Bloggy blog blog

  Humor 
  Originally uploaded by arnold_nicholas.

It seems, several years into the blog phenomenon, few have pondered much about the medium itself.

In the previous post's comments, it would seem commenters would have Long Sunday as some sort of peer-reviewed journal, demanding, then, the sort of analyses expected by them.  Presumably, every post should be around 7000 words. 

Of course no one will suggest this, so criticism comes in on entries heavily theoretical, but given the very format, necessarily without the ability to 'back them up'.  I don't pretend to show you the links between Baudrillard and Lacan in a post, and even less in the COMMENTS TO A POST, which is where my analysis can be found.  But that's not the point.  Is there not something interesting, even liberating, about a bunch of ideas thrown in together?  (Why else read Baudrillard, McLuhan, etc...?)

Instead, I seek to probe, to open up an avenue of thought you have the choice of entering, or not, just as I might or might not when passing by the posts of other people.  I certainly avoid posts and bloggers generally that don't probe at all, rather remaining safe under the cover of already established viewpoints.

If we are to naively think this some sort of peer-reviewed journal, the language used in talking about other people's posts isn't one I recognize from any peer review process.  It is completely unhelpful, and only renders this blog (potentially) irrelevant.  A bunch of academics whining about jargon -  who cares?  Either go with the probe or don't.

Blog entries, like all good probes, should have a sense of humour.  They shouldn't take themselves too seriously, precisely because the readers aren't going to take them too seriously, that is, won't really read them.  Blog posts shouldn't be taken as some sort of definitive viewpoint, much less the comments to a post (which, again, is where my analysis can be found).

Total seriousness is important, of course, but for peer-reviewed journals!  And, again, this is not it!

(If anyone cares, and I doubt they do, my work, much of which has gone through the peer review process, locates itself at the very Real - yes, I did capitalize it, perhaps it is the German in me - intersection of Zizek and Baudrillard.)

Comments

[Scott Eric Kaufman]

Shorter version: I'd rather online discussions not resemble dull, unproductive (but therapeutic) seminars.

[Scott Eric Kaufman]

I don't know what you're talking about, Nate. I've a guaranteed personality.

[Bryan]

That may, pace Bryan, make me appear dogmatic. I don't think it does (nor do I feel particularly dogmatic, or dogmatically anti-dogmatic, as the case may be), but I'm not too concerned about the labels.

Dogmatic may not have been the best word. If I were to amend that statement, I'd call you stubborn, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. When it comes to Lacan or Freud... well, education gap aside, let's just say I wouldn't want to engage you in a debate. Not for fear of argument - I'm all for argument - but because I couldn't see the conversation heading in any mutually beneficial direction.

[Bryan]

Scott, I was just reminded of this article, which you link on your own blog. The relevant excerpt:

So I would say that blogging is a great way for academics to socialize and should be encouraged -- it's especially great for academics who would otherwise be quite isolated from other academics of similar interests. But what goes along with that is a tacit agreement -- nothing can exceed the level of rigor of a conversation at the pub after class. If people make overblown statements, no one necessarily has to call them on it. No one has to be convinced of, or especially prove, anything on the spot -- because that's the kind of thing that we do in journal articles and books. And we do that kind of thing in those formats because it's the kind of thing that takes a really long time and a lot of work and study and because it's not easily digested in any other way. Maybe it's a shame that certain articles aren't read very much, but the point isn't to put those ideas into a blog so that they'll get read -- the point is to say, "Hey everyone! There's this cool article out that I just read!" You know, social stuff. Recommendations. Passing the news along.

[Scott Eric Kaufman]

Yes, I link to it, but disagree. Don't get me wrong, I like that Kotsko kid. An agreeable fellow. Only in this case, wrong.

The fact that we're doing this in a written medium—one conducive to citation, no less—makes me think that our conversations can be far more substantial then what can be "accomplished" in a pub. I've thought, re-thought, re-re-thought, considered, then considered again a number of issues I'd already comfortably dismissed. Even if, in the end, I'm not persuaded to change my mind, I'm still left with a more nuanced dismissal, a greater awareness of what it is I find distasteful and why. Now, that may not seem productive, but I think it is, superficially so, even: I don't fence with straw men, even in my head, anymore. (I don't know what my review of Crews' Follies of the Wise would've looked like last year, but I can safely say "Nothing like what it'll look like now.")

One final note: I went and read RIPope's latest article and found its conclusion odd, given the anti-careerist position articulated above:

On this note, for more, and for discussion, please visit my weblog CPROBES: http://www.cprobes.com - and a group blog I contribute to, Long Sunday: http://www.long-sunday.net. After the publication of this article I will, particularly at CPROBES, routinely draw out contemporary cultural objects exemplifying sinthomic enjoy-meant and the 'Orders of Pomo'.

[RIPope]

Ya... that was in the interest of experimentation with this medium... Hmm....

There's nothing wrong with having an interest in a career. The opposite would be odd. The problem, if there is one, is when one's work - and I'm not necessarily saying that this defines anyone's work here... I wouldn't pretend to judge someone based on their contributions to the blogosphere... - is only ever motivated by how those on hiring committess MIGHT see it. In my mind, this winds up putting blocks on thinking, since it involves preconceptions of what certain people want to hear or see.

[Bryan]

The fact that we're doing this in a written medium—one conducive to citation, no less—makes me think that our conversations can be far more substantial then what can be "accomplished" in a pub.

They can be - and probably should be in certain circumstances - but they don't always have to be. I'm here to learn, first and foremost, but I also wouldn't bother with the blogosphere if I didn't also think it was a fun way to spend my time. I enjoy getting the chance to "socialize" via the Net with academics/scholars/activists I may never come in contact with otherwise. There are pros and cons to both arguments and no need why they can't peacefully coexist. I have a great deal of respect for you and your position, I just don't think you're entirely correct.

[Raoul]

"academic blogs constitute an extension of the life-of-mind I already lead"

the usual arrogant, hackish crit.speak of the Squat Kowmann, deluded lit. careerist and darwin-lite moraliste...not worth even summoning up some bon mot to put the foooo in his place

[Cindy0002hui]

Thanks for sharing !
http://www.replicasuk.com/hysek-replica-uk-789.html
This is very good blog