Long Sunday
‘You are reserved for a great Monday!’ Fine, but Sunday will never end.—Kafka

« Turnstile | Main | War/Politics »

to: the only person reading these things

Keith Gessen as interviewed by something called the New York Inquirer:

The trouble with blogs arises when they go from being diaries (very private expressions, telling us something only that person knows) to being basically attention-grabbing mechanisms. That fake blog we had up was the result of my frustration with lit-bloggers. Back in the day, you would occasionally stumble upon some person blogging about their very private reading, what it was like, what their reactions were. Those people still exist, but they're drowned out by people who are just purveyors of literary gossip--who comment on books they haven't even read, who, as Marco likes to say, are just basically freelance publicists. It's one thing to be corrupted by, say, the pressure of writing for the New York Times Book Review, or the prospect of employment somewhere, or a blurb. But to sell your birthright for a couple of review copies and a link on a blogroll! For shame. So I spent a few weeks making fun of lit-bloggers and it was therapeutic. But then I stopped when I discovered the Alexa traffic ranking system and saw that I was practically the only person reading these things.

(via The Valve, of all things...)

Surely he's not, you know, talking about us. Right? As far as I know, LS has never received a single review copy (but feel free to go ahead and make me a hypocrite, expensive presses! I'd especially like a set of Moretti's new numbers, and I'd gladly review the $200 set right here on our burgeoning site...), we don't really gossip (does this count?), and, as far as I can tell, we publicize only the revolution to come...

We do, however, often enough comment on books we haven't read. In fact, in my case, almost always. But, really, who has time in the age of the instant-and-always-on, the age of the blog?

Anyway, I'm looking forward to my next issue of n+1. I'm even trying to talk my neighborhood bookstore into stocking it. Freelance publicist indeed...

By CR | November 13, 2006 in Announcements | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/361357/6806837

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference to: the only person reading these things:

Comments

"But to sell your birthright for a couple of review copies and a link on a blogroll!"

As President Bush has said in another context, I don't agree with the PREMISE. (And Pres. Bush kind of shouts the word like that.) That is, we don't even have a birthright. Much less a link we can sell it for. We're just talking.

Posted by: Swifty | Nov 13, 2006 8:47:25 AM

If you don't have a birthright, that means that the review copies are free. (I have gotten a few review copies as an indirect result of having a blog -- but honestly, if you want a review copy of something, just write to the publisher and ask.)

Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Nov 13, 2006 10:05:54 AM

Adam's absolutely correct. Plus, once you find the nerve to ask, they start asking you if you want things.

But the whole thing about Alexa, you know, that counter thing doesn't even start until 100,000 visits, so it's no surprise he felt alone. So did the 99,998 other readers...

Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman | Nov 13, 2006 1:21:57 PM

Um, sure, if you'll review it on your blog. But, you know, writing as Professor Cultural Revolution might be a bit less than workable.

Scott, would you be willing to serve as my mail proxy? Or should I just have them send the books to the mailbox where I get my dirty magazines?

The perils and profitlessness of pseudonomity...

Posted by: CR | Nov 13, 2006 2:05:58 PM

...if you'll consider reviewing it on your blog.

I'm not sure anonymity's a problem, either. I mean, you can be anonymous to your readers but transparent with editors and what-not. That said, if you really want a proxy, I'd be more than happy to accept that new Moretti for you. You'd get it by, I don't know, 2008? 2009?

But yes, between the free books and the Amazon dollars, blogging can be a nice racket. Not that it's sustainable without, you know, actually enjoying it, but it can help sooth the sores of poverty, i.e. library fines, even if it does create some storage issues.

Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman | Nov 13, 2006 2:22:41 PM

I'm simply not going to write a press that I may very well be pitching in, oh, about 6 months asking for a $200 review copy that I will review on my anonymous blog - a blog, obviously, I'm not going to point them towards.

Sorry.

even if it does create some storage issues.

We do get quite a few unprompted review copies in the mail from my wife's work as a reviewer. If someone were, ahem, far less scrupulous than I, that someone might consider selling them at beaucoups de profits on amazon marketplace.

I remember reading a story about one of the more prominent non-academic art critics (forget which), that he got his start in art because those books brought the most cash (more than the review itself) upon resale at the Strand.

Posted by: CR | Nov 13, 2006 2:35:18 PM

As fascinating as this discussion of reviewery etiquette is, does anybody have anything to say about the Gessen interview?

Posted by: CR | Nov 13, 2006 2:37:50 PM

I get review copies. If they ask first and it looks hideous I just say NO. Even with these preventive measures in place, several of those that arrived may have been resold on Amazon. By far the best benefit of blogging has been the surprise generosity of spontaneous gifts of books from friends. Books from the wishlist - good books, in other words.

LS gets 5,000-6,000 hits a day, "good" days, according to Typepad. However if you subtract one or two Conversation Dominators from this total I suspect it would substantially diminish. In other words, "good" days may more often be a measure of vituperative excess and a handful of egos than much else.

Those people still exist, but they're drowned out by people who are just purveyors of literary gossip

Not sure about the "drowned out" part (he seems to forget the blogosphere is self-selecting). But in any case why not, still, aspire to the former?

I think he's got the litblog 'sphere exactly pegged (TEV, or Bookslut, anyone?) Thankfully there are still exceptions, the best of which, yes indeed, do not confuse official reviewing, confessional or personality/peacock demonstrativeness or publicity/careerist hackwork for the sort of writing that takes place there.

Posted by: Matt | Nov 13, 2006 6:50:27 PM

Didn't mean to derail the conversation, it's just that what he said didn't strike me as very interesting. Yes, it seems he doesn't like Maud Newton or stuff like The Literary Saloon, which is fine. We already know they're hostile to academic criticism, even if some of its otherwise brilliant editors pretend not to know what it is.

That said, I try not to comment on books or articles I haven't read (unless it's like Against the Day, in which I'm writing about the desire to read them). For the most part, I've been scrupulous about acknowledging the limits of my knowledge, and when I stray beyond them, I let people know that's what I'm doing. That's the, I don't know, conversational aspect of blogs. Sometimes conversations about Proust intrigue me, even though I've only read Swann's Way. Thing is, I've read enough general modernist criticism to understand the significance of the other volumes, so sometimes I'll venture a comment or two. But really, I think he's talking about Maud Newton, Scott Esposito, &c. And, to be honest, that side of online literary culture is dull-but-informative. But does it, as Gessen suggests, have pretensions to be anything more?

Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman | Nov 13, 2006 6:51:31 PM

I suspect, Scott, that he's talking primarily about The Elegant Variation. And sure they do (as anyone who's ever had the misfortune of reading Mark Sarvas knows rather well). That guy has been on some kind of strange vendetta ever since n+1 turned him down for an interview, or something, and he's generally just been a consistent dick.

But then, here we are ourselves, just gossiping along.

Posted by: Matt | Nov 13, 2006 7:06:16 PM

stalinist girly chat

Posted by: | Nov 13, 2006 7:10:36 PM

Yes, precisely.

Posted by: Matt | Nov 13, 2006 7:16:31 PM

That's sad, actually. Not the Troll of Sorrow bit, but Elegant Variations. If that's Gessen's target, I think his assessment's largely accurate. It's also sad for him, though, that he doesn't read quality "literary literary" sites like wood s lot or 3 Quarks Daily. Maybe someone should send him an email?

Posted by: Scott Eric Kaufman | Nov 13, 2006 8:03:58 PM

Oh god but that's some funny shit.

wood s lot is not a blog. Stochastic Bookmark and Pseudopodium are blogs.

Posted by: Matt | Nov 13, 2006 9:38:32 PM

- stalinist girly chat -

i'm sorry - i think that's delightful. I really do.

i am pleased by the cleverness of the LS troll in this particular thread.

Posted by: squibb | Nov 13, 2006 9:46:34 PM

He's sure got some tasteless followers, though, Mark Sarvas does, eh?

(Notice he made the mistake of taking all the blowjob jokes; what will Scott Esposito ever say?)

Stooping to pure, unvarnished contempt for the self-declared "high-brow" could almost have been predicted; one wonders, almost, why it wasn't!

Oh, but I know, it's just the way the magazine arches its brow that really ...except wait, they really don't. What's this, they mercilessly criticize the author-photo institution, they praise the passionate, the ugly and untimely! Only, alas, they will not suck up to...the litblogs.

What a self-riteous, petty ass, this Mr. Ed "Rants." Come to think of it, a picture of his ass would have been nearly just as subtle and certainly as eloquent, as ripostes go.

Another day, the lit blogosphere busy living up to its deserved reputation.

Posted by: | Nov 13, 2006 10:07:30 PM

I do confess the ToS
doth sometimes draw a chuckle.

Posted by: Matt | Nov 13, 2006 10:14:34 PM

I like 3 Quarks, but it's 95% blockquote plus a picture. The blockquotes are often from interesting things.

Posted by: Jonathan | Nov 14, 2006 12:52:39 PM

Jonathan, I assume, got it already but just in case: no disrespect was meant to "s lot", or "3 Quarks" (on the contrary - indeed the organizing, very human hand of the former is often present in subtle, discreet ways) - only I don't think they are the sort of recording of unique and intimate individual experience, reflected over, that Gessen is talking about (to be sure, pas au-delĂ  hasn't been this either, for some time, unfortunately).

Posted by: Matt | Nov 14, 2006 11:25:49 PM

wood s lot is a blog in the grand old tradition of blogs, and bears a lot more resemblance to what Barger presumably had in mind when he coined "weblog" (I presume this because it bears more than passing resemblance to Robot Wisdom). (META name="description" content="blog,personal commentary,reflections on the human condition,ephemera,notes from the underbelly".)

Posted by: ben wolfson | Nov 15, 2006 12:11:40 AM

fair enough, ben.

Posted by: Matt | Nov 15, 2006 12:26:47 AM

Post a comment

Please note: comments are published at the discretion of the post's author and will not appear immediately. Do not submit comments more than once.






 

Technorati Tags: