
> If you're well-known, then they're an interesting PR tool, at best.
Not necessarily. What I have noticed about some well-known print
world types who play at blogging is that they don't really put anything
into it. It is almost like they are blogging to add an imaginary feather
to their cap for public relations purposes: "Mr. ---------
does not restrict efforts to the print world anymore. He has
started a blog, which you can read at ----------------------------.."
That sort of phony thing. We had a famous cyberpunk writer
even do a blog for a couple of weeks. Now he's net-hip,
apparently.
Putting him into context as a cyberpunk writer, this person
is from what I call "first generation cp." The ranks of that
generation included some outstanding, highly-imagnative
writers, most of who are conventional "book sigining and
literary banquet" types who had no authentic net life or
net presence whatsoever, despite their sometimes
brilliant science fiction scenarios. Anyway, one of these
cyberpunk writers was blogging a couple of weeks back..
Stayed at it for a week or two, at least.
Try to grasp if you can, dear Davida Chasen, that I am
"cp.gen2" meaning I was born on the net and came into
the newsgroups from within the net. Your typical old-
generation moustache pete cyberpunk writer would not
have a CLUE as to what that means. So, returning to
your point, yes I suppose blogs are an interesting PR tool
for writers who want to pose as "with it," or whatever.
> At worst, they'll screw up your reputation for whatever level of
> intelligence you might have had prior to blogging.
That is sort of like the old saw that it is better to keep quiet and
let people assume you are an idiot than to converse with them
and remove all doubt regarding the proposition. Now, one of
our wags will pop up and say, "Well, that's an ironic remark,
Mr. Palmer," the silly suggestion being that I've been posting
as alt.genius.bill-palmer for quite a while and no one has
declared me the next Isaac Newton yet.
Actually, people who are seriously thinking about blogging
would benefit greatly from following my example in Usenet:
Forget abut savng the world or even convincing readers what a
warm, wonderful human being you are. Forget about trying
to be palsy-walsie with every loser that wanders into the
group. Are you running for public office or trying to improve
your writing efflorts while increasing your reader****p? Instead
of trying to convice people how superb you are as an
example of what's best in humanity, forget about posing and
strive instead to be as original and as entertaining as you
possibly can.
So you take a pratfall? What, you're going to blow your brains
out? Do people stop reading you because you take a pratfall?
On the contrary, they read you more often. There is an awful
arrogance in some posters that says, "I do not make mistakes.
OTHERS make mistakes." Then, if they find they have over-
looked a typo, its a big humiliation.
Also, while a writer should not be merely a filthy paw clawing
out from the gutter at readers the way Frank S. and Fundoc are,
he or she should not try to give the impression of residing up in
the clouds someplace, and posting as though the wirter were
deigning to offer gems of wisdom to the peasants consisting
of the audience.
If you will excuse a brief tangent, that's my hangup about Ms. Butler.
She does not post. She DEIGNS to post. (Memo to myself:
Make a brief alt.writing post stressing that keen observation
about Ms. Butler. How's this, "She does not post/
she DEIGNS to post/thinks she's mostest/of the most."
Whee...)
In many ways, what works in Usenet to make a writer popular
should work in blogging. I DID say "in many ways," not
in "every way." (In blogging proofread and edit, because a
blog is not a Usenet posting.)
>
> (Self-indulgent - only self-indulgent. Nothing wrong with that,
> however.)
So that's the verdict, Davida: Your comments would be far more
sensible in alt.pets.rabbits, Davida. Many writing group regulars
are not satisfied that they have found their largest audiences yet.
So, while your comments are fine for the "Ordinary Joe or Josie,"
please try to remember that writing groups are not set up mainly
as a place for the "Ordinary Joe or Josie," to chew a cud and say,
"Gee, if I had a blog then Aunt Martha down in Fort Lauderdale
could read it! That's a swell idea, think I'll start a blog."
NO, NO, NO, Davida Chasen.
NO, NO, NO.
That may be what is happening, but that is not what should be
happening writers' groups. Wal-mart chewing-gum crackers of
the mind are not needed.
To paraphrase those immortal lines, "Ask not only what you can
do for your blog's readers, but also ask what your blog can do for
you." And, Davida, you are coming up short on good suggestions.
End of hourly rant.
accept no cheap imitations:
the alt.genius.bill-palmer
--firing posts at random from a window in
the upstairs office at rec.arts.prose
of
chocolate."
> --Katharine Hepburn (May 12, 1907 - June 29, 2003)
> ~*~*~*~*~*~
> Links to my published poetry - http://davidachazan.homestead.com/
> ~*~*~*~*~*~
|
