McEggers: Hehehe...

Um, guys? Cool it. It was satire. Lanham didn't really mean any of that stuff, he was criticizing the styles present in McSweeney's by parodying them. It was a joke. I severely doubt that he really hates Wiccans, and he was definitely -making fun- of the fact that some people think plot is unnecessary. He wasn't seriously suggesting that you should forget about plot and just have quirky characters. He was saying that people who choose to do that are idiots. Essentially, he pulled a Jonathan Swift (although I'm very glad that he didn't go so far as to suggest that we should feed our babies to the rich. People would REALLY have gotten pissed off about that one...)

And, frankly, I thought the whole essay was funny as hell.

I would probably have enjoyed this more if I was more knowledgeable about McSweeney's, but it made me giggle anyway. The bit about how the perfect title should have just the right amount of inaccessibility? Classic. I'm so freaking tired of writers giving their stories huge, nonsensical, self-indulgent titles that sound pretty. Like, really tired of that. Like, the next person in one of my classes who does that will probably get punched in the face. And I loved the comment about how it's easy to impress people if you appear to be neurotic.

Now, like I said, I don't know much about McSweeney's. Maybe it is as stupid as Lanham suggests, or maybe he's being terribly hard on it. But, whether they are in McSweeney's or not, there really are stupid-as-hell writers who really do believe that it's good to only have quirky characters and to write like you're snarky and clever and to trade talent for put-on originality. And I hate those people. And I'm really glad that someone else hates them too, and that, unlike me, they went and wrote an essay about it. You go Robert Lanham.

McEggers=umm what?

I'm in complete agreement with Patty when I say, what the fuck was that? That was seriously the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. And offensive to be quite honest. Not to be one of those people, but i'm Pagan, and the fact that he basically bashed Wiccan's twice kind of gets under my skin because it was totally uncalled for. This entire "article" if you can call it that, which I wouldn't, is a whole bunch of bullshit, in my opinion. Oh your novel doesn't need a plot, that's not important if you have quirky characters? Um. No. Oh, get an agent with an awesome nick name, just make sure it isn't the Wiccan and don't say candelabra (even though it's the actual name for something). This guy seriously needs to get a life. I don't know very much about McSweeney's and thanks to Robert Lanham I don't think I want to know anything. If what he describes is the type of things they publish, then I've got a major problem with it.
I don't really have anything else to say about this...it was pointless and a complete waste of my time to read.

McWhat now?

okay so i have no clue what i just read. im dead freaking serious and mind you, i will attempt to refrain from the expletives but fucking shit! what the hell was that? 

i totally had to google every name drop and reference. okay so mcsweeneys was a publishing house and mag right? okay but is this article mocking that? cuz im afraid i am way too uncool and unhip to get it. i think i have a good sense of humor but this was like dennis miller comedy, way over my head. 

that smuggling mexicans over the border shit, so not funny. im mexican. im trying hard not to swear but what the fuck was that? 

if anyone can explain it to me, i'd appreciate it because i'd like to take this shit look off my face. thanks. 

Delayed Response to the last two weeks's readings

I love blogs and free e-books. Even the ones I do not care to read. I do love them because they are free, and because, as long as you have acccess to a library, you will probably be able to access them. That's not to say that I don't recognize that the average person is not necessarily intrigued by the prospect of contemporary literature, but to say that the fact that it is possible for those who are and can and will take the time to do so, that they are now eligible to read new things, that that seems a great thing. I also love free e-books because of all the possibilities: Featherproof's free downloadable mini-books are great! Scantily Clad's free e-chapbooks are great! A plethora of online literary magazines are great! Anything free to read and possibly download and so much of it that it would clog my brain were I to try it all seems totally great. Sometimes stuff just sucks, but usually, I think, one can take comfort knowing someone with a different taste enjoys whatever it is your patience is finding so taxing.

"A Computer Ate My Book"

I enthusiastically agree with a lot of what Rushkoff is saying. Releasing books or excerpts of them online are a great idea. As Rushkoff points out, reecord executives who were against broadcasting their recordings for fear of losing sales were totally wrong. Radio sells CDs. From another perspective, it's also just a very genuine thing to do--allowing people to make sure that they really want to spend precious money on your book is a pretty trusting decent thing. His observance that books have an "object value" is very important to me. I think we have already discussed this in class, with John talking about designing a book as a print book, and how this can be a different way to approach books which could foster new possibilities for publishers and distributors and, most excitingly, writers and readers.

The two articles were pretty upsetting, as they showed just how fragile the world of independent publishing can be. What was really sad about it is how difficult it is to do that kind of work, to be the ones out there looking for, supporting, publishing new writers--the idea that the very ground beneath these kind of publishers and writers can be so bleak. Of course, that does not really make mainstream publishing seem like the way to go. As we started this class with a discussion about how the mainstream publishing world is unstable, it doesn't seem like a much better choice if you're looking for safety. What this seems to say is that if you're going to try to be a writer today (and probably any day really) you're going to have to take a lot of risks.

"The Amazing Paper Weblog"

Krucoff's and Cage's paper weblog is a humorous idea, and, though I definitely can see it having an effect on the blog world, I can't imagine it being brought to a halt or magnificently changed by one bold ironic move--especially as Krucoff seems to have acheived status as a darling jokester. I mean, even the guy he's constantly parodying and doesn't consider him a hostile presense. It is a pretty ridiculous idea, pretty funny, clever, and I do not mean to say I am against it, but um... I don't think the impact could be quite so dramatic.
The problem with blogging being an "incestuous" community and the testaments of high-profile bloggers saying that they've had to take a break speak not to the limits of blogging itself, but only to that of human nature. I've certainly heard the worlds of literature, academia, politics, etc. accused of being like this. They are yet to suffer downfall from this in-breeding. Of course, it is unfortunate that so many blogs are dictated by memes, there are always other bloggers, just like with anything else, who are able to keep creating (at least for a short period of time) original, relevant content.

-Richard

What to say about The Amazing Paper Weblog...

Well, I guess, to a certain extent, I agree. Blogging has been around for some time now. It's past it's what's this new craze stage. But I wouldn't be so quick to say it's done. Yes, it may be done in the sense that it's no longer the new trend- like what paperzines and mixtapes used to be. It's "trend-ed" out. Everyone's doing it. But this book was published in '05, and I assume the article was written some time before that. I mean, four years ago, I didn't know much about blogs and, before this article, would have argued that blogging wasn't even around back then. But I can probably blame that on my age, and the fact that I grew up in some farm town in the middle of nowhere. What i'm getting at is that, four years ago I wouldn't have been so quick to argue that blogging was dead. I hadn't even found out that it had existed!
It sounds like the way that Neal, Spiers, and Krucoff and Cage view the weblog is as some secret jewel they all refined and are now mad at the rest of the world who found out about it and spoiled- which is usually the case with everything cool.
A great example of this is when Krucoff and Cage "jokingly" speak of creating a selective blog community in which they control who is allowed to be a part of. How 2nd grade is that?
My argument: Blogging still hasn't reached its fullest potential. There's still much to be done. For example, I know of this class where these students are thinking up ways of bringing the publishing world web-wide.
It's like TV. Gosh, it's been around forever. Well, not really but in relation to Spiers frame of mind it has. And it's still being re-invented: Reality TV, Interactive TV (texting and internet voting), I can't think of anything else and class starts in a half an hour, but there are other examples.
Although I love the idea of a paper weblog, I don't think it had to happen out of some desparate reaction to the death of something wonderful. Yes, everyone has a blog. And now new offshoots of it are being born (Facebook) but that doesn't mean the death of it.
"The blog as a shiny new thing, separate and apart from the rest of media, is dead," says Spiers.
It's just the death of some fashionable trend.
Andi White

Blogging: a blog post.

I also laughed about the Neal Pollack bit.

I don't know too much about blogging. I read Neil Gaiman's blog pretty religiously between the ages of fifteen and eighteen, and I have a Facebook, but that's about it. Back in the eigth grade my friend's all had blogs on some hip teen site, where we'd post little bitch-fests about how Adam shouldn't be such a dick to his ex-girlfriend or Laura shouldn't wear ugly green pants or blah blah blah, and that sort of turned me off the whole blogging thing. All the ones I've run into or have been directed to by acquaintances are usually just what I expect them to be: overgrown teenagers who either complain about things way too much, bash other overgrown teenagers with semi-literate insults, post really bad poetry that clearly didn't go through more than a single rough draft, or talk about what their cats did that day.

Now, I'm sure that there are good blogs out there, but I just haven't run into that many. And personally, I'm not sure it's worth the effort to wade through all the crap out there to get at the gems.

As for the whole idea of networking and community, I'm not sure. Yes, it's definitely got an appeal. It's got to be a real high to post some crap about your day and suddenly have a dozen comments from like-minded bloggers encouraging you to write more. But, like several of the people below me, I feel like this encouragement and sense of community doesn't really have any importance in the real world. I mean, what happens when you send something out to a publisher and they reject it? Are you going to send back an angry letter saying "Who needs you morons anyway? My blogger friends think I'm awesome." That'll sure change some minds.

I can't deny that blogging has lead to some big things for people, though. This piece shows that. And I'm always running into bookstores and seeing books that have been adapted from something published online, like a story or a webcomic. I even have a friend whose being turned into a Batman character because DC liked his blog. Hell, I even saw a -billboard- for someone's blog a few months ago. A freaking billboard. Maybe these signs point to the fact that I haven't given blogs a fair chance, and that I still don't understand their full potential. Maybe one day I will break down and start one, and then we can laugh at me like we laugh at Neal Pollack. Anything's possible.

I don't know if blogs are evil. I don't know if blogs are good. But I do think they're too much. Too much blogs. But I, personally am not overwhelmed by them. I mean I get the benefits, the ones Spiers mentions, the ones that even turned her on to blogs in the beginning. There's a nice sense of community sometimes and, sure, you can get all this feedback on your writing and your ideas, especially when there's a group of people who are following those ideas and that writing, so they have a grander concept of your intentions as a whole. But there's the down side to that when everyone is presenting their writing and their ideas as the Truth without anyone to edit out the shit.

Still, blogs, as many of them as there are, aren't totally unavoidable. If you don't want to hear someone's opinion don't read it. Myself, I've never followed a blog. Besides of course the one for this class and one I had for a CRW. But those were the opinions of people I knew (at least somewhat) and could trust. Actually, as fascist or ellitist as the "Soho House of blogs" password protecting idea brought up by Gage in the article is, it would have it's benefits. I mean, this blog is pretty much like that. Someone from outside of the class couldn't just jump in and start throwing around ideas. What's wrong with having a selected group of people using a blog as a forum to discuss a subject that everyone there is known to be knowledgable in? If you started a writers group you would want to invite people whose opinions and writing you trusted. You'd be pissed off if some moron got invited in and was wasting everyone's time because they didn't understand or have enough experience to add something worthwhile to the critiquing so he ended up just constantly talking out of his ass.

But then that's not the motivation behind most blogs. Most blogs are created in an attempt to get the word out about the creator's work and opinions. The creator of that blog wants as many people as he/she can get to see what they've posted and then continue to spread the word. But in those cases, the people that are responding, that are commenting on that initial blog, if they say something stupid no one really cares. When they start an poorly constructed argument only morons with too much time on their hands bother to argue back. So yeah, there's a lot of space on the web devoted to stupid opinions and worthless arguments. But no one HAS to read them. No one HAS to respond to them. The self-congratulation, the "echo chamber effect" and in-jokes within in-jokes: they're pretty easy to spot. And when you spot them you just move on, you don't read it. It's the same thing with the 5-minute thrown together zines. No one HAS to read those either.

I'll add this too. I think it's a little funny how harsh Neal Pollack is on blogs in this piece (no matter how much I enjoy his writing). Because, as some people might have heard when he came to Columbia last semester, he now makes (what I would assume would be a decent chunk of) his living blogging on a parenting website. Oh, well.