A couple more LP contributors have posts selected for the On Line Opinion/Troppo Best Blogs of 2006 feature published today - both with a cultural theme.
Kate looked at the perennial theme (it really is…) of what Joss Whedon has to offer feminists and Laura aka Lucy Tartan reviewed the Da Vinci Code for anyone who was contemplating seeing the movie but hadn’t read TEH BOOK. Fortunately I wasn’t tempted to see the film, saved by my policy of avoiding anything with Tom Hanks in it (even if it also has Audrey Tautou in it).
Both posts are exemplars of the art of blogging - funny, sharp, incisive and thought provoking. And quite distinct from essays and op/eds. As are many of the others selected.
But not everyone thinks so. J. F. Beck dismisses the Best blog posts as:
tedious, self-indulgent [expletive deleted] from self-important lefty academics.
And Tim Blair complains the posts don’t have enough links. Not “bloggish” enough, writes Tim. His commenters seem to think it must be a lefty stitch up job because Ken Parish was involved in the compilation. They don’t appear to have noticed that Catallaxy’s skepticlawyer was too.
So here’s a challenge. Name me ten Australian right wing blog posts that are thoughtful, funny, incisive and… have lots of links. You’ll have to find some right wing blogs first. Consider it a Da Vinci style quest.
Update: Courtesy of skepticlawyer in comments, Tim apparently also doesn’t think blog posts should contain the word “I”. None of the posts on the front page of Tim’s blog employ the first person pronoun, so that’s alright then. His own blogging credentials are unchallenged. J F Beck however does use the dreaded “I” word in one post but it does contain five links. Is that ok? Is he still a blogger according to TEH INTERNATIONAL OFFICIAL RULES OF TEH BLOGGING?
Further update: Darlene responds.
And so does Skepticlawyer at Catallaxy.
Another update: Kate polishes her letter I.
‘Enough links’ for what? Is there some rule I don’t know about?
And there I was thinking the whole point of libertarianism was that there were too many hidebound rules about things, and that the whole point of blogging was that one was free to do it any way one liked. Silly old me, eh?
Well - without speaking for anyone else - putting all the links into my ‘who guards the guardians’ media post must have driven OLO mad.
And I chose my shortlist of eleven for Ken and Nick - from which seven or eight made the final cut - based on the quality of the writing. I’m quite happy to own up to my selections, too. Audrey’s abortion piece was one of them, as were both Paul and Cristy’s pieces. Andrew Bartlett’s refugee piece was another, as was Ampersand Duck’s pregnancy piece. There were several others which have escaped my mind for the moment, but I’ll happily reveal all at the end of the month if people are particularly interested.
These are all people with whom I probably disagree on just about everything politically. Their politics have nothing, I repeat nothing to do with how well they write. One of the things that irritated me a great during the bust up over my book was critics who appraised my writing based (erroneously) on what they thought were my political views. I am not going to go around pulling that sort of crap to anyone else. Evah.
That is all.
Dr Cat, presumably the ole righties like to have links on lefty sites because it might appear that we’re just making up the things that we write - which, as everyone knows, is basically the whole tenet of leftist thought
Given that a number of the blog posts selected were about personal issues, I wonder at the call for ‘more links!’ Was Cristy expected to provide evidenciary support for her feelings of identity loss in pregnancy? Was Kate expected to provide links to other Whedon fan sites to justify her feminist theories? Come come righty bloggers. Doth not that smack of the age old humanities academic thought that undergrad essays cannot break new ground and therefore any expressed ideas, however unique to the student, must be backed up by the same expressions of ‘proper’ academics? And everyone knows you lot *hate* the humanities department!
Pulling that sort of crap on anyone else.
What happens when typing whilst pissed off. Feh. Oh well, back to the cricket.
skepticlawyer, am I the Paul whose piece you nominated? If so, which piece was it?
Hmm — a position like that would be based on the assumption that if one has linked to something, then what’s at the link must be true.
Heh.
Not sure if one of your pieces was in my shortlist, Paul. I was referring to Paul Mitchell’s Not Bad for an Old Man in my comment, tho. Once the whole thing is over, I’ll email Mark my shortlist, or stick it up on Catallaxy or something. This is really quite irritating, I have to say.
Basically (I don’t think it hurts if the rest of the blogosphere knows how the four of us did this) the four ‘judges’ got about 40 nominations each emailed to us, with instructions from Ken to cut the list down to ten or fifteen or so. I sent Ken eleven ’shortlisted’ posts and wrote taglines for them (most of which OLO have happily recycled). Ken made the final call, with a bit of input from Nick.
We worked over Christmas (Ken, Nick and I were batting emails back and forth on Christmas day, ffs. And my partner is indigenous with a squillion lations all of whom decided that camping at our place was a good idea. So guess who was really bloody popular at chez Dale. Not).
I’d better not reveal any more, as the process isn’t finished at OLO yet.
I don’t do funny, so that’s me out.
Given that I only hold a mere undergraduate degree with a double major in politics (to change shortly, though), Ã?’m flattered to be referred to as an “academic”. Of course, I couldn’t be more self-important if I tried, I’m already totally self-important. Don’t forget Australian Princess tomorrow night, by the way.
Other than that, who gives a f**k? I don’t lose any sleep at night wondering what others think of my politics or my writing style. Getting positive feedback from talented people I respect (which I have) means something to me.
My ample arse can do without being licked by people I don’t respect.
Links? Is there a blog bible that says there has to be links?
Perhaps this should have got up:
or
Thanks for revealing my name; there goes my high-flying career as a Labor lawyer (see picture of Julia Gillard). Here’s a picture of a pussy cat (link to picture of pussy cat).
Perhaps J F Beck could list his ten best posts of the year for us? Short on writing, heavy on links of course…
Rob, I thought you were a left wing blogger. Euston Manifesto and all that…
Troppo lists me as moderate right. Frankly, I don’t know what I am. I’m happy to leave that judgement to others.
Sounds like the judgement of Paris, Rob!
I nominate Andrew Landeryou’s roasting of Jeremy Sear.
That man is wicked and merciless.
Well there were links in my post but they didn’t make it into the republished version. Not to worry. You get the drift.
Hey, I’ve thought of a joke:
But Comrade Landeryou could also be considered a leftie, Rob - if you count right-wing Labor as part of the left.
Laura, I don’t think your piece needed links. It was absolutely ace. I’m sorry to have missed it the first time round - I don’t think I’d discovered feedreaders back then - so as far as I’m concerned, that’s at least one excellent thing that’s come out of the BBP06 project. And there are many others.
Mr Beck has updated his post with an admission that some of BBP2006 are indeed worth reading, and has provided a link.
SL,
The original post noted some of the BBP06 posts are worth reading. The update restates that and suggests readers go to On Line Opinion and decide for themselves. I still think most of the BBP06 posts are nothing special.
But Comrade Landeryou could also be considered a leftie, Rob - if you count right-wing Labor as part of the left.
Sorry, just can’t take that sitting, standing or lying down. Landeryou hunts lefties for entertainment. He’s as left-wing as Hitler, and his pursuit of Sear is about as funny as Mike Tyson on a date rape.
It seems that much of the irritation concerns women writing about women’s stuff - in the first person, no less! I’m not into feminism - this is about as far as I get on that score - but, seriously boys, suck it up. If women can write about personal stuff with precision, clarity and humour, then - shock, horror - they’re going to win writing awards.
As one of those women who’s chosen not to have children, I’d prefer my choices to be respected, thankyou. Women are not slot machines into which the government can insert money in the hope of getting babies in return. This isn’t something I blog about - but other women do, and one of the effects of equality of the sexes is that women are now able to make calls on what is good or bad in terms of literature and culture.
SL,
You’re not paying attention. You failed to note that my original post said some of the BBP06 posts were worth reading. Now you’ve veered off on a tangent about my supposed irritation at women writing about women’s stuff, when I’m not irritated at all. More than anything I find it funny that highly educated lefites (of both sexes) find so much to whine about.
I don’t recall voicing my opinion on the baby bonus (or whatever it’s called) so I don’t understand why your rant is aimed in my direction.
Maybe SL was paying attention to this bit of your update:
From your good self:
From Mr Blair’s commenters:
And:
And from your commenters:
No baby bonus, you’re right there, but an awful lot of boys who seem to have a problem with women’s choices, and then an even bigger problem with said women blogging about those choices.
Apologies for the long comment, LPers.
offended lefty sock puppet, my comment about Comrade Landeryou should be understood mainly as teasing Rob…
SL, our comments crossed.
Update: Courtesy of skepticlawyer in comments, Tim apparently also doesn’t think blog posts should contain the word “I”. None of the posts on the front page of Tim’s blog employ the first person pronoun, so that’s alright then. His own blogging credentials are unchallenged. J F Beck however does use the dreaded “I” word in one post but it does contain five links. Is that ok? Is he still a blogger according to TEH INTERNATIONAL OFFICIAL RULES OF TEH BLOGGING?
I have to say I’m a bit with Becky here. I liked Ampersandduck’s the best and thought Gummo’s was pretty good, as was Jones’ Viva la muff. There were only three or four others that had some grab. I liked Kate’s for style but not for content.
Tim’s very good at what he does - and he’s very funny, too. A lot of the lefty sacred cows he slaughters are deserving targets. But it’s hard to reproduce any of that in an essay collection, and it does concern me that people are putting politics above quality when it comes to writing. As I said earlier, I’ve had it done to me, and it really, really sucks - apart from being a complete distraction.
And if anyone has rules for blogging, I’d be interested to know what they are.
Is that taking them all into account, or just the ‘girly’ ones, Rob?
No, that was all of them (read once over lightly, I admit).
SL, I doubt Tim would have wanted to participate anyway. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s the sense I have.
I couldn’t agree more that equating political congeniality with quality of writing isn’t any sort of plausible way to proceed.
Tim’s got better than grab, he’s got bite. You don’t have to agree with his politics (whatever they are [it is?]) to enjoy his site. You generally just ignore the comments, though there are some gems.
i say, the I’s have it!!!!!!!!!!!
and yet TB has the audacity to measure a blog post according to prevalence of first person pronouns? wtf?
of course, I am mistaken, there is no contradiction here, TB is doing us a favourz. mates rates, thanks TB. mate. the genius of old TuBerculosis is that he speaks in the voice of ‘common sense’ and therefore does not have to identify himself as an author because he is in fact not authoring anything and is merely the relay of, you guessed it!! Common sense!!111one A bit like those humdrum radio shock jocks, aye? which of course is unlike these lefty twits who would never have the empathetic intellect to truly understand what the MAINSTREAM common man is thinking and therefore must assume a first person pronoun to differentiate what is being said from the hubris of society. if only we had the perceptive capacity of TuBerculosis to understand the contemporary grief of humanity. he must have the powa of teh grey skulls… do note teh leftys for futuur referencessssszzzzzzz……. yiipyipyiipyiipyiip
Yes, I enjoy Tim’s blog, though I disagree with his politics, Rob. You’re quite right about the comments though - best left unread most of the time.
I didn’t ‘get’ Gummo’s at all, and thought that my best post wasn’t selected (my case note on the Catch the Fire ruling), so of course there’s lots of room for subjective disagreement. That said, I think it’s quite possible to objectively ascertain what is good quality writing, and that I have the experience and skill to do so. Whenever I’m called on to judge any sort of literary award, I always make sure to read Orwell’s Politics and the English Language first. Just to remind me about what really matters.
Lovely essay, that one.
Fortunately available online:
[link]
I recommend Why I Write, too.
sl, I wasn’t having a go. I think it’s actually quite hard to take blogposts out of their context and present them as stand-alones. I really like Kate’s ruminative stuff at Moment to Moment, for example, but it’s in the sense of a continuing narrative internal to the blog itself. Many individual blogs are episodes in a dialogue with oneself which one hopes will be of interest to others. Bird doesn’t usually write that well although he can when he puts his mind to it. It doesn’t mean he’s not a great blogger or commenter (I think he is).
Another thing is that many posts feed off the moment and pulling them out of it six months later and publishing them as if they were op/eds doesn’t really do them credit.
Just my two cents’ worth.
Reasonable points, Rob. To some degree remedied by linking to the original publication, but still reasonable points. Though of course the point about timeliness would be able to be made with reference to a lot of essays as well.
Gummo’s post is one of my favourites, so I say well done to the person who chose it.
Aw shucks Anna.
I have to admit, I don’t quite get that post either. It started out as a reprise of my old “Annotated Henry Reynolds” series (way back), where I did the same thing with a copy of one of Henry Reynolds’ books from the local library, which some kind soul had annotated for the benefit of those of us who are a bit literacy challenged.
Tim’s very good at what he does - and he’s very funny, too.
My arsehole is also great at spewing shit and hot air, and I reckon it’s pretty funny sometimes too. I totally have to get a blog for it, and them maybe other arseholes can come and compete in the comments!
Bleugh. I cannot stand that site, and the writing doesn’t do it for me much, either.
Ewww, the weather in Melbourne is awful. Terribly hot.
I can’t wait until its Winter again.
Re: this discussion, I think (and yes I, I, I and I do) this is an instance where Mel Gregg’s article is worth looking at:
Posting with Passion: Blogs and the Politics of Gender
I think (damn me again) my best posts were my Eddie piece and my “interview” with Piers. I sent Piers a link and he never got back to me, but David Marr thought the latter was “very droll”. I met Eddie and he’s ten million times the satirist some of these death beasts claim to be. He’s lovely, girls. Oh and interviewing Tim Minchin rocked as well. Look out for him at the Melbourne Comedy Festival.
I am aware that the pieces chosen had to be suitable for On Line Opinion. Excuse me if issues to do with violence against women aren’t important to some people (or only important if it involves Muslim men).
Anyway, we can give us good as get. I (oh dear) have implied and explicitly stated that there’s a lot of retarded masculinity on certain blogs. The tribalism reminds of schoolyard behaviour, only in this instance the kids who would have gotten beaten up at school are now in charge of the swings. Geeks rule, indeed.
I have a post awaiting moderation. I can’t sleep so I will write another one.
“Trials and Tribulations of Womanhood”, hey?
“Geez Bazza, fix the bloody shower will ya, I’ve got to go out with the girls”.
Yes, it’s tough to be a girl.
I actually think the criticisms are predicatable. That didn’t come sooner is the only surprise.
Re: Blair. Lefty sacred cows should be taken to task, and if it’s done in an amusing and cutting way, well that’s fine and dandy. But sacred cows worth demolishing don’t just exist on the Left. And isn’t the Cold War over yet?
That they didn’t come sooner is the only surprise.
Whining is a subjective thing. After all, complaining about other people’s writing might be construed as whining.
Anyway, third comment up and counting:
My response, as they say, is on my blog.
Have a good day, everybody.
Blair comes from the old ‘Instapundit’ school of blogging. That’s very much the title-quote-pithy comment-link style that you see on a lot of the older political blogs. Blair bought to this a rather evil sense of humour, and an extremely controlled and concise language. I’d go so far as to say he made several technical breakthroughs in ‘blog-style’ that many of the new bloggers have been able to pick up on and use.
But his attack here was just dumb. Many - although not all - of his posts wouldn’t fit in that ‘republished’ form, anyway; they’re usually to do with current affairs and date quickly. Maybe that’s why he was so grouchy.
All good points, TimT. Tim Blair’s blogging skill (much as it pains some people around here to admit it) is remarkable. You don’t appreciate how good it is until you read his feature journalism and opinion pieces, most of which are quite pedestrian. He struggles with sustaining a consistent narrative or argument through 800 words of copy, almost as though he has attempted to bring his blogging skills across to magazine writing and not yet realised that the two are really not particularly companiable.
Nah, the views of Tim’s punters are the commentary to his Talmud; they make explicit the hidden meaning of his cryptic text.
The war-cry of the political moderate: “I enjoy Tim Blair’s blog, but don’t always agree with his opinions!”
His Continuing Crisis column for The Bulletin always seemed to be rather blog-like, it was very much make a point in one or two short paragraphs, and then move on to a different subject entirely. But ‘diary-style’ columns of this nature are fairly widespread; the Spectator publishes several of them each week. Later Blair branched out into a more quixotic, experimental column-style - one high point of his was the Mark Latham board-game. Brilliant stuff. He’s an interesting writer, if nothing else. What he lacks in sustained argument he often makes up for in pungent observations and an experimental style.
Tim of course was a journo and an editor before he became a blogger.
In which case he was made for blogging! (Or blogging was made for him. Whatevs). I do remember the Latham board game, and it was very funny. You can only push that kind of experimental stuff so far, though, or it starts turning into high modernism and becomes very unclear. His recent columns have been a trifle bitty.
But blogging? He just gets better and better, and it’s best to be straight about that fact.
I should really be working but I have to say that I was totally gobsmacked disgusted and dismayed by things commenters said at Tim Blairs and JF Beck’s blogs about the writers of some of those posts. That anyone would think A. Duck’s post - about miscarrying a much wanted pregnancy - is a fit subject for ridicule just beggars belief, frankly. If Cristy’s reading I want her to know the comments around her post also made me furious.
I don’t blame Ken, Nicholas , SL or anyone else involved for not anticipating this sort of outcome, what decent person would have imagined it?
I think the quality of his blog has been somewhat lacking, lately, though there’s no doubt about it, he’s one of the most active bloggers around and can sometimes be the most cutting.
Interestingly, Viz comics run humour like the ‘Mark Latham Board Game’ all the time. They tread a fine line between modernism and poo jokes …
I haven’t read most of the comments on Tim’s thread but I’d certainly echo Laura’s sentiments about the comments on J F Beck’s. Mr Beck of course could disclaim responsibility, but if he does it would be reasonable to ask why he doesn’t intervene in the thread.
Stupid and insensitive comments are most unhelpful to say the least.
Btw, I wonder what this type of comment says about Andrew Norton’s thesis that lefties are ruder than righties:
[link]
Laura said
You are obviously not familiar with this theory, Laura. Sadly it seems all too true.
Regarding Andrew’s theory, I would say that ‘arsehole’ is a politically independent classification.
There must be a swear word on the front of Andrew’s blog, because JAG is refusing to load it. I’ll have to read it later.
Look, when it comes to serial doses of the rudes, I think that all sides of politics are culpable. I’ve copped it worse from the left, but as this little episode shows, righties can do it to.
Tim Lambert mirrored Tim Blair’s whole blog (leftie with a dose of the rudes). Some f*ckwit hacked Jeremy Sear’s blogs (rightie with a serious dose of the rudes). I don’t like giving them oxygen, but this doesn’t reflect too well on lefties (take a decko at the causes in their sidebar).
As Patrick points out, there are arseholes all over the place. You won’t find them confined to one side of the house or the other.
Patrickg, bleakly funny graphic but unfortunately for the theory, the majority of bloggers manage to overcome their worst impulses. Anonymity plus audience pretty much describes the main things we’re gtranted access to by the technology and I don’t believe it’s the technology that’s to blame for this sort of appalling behaviour.
I’m a little dumbfounded still by people’s apparent need to defend Tim Blair, ie by saying he’s not as bad as his commenters. Sorry but it is not so simple and easy. Bill Posters has it right:
Not that his text is so terribly cryptic: in the post of Blair’s that Mark originally drew attention to he mockingly quotes the first line of Ampersand Duck’s post, without linking to it, thus knowingly sooling his droogs on to make abusive comments about the post, which I hope everyone has read by now so I don’t need to tell you what it concerns.
Either Blair didn’t read past the first line himself, in which case what business does he have mocking something he hasn’t read, or else he is just manipulative, cynical and cruel scum.
SL, I think Andrew’s blog has server issues or something - it was very slow to load last night.
I tend to agree with you Laura - I suspect I’m being naive, but it really boggles my mind that there are that many people walking around like that in everyday life.
The problem is, Patrick, that they look across to LP and say exactly the same thing about the people here.
Fatuous point-scoring doesn’t really perturb me, Rob, even if I don’t like it, but slander and malice are a little different.
Even the red heart of the left (Leftwrites, for example) will rarely descend into the vicious personal attacks Blair’s minions regularly indulge in, as abetted by him, and certainly I’ve never seen a hard-left blog-group flashmob a right post with bile and abuse the way Blair’s followers regularly do.
I don’t think you can defend that.
No, they compete with each other to come up with hilariously funny names like “Lavatory rodeo”.
While I argued on Andrew’s thread that there are bullies and nasty sods on both sides of the partisan divide, I think any objective comparison of the sorts of comments Laura is pointing to and the way in which righties are characterised here would demonstrate a significant difference.
Not that if you read recent threads on this blog, we actually spend much time discussing other blogs, unlike at Tim’s place and lately Catallaxy where whole threads have been devoted to attacking LP - ironically, among other things for being an “echo chamber” because the criticisms or rather, sledges, are virtually identical.
I don’t ascribe that to Jason and SL who do their best to discourage it, I should note.
Someone over here referred to us as ‘Catallaxatives’, Mark, and even Ken calls you ‘larva prodders’ (which I think is quite affectionate). You’re running this thread, and everyone on it is pretty reasonable. Leftwrites just deletes or moderates, much like Blair. And in both cases - to be fair - their blogs, their property.
We do what we do because we have a certain philosophical view about freedom of speech. It’s that simple.
I don’t mind “larva prodders”!
However this sort of comment is obviously not affectionate:
[link]
[link]
And the ones at Beck’s have already been cited.
The dynamics over at Tim’s are quite interesting. It’s quite true that the commenters are a generally raucous cheer squad of die hard righties enjoying themselves. Everybody knows this and a leftie goes in there at their peril. At the same time, if said lefties hold their ground and weather the torrents of abuse, they are accorded a grudging respect. Some months ago I drew attention to a courageous Muslim girl who did just that and even some of the attack dogs were conceding her bravery and persistence.
I’ve actually had some quite civilised discussions — usually as sort of sub-threads — at Tim’s.
And Mark, there have been instances of very strong abuse of righties here at LP as you well know. Some of the insults directed at the now sadly absent CL and EP were quite as hair-curling as any I’ve seen at Tim’s.
Anyhoo.
Has it occurred to you, Rob, that with those gentlemen, there might have been a few insults on both sides?
Anyway, let’s not go there.
There’s a difference, I think, though between people arguing on one blog with each other and people on another blog just dissing everyone as if they were some sort of COLLECTIVE HIVE MIND!
It’s very clear that people who blog here differ in their views on many matters, and that many of the commenters here differ, and that many commenters here aren’t “lefties” anyway.
But we get this sort of dribble from RWDBs - “hippie LP Birckenstock wearing Saddam-loving luvvies are…”
My other observation is that in general discussions on one blog about another are very unedifying, so perhaps I should take my own advice and stop talking about this.
Thanks Laura. I appreciate that.
They kind of made me sad rather than angry. I find it sad that people are so lacking in empathy and mildly amusing that so many guys were so quick to jump up and down to defend patriarchy - serving simply to prove my point at the same time.
I might have engaged with the comments earlier if I had been around, but I was actually camping at Kangaroo Valley and missed it… I’d say that was probably for the best.
Indeed. I’m not as bad as my little sister the Princess Fairy Mermaid Ballerina, either, but that doesn’t mean I’m not a drama queen too.
If there were no Tim, there would be no commenters. He enables his commenters, much as Howard did Hanson: opens up a space for and covertly encourages the expression of the worst kind of aggression, ignorance, xenophobia and who-all knows what-all else, and is then able to present himself as the face of moderate reasonableness by comparison.
Laura, I wouldn’t worry about it.
I loved Ampersand’s piece and Stephanie’s and Pavlov’s. That others won’t like them or taken them in the spirit in which they were intended is going to happen. It’s the nature of public discourse. Only in edited forums, the worst comments never see the light of day.
Not taking these things personally is the way to go. I’ve been accused of a few things in my time from every which side. Bugger them.
I actually think there’s a schoolyard mentality at play on some blogs. It creates a particular culture that people aren’t inclined to upset for fear of being in the out-group.
I remember reading a particular blog one day and I just looked at the comments and the posts and thought, “Nöpe”. See ya. And honeys, the Cold War is over and there must be a reason most of you aren’t using your real names. “Conformity Central”. While this blog has its moments (including created by me), I don’t feel that schoolyard bullying thing when I come here.
For me, the issues are more to do with who defines what’s political and what’s the “correct” way to blog. There’s obviously an agenda in assuming a particular way is the right way to do it.
We don’t have to engage with certain forums, but need to argue against what the boys are saying in that regard.
I don’t know about that, PC. Both Mark and myself — from different directions — enjoy Tim’s site but usually avoid the comments. And Tim does not appear as a commenter at his own site to encourage anything, AFAIK. His proxy Andrea does, but that’s all part of the fun. (”Fun”, if you like.)
Darlene — much the way I fell about little green footballs. Charles J does great work, but reading the comment threads sometimes is like swimming in sludge. Far worse than anything at Tim B’s.
It’s not that blog posts shouldn’t contain the word “Iâ€?; it’s that good writing in general shouldn’t. Mishandled use of the “I” makes things read like vain little diary items.
Which is why A. Duck’s intro was noted. Laura writes: “That anyone would think A. Duck’s post - about miscarrying a much wanted pregnancy - is a fit subject for ridicule just beggars belief, frankly.” Of course, her miscarriage wasn’t ridiculed. And which particular comments at my site was Laura so revolted by?
Speaking of TEH INTERNATIONAL OFFICIAL RULES OF TEH BLOGGING … you’d have to ask Ken Parish about this, but apparently a 500-word rule exists.
Many blogs are partly online diaries/journals and so I am not sure why it should be problematic that subjective personal experiences are therefore a strong feature of many blogs. I also strongly disagree with the incredible outdated rule that the word “I” should not be used in good writing. I think that it can be used to good effect in all kinds of writing and that many attempts to avoid its use are clumsy and dishonest.
Tim,
how do you think a post about losing a pregnancy could be constructed without using personal pronouns, in order to pass muster as “good writing”?
Still wondering if you read the post before you mocked it, and if so, why you thought it would be a good idea to pick on it for stylistic reasons without acknowledging the sensitivity of the subject matter.
Mishandled use of the “I� makes things read like vain little diary items.
Righty-ho, so she’s to write about a heartbreaking and deeply personal event without using “I”.
Get a grip.
Or at least a fresh one.
I don’t want to sound snarky here, but how, exactly, does a person write about their miscarriage without using the first person?
I feel like the ‘I’ rule is an arbitrary one, the time of which has well and truly past, if indeed it ever existed.
Some of the finest writers I’ve ever read - Montaigne, Orwell and Carver, just to name a few (and all quite manly men, if anyone thinks women somehow have a monopoly on this kind of thing) have all used first person a large proportion of their writing with little discernible loss.
Whoops, lots of cross-posting there. Sorry.
And I send a big hello to my sistahs in TEH HIVE MIND ; )
Including you, sistah Patrick, and especially for that mention of Carver
First-person pronouns are generally discouraged, it’s true. However, when one is writing about oneself, it can be difficult to avoid.
“Swimming in sludge” is a good line. I’m not fit enough to swim in water, let alone sludge.
Sorry, but the womanhood troubles thing is a sexist slur; there go the girls again talking about their womany things, and womany is not even a word. That was J F Beck and I’ve said something about his attitudes on my own site, so I won’t go into it.
What is “particularly bloggish”? Who decides what it is?
J F Beck ain’t impr