This is an archived page. Images and links on this page may not work. Please visit the main page for the latest updates.

 
 
 
Read my book, TEACHING BEAUTY IN DeLILLO, WOOLF, AND MERRILL (Palgrave Macmillan; forthcoming), co-authored with Jennifer Green-Lewis. VISIT MY BRANCH CAMPUS AT INSIDE HIGHER ED





UD is...
"Salty." (Scott McLemee)
"Unvarnished." (Phi Beta Cons)
"Splendidly splenetic." (Culture Industry)
"Except for University Diaries, most academic blogs are tedious."
(Rate Your Students)
"I think of Soltan as the Maureen Dowd of the blogosphere,
except that Maureen Dowd is kind of a wrecking ball of a writer,
and Soltan isn't. For the life of me, I can't figure out her
politics, but she's pretty fabulous, so who gives a damn?"
(Tenured Radical)

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Blogoscopy / SOS

A lot of guys find blogs threatening. I don't know why. We've seen Robert Samuelson growl at them. We've seen Michael Kinsley whine about them. Now there's Paul F. Campos.



I once asked a friend of mine, a novelist, why so many writers have drinking problems. "A better question is why so many drinkers have writing problems," he replied. [This is amusing, but what's the connection between the sally and the point coming up about there being a lot of law bloggers?]

His response came to mind recently when I began to toy with the idea of starting a blog. Although the contrarian in me is attracted to the prospect of being the last law professor in America without one, the forms' advantages are obvious. [The writer is correct that, among academics, law professors are particularly drawn to the blog form, with Ann Althouse among the most prominent.]

A blog allows one to dash off a brilliant riposte to some flawed argument or rhetorical atrocity, without having to deal with publishing schedules or, worse, editors who insist that factual assertions be true, and who place other tiresome demands on creative genius. [
The sarcasm ain't working. It's failing partly for stylistic reasons -- the guy's not a good enough writer to pull off humor -- and partly because it's unfair. It doesn't
describe what legal bloggers do or how they think of themselves at all.]

These same features also represent the disadvantages of a blog. Every time I hear the Blog Siren singing its Celine Dionesque song [Have no idea what this means.], I end up thinking of a certain type of legal academic blogger — the sort who has a habit of concocting (intentionally?) preposterous posts, which then elicit a predictable stream of insults from various precincts of the blogosphere. [
The guy absolutely has to name a few of these, with links. I can't think of any, and I read lots of legal blogs.]

Our brave blogger then sallies forth in a state of high dudgeon, demanding apologies from those who have insulted her, while at the same time exacerbating the situation by engaging in the most incredibly juvenile banter. [Constipated writing. Again, not funny. UD can help this guy out with his problem: He should not start a blog.] I find it difficult to believe such witticisms aren't composed with one hand, while the other holds a glass of cabernet sauvignon the size of Lake Tahoe.

Among writers in general, and bloggers in particular, alcohol and narcissism go together like peanut butter and chocolate. [Does the writer mean this to mean that they do go together? What the fuck?] Psychologists define narcissistic personality disorder as involving a grandiose sense of self-importance, and an overwhelming need for the constant attention and admiration.

What better example of this can there be than bloggers obsessed with how many "hits" their posts are eliciting, or how often they're mentioned on the Internet, and who take pride in drawing attention to themselves by being aggressively obnoxious? [Once again, if the writer's unwilling to name any legal blogger who does this, he's easily dismissed as a jerk.]

Blogs pose special dangers for academics. The whole point of academic life is to offer those who live it the time to spend months and years becoming expert about, and reflecting upon, complex issues, before committing thoughts on such matters to print.

The same can't be said for the chardonnay-fueled rant posted at 3 in the morning, which may inadvertently tell your readers far more than they wish to know about your living-room decor, your psycho-sexual neuroses and your views on "American Idol."
[Lame and lamer. Get ready for two bizarre final paragraphs.]

None of which is to deny many bloggers, including academic bloggers, do excellent work. Just a few of the lawyers and law professors who regularly write first-rate things in the genre include Glenn Greenwald, Jack Balkin, Eugene Volokh and Sandy Levinson. [If you want to be taken as a powerful satirist, with those chardonnay references and all, you can't restrict yourself, like some little missy at a teaparty, to naming law bloggers you like. You've got to name the ones you're attacking... Notice, by the way, that the guy gives a female pronoun to the sort of blog he hates, and then lists among the blogs he likes only those written by men. Biggies like Ann Althouse clearly have this guy's knickers in a twist. Who cares.]

I could list many more. These writers represent a variety of perspectives, but they all write fluent, accessible prose, they mostly avoid shooting from the hip and their analyses of various topics are, if I may say, generally quite sober. [End of essay. No particular reason why it's the end of the essay, but then this piece of writing is incoherent from the get-go. UD's advice: Consult a psychologist.]

Labels: