Or rather, it has the potential for being good.
posted by grestall at 4:33 AM on March 29, 2000
We all have different stories that we want to tell, and those stories should be allowed to find their own lengths. I find the idea of a "magic number" like 3000 rather silly, and find it difficult to believe that saying nothing in 3000 words is inherently better than saying it in 100, or vice versa.
On the other hand, the one thing that really caught my attention in Ben's SxSW piece was the claim that Powazek had been promoting weblogs at the expense of other types of personal publishing:
"A few minutes ago, Derek was saying that the organizers here at SxSW wanted to do a panel on personal publishing, you know, journals, zines, that sort of thing. And Derek said 'Oh no, that's so uncool now. Do it on weblogs.' and see, that's exactly what I'm talking about here."Is there any truth to Ben's claim?
However, I wouldn't want all the bloggers, or even a medium-sized group of them, to start writing this way simply because it takes way too much time to read.But no one has given up their weblogs. They've just added a new section for longer things. If you like someone's weblog, wouldn't you want to hear more from them? More in-depth discussions of something that's on their mind?
i wonder why people get so upset and jump to accuse others of being trendy and exclusive when it's really just jealousy over the fact that they're better and more popular?maybe its because of statements like that where arrogance and elitism just emanate with the worst stench.
all this moralizing is just more elitism of the web that diguests me and makes me ponder is my reasons for choosing the web lifestyle to get away from the shit real world was in fact a mistake.I don't see elitism on the web, really, I never have, except when people accuse others of it.
look back at the whole derek discussion, where people were ripping into the most wonderful, sweet, kind person accusing him of elitism and exclusivity. merely because he's good at what he does and well-aclaimed for it.i have seen the light in that sense and i agree. oh, and i thought your post was in regard to this, sorry.
but I'd have to say Ben and my arrogance is well on par (at the very least). If you object to his level of arrogance, well, you're shitting on me as well.well, from what i sense, his is genuine "im better than you and what i say is right" whereas i find yours to be more cynical and sarcastic, as i already said.
hey matt... so by saying "I don't see elitism on the web, really, I never have, except when people accuse others of it" you are accusing me of being elitist? odd, i had no idea that being upset at the elite subsequently ment you yourself are elite. hmmm, extremely intresting and wrong, sorry.Oh no, oh no, please don't do this.
i see countless of websites with only 50 hits a day that still put more heart into everything they do.It's been like this forever, in any sort of creative work. Anyhow, I don't see what's so bad about 'just' 50 hits a day.
mathowie: No one I know with a popular website gives a crap about how many hits they getthink of this in terms of money, a rich man doesn't care how much money he has because at some point it becomes a non-issue. but a poor man...
We keep returning to these themes of popularity, elitism, incestuous linking and internecine metametametastuff, both here and in dozens of weblogs. I'd wager that at least 40 per cent or more of the weblogs I regularly read are given over to "blogging culture" trivia, personality wars and other minutae. (I don't have hard figures to back it up, but this is the contemporary web after all. I can assert something such as this with only some vague anecdotal evidence and have it taken as true.)
As Captain Picard asked, in the opening moments of "Star Trek: Insurrection", "Does anyone remember when we used to be explorers?".
So, then, popularity? I think I can speak with some authority on this subject, since I am THE MOST POPULAR WEBLOGGER ALIVE (tm). Actually, I'm not. I am one of those earnest little websites that "red scare" alluded to earlier. I get 50-60 visitors per day, a rate that -- with only occasional spikes -- has remained constant almost as long as I've kept a weblog, since mid-1998.
A few weeks ago, though, I tweaked the nose of the weblogs.com hotlist -- you may remember, it caused a little moment -- and, for 24 hours, through guile and deceit, catapulted to the top of the list. I decided thereafter to retain the mantle I had claimed for that brief time. I would be and thusly proclaim myself (with tongue planted in cheek), despite any future evidence to the contrary, THE MOST POPULAR WEBLOGGER ALIVE. I have no need of independent verification, Beebo, Bloat, Mr. Blackwell or otherwise.
There's a sign over my desk that reads "Fame is what they give you. Success is what you give yourself." As far as this mincing about popularity is concerned, that's all I need to know.
Elitism? Please. Any assertion that anyone who wasn't at SXSW doesn't matter is, you'll pardon the expression, deep-fried bulldung on a stick. I went to Austin knowing no one, having corresponded with only one or two of the folks I would end up spending the bulk of my time with. I left having met and made friends of some two dozen folks who enriched me emotionally and creatively. Everyone -- "webgod" (Please.) or otherwise -- was warm, approachable and generous of time and spirit. As I tried to be in return.
One of the most wonderful moments I experienced during the whole week was sitting in a dark nightclub with three or four of the people routinely singled out as "elite" or "cliquish." We spent an hour and a couple of rounds of Shiner brainstorming ways -- financial or otherwise -- that we could help make the wonderful experience we were having more accessible to more people next year. If there were, in other quarters, secret cabals meeting to conspire to leave out "lesser" mortals, I wasn't invited to those parties. I doubt Janeane Garofalo was either.
With luck, next year I'll meet at least two dozen more new friends and catch up with some old ones. Maybe Ben and I can compare notes on feather boas; I scarcely got to say "hi" to him this year and I should have made more effort to do so. He's pretty cute.
This more-meta-than-thou nonsense is tiresome and played out. The whole web -- blogs, journals, diaries, dancing hamsters -- is, as has often been said, "just people doin' stuff." I have one remaining thing to say about the weblog "community" and I'll say it on or about June 4, in The BradLands. Until and after then, I'm seceding from the weblog nation; no more meta-stuff or cross-talk in my weblog. I'll either find another place for it or stop it altogether. It's not doin' stuff, it's just talking about doin' stuff.
Pardon the screed. It's past my bedtime and I probably have another 60 comments to read by now. A year ago, I published Why I Weblog. Some well-intentioned hyperbole aside, the "why" hasn't changed. The "how" is evolving. The true "community" will come, eventually, as long as we all keep doin' stuff.
posted by bradlands at 12:03 AM on March 30, 2000
A. Lincoln
T. Edison
F.D.fucking R
and possibly Ghandi, as I am really grossed out by his urine drinking fetish
Hey!
Um, well ... I guess Matthew Broderick isn't so bad. I do wear glasses, too.
posted by aaron at 1:43 PM on April 27, 2001
Trying to define punk is a futile gesture. There was too much of it happening in too many places for a single definition to stand without contradicting some other equally valid form. The trick is to pick a definition you can live with and properly argue at parties. In my as yet unwritten treatise "Who is the Candy Rocker?" I will lay out the Platonian view that will put an end to the what is punk question once and for all.
Matt, I'll be forwarding the official short-and-snarky rulebook to you in email.
posted by CrazyUncleJoe at 9:01 PM on March 28, 2000