tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post556321194911691669..comments2024-03-20T19:40:58.078-05:00Comments on The OF Blog: The new tribalism and youLarry Nolenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16001420558511460998noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-43728732004054915332009-06-25T00:33:26.530-05:002009-06-25T00:33:26.530-05:00VW,
The problem that I see with your responses he...VW,<br /><br />The problem that I see with your responses here is that you center them around an argument that I wasn't making. I wasn't devoting this entry to one person/group, but rather I used one specific case (in the edit, I noted others that would have fit if I hadn't chosen to use the most immediate example) to highlight an universal (or rather, larger) characteristic that I had been reflecting upon for a few weeks now. The only thing "patronizing" about the line of thought is that I purposely made it rather distant in scope, as I have little stomach for personality conflicts.<br /><br />Joe,<br /><br />I think there's a Carly Simon song that covers what you're saying. It's "You're So Vain," with the damning closer of "you think this song is about you."<br /><br />The ironic thing about all this is that I'm so out-of-the-loop in certain regards (I rarely use Facebook, don't Twitter, and don't have the desire to participate in sustained social networking online) that some think I enjoy personal conflict. If anything, I tend to barely give two shits either way about most people online (while remaining civil), so reading that I like to provoke <i>people</i> rather than occasionally provoking <i>discussion</i> is an interesting thing to me. Not that it's a <i>pleasant</i> thing, mind you, but still...so strange.<br /><br />Liviu,<br /><br />Amusing post, albeit one that I'll have to check out, just to see how poor my French really is :P<br /><br />Aidan,<br /><br />In a day or two, I hope to have the time to comment on your fine post. As for the "target," as I said in the edit, it wasn't Pat or anyone specifically in mind, but rather it was just a general impression after I had browsed through something like 30-40 blogs Saturday night.<br /><br />Cindy,<br /><br />Thanks for looking at the post as it was and not for what it could be bent to become. I do make strong statements on occasion, but it's almost never with malice in mind, so this entire bit is kinda strange to me. Of course, what could and perhaps should have been said is that perhaps I could have worded things more clearly the first (or second) time, but that's just me, right? :P<br /><br />Terry,<br /><br />I'm always up for a good stoning ;)Larry Nolenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16001420558511460998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-10401555916140059962009-06-24T11:55:34.116-05:002009-06-24T11:55:34.116-05:00I'll respond to the comments later, but yes, M...I'll respond to the comments later, but yes, Martin, that post/response did prove my point, unintentional as it might have been.Larry Nolenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16001420558511460998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-20631621261450942009-06-24T08:15:11.039-05:002009-06-24T08:15:11.039-05:00Seems that this post was taken a bit personally by...<i>Seems that this post was taken a bit personally by some. </i><br /><br />It is funny that the response to a suggestion of tribalism is, er, more tribalism.Martinhttp://everythingisnice.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-14070622713246419502009-06-23T20:34:12.921-05:002009-06-23T20:34:12.921-05:00Oh, lordie, you really *are* a PITA. Yes, I owe y...Oh, lordie, you really *are* a PITA. Yes, I owe you a review. And I *will* get to it. Soon.Terry Weynahttp://www.readingtheleaves.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-50871842397493839282009-06-23T17:44:23.925-05:002009-06-23T17:44:23.925-05:00I know... I know... I'm just terrible at being...I know... I know... I'm just terrible at being online. The Greater Internet Fuckwad theory could have been conceived with me in mind.<br /><br />Thanks Terry :-)<br /><br />Don't you owe me a review by the way?Jonathan Mhttp://ruthlessculture.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-42313115508468551782009-06-23T17:31:32.491-05:002009-06-23T17:31:32.491-05:00Personally, I think we should all just stone Jonat...Personally, I think we should all just stone Jonathan. He's the one who got everyone all stirred up, right?<br /><br />Jonathan, having met you in person, I'm amazed at how such a mild-mannered, sweet person can cause such a ruckus. Please don't ever stop.Terry Weynahttp://www.readingtheleaves.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-44279972022764118532009-06-23T16:24:55.263-05:002009-06-23T16:24:55.263-05:00My first comment didn't read well. As I said b...My first comment didn't read well. As I said but then deleted, I think there was a point and it's a shame to see so many people jumping around making it bigger then the initial point. Then again, I take a lot of stuff with a grain of salt that's said online. <br /><br />As for reviewing, I've done my fair share of "negative" reviews and got some pretty nasty comments about why didn't I comment about how much I love the book. <br /><br />But back to the original post, I think the terms were strong but there was a very good point and many people jumped the gun and thought whoring for giveaways meant having 1 or 2 occasionally.Cindyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10285417085465806153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-80587926012220278652009-06-23T14:44:38.937-05:002009-06-23T14:44:38.937-05:00It's too bad this whole discussion devolved in...It's too bad this whole discussion devolved into shit-flinging about giveaways (which was hardly the point of Larry's original post), whereas the motivations behind blogs and bloggers could have been so much more interesting.<br /><br />Seriously, I made an off comment asking Larry if <a href="http://www.aidanmoher.com/blog" rel="nofollow">A Dribble of Ink</a> was one of the blogs he was referring to, but in fact his reply didn't matter either way. If I felt that Larry's comments encompassed my blog (regardless of whether <em>he</em> thought so), that's enough to warrant a step back and some contemplation about what I want as a blogger.<br /><br />And, hell, we all know that the original comment about giveaways was just a (deserved) jab at Pat, anyway.Aidan Moherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11680602160285884082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-14884065570600955012009-06-23T10:50:50.351-05:002009-06-23T10:50:50.351-05:00In honor of all this discussion, I think that ever...In honor of all this discussion, I think that everyone who has commented in this discussion needs to go to <a href="http://www.jeffvandermeer.com/2009/06/23/addressing-some-issues-give-aways-self-promotion-etc/" rel="nofollow">Jeff VanderMeer's blog and enter his latest contest/giveaway</a>. Consider it a penance.Nethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16963540055415924510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-31089016823680284822009-06-23T09:42:07.373-05:002009-06-23T09:42:07.373-05:00VW -- 'Honour'? do you want to call me ou...VW -- 'Honour'? do you want to call me out for insulting a lady? ;-)<br /><br />I'm sorry is SQT was offended but she was the one who introduced her specific blog into a general ethical discussion (I suspect because she was looking for Larry to offer her absolution... ditto all the other 'I hope you're not talking about me' people).Jonathan Mhttp://ruthlessculture.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-37426535124858121872009-06-23T09:32:53.641-05:002009-06-23T09:32:53.641-05:00In honor of Larry's post I did a pseudo-giveaw...In honor of Larry's post I did a pseudo-giveaway, namely an announcement of a free pdf magazine with an option to buy a print copy <br /><br />Now it is bilingual (about 65% French and 35% English) and has lots of poetry and art so maybe not the usual sff offering, but...<br /><br />The title of the original controversial post was misguided since "whores" make money, sff bloggers do not; wanna make money blogging, do politics, cats or tech. <br /><br />Regarding ethics - the best thing any reviewer should do is provide tons of one click links - excerpts, author site, amazon or the like to see more opinions; this way anyone can go and check the reviewer claims, compare against others claims if he/she so wishes, make his or her own mind<br />Competition (with rules so no dictator emerges) is the key as in everything<br /><br />The whole point of the Internet is linking and it amazes me that people are still wedded to the print review model and do not offer links.<br /><br />Regarding tribalism and all, I think that politeness is essential - and ultimately that SH review and others fail there badly being rude - sure it's your prerogative to be rude, but do not be amazed that people will call you on the mat and insult you back and then the argument degenerates, each side looks for weak points, it gets personal and ultimately very few people want to put up with that s..t for long in something done for pleasure.<br /><br />In the past the cathedra guys (eg newspaper reviewers) could get away with being rude because people could not answer back, but now it ain't working any more so feel free to be rude but do not expect politeness in return.Liviuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04615405766065227026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-26740124725835453522009-06-23T08:11:56.851-05:002009-06-23T08:11:56.851-05:00Joe Sherry: and who are THEY to YOU, to make you g...Joe Sherry: and who are THEY to YOU, to make you get so worked up? What nerve have they struck?<br /><br />I imagine many of those people do indeed have doubts, and were seeking to justify them. What's wrong with that? I think it's healthy to have doubts, and when you hear them voiced by others it's a good opportunity to address them for yourself.<br /><br />But also, to the question "who is Larry?" there is a very simple answer: Larry is a human. Larry is part of our society. Larry is an acquaintance. We are humans, and social creatures. We seek social harmony. We care about what other people think about us. Contrary to what many citizens of the internet appear to think, caring about the opinions of others is not in itself a bad thing. It is, perhaps, a bad thing when it leads you to inappropriate actions; it is, perhaps, a bad thing if the care becomes a pain too great, to the point of being debilitating. But caring is not by itself a bad thing. <br /><br />And if the response to this care is to spend five or ten minutes writing a brief few paragraphs of self-justification to try to get people to understand your position... this doesn't seem to me to be an inappropriate concern for the opinions of others.<br /><br />Not caring about what Larry thinks is a form of narcissism: not because Larry is anybody special, but because we are not anybody special either.<br /><br /><br />[Apologies for using the blog writer's first name so much - not being a blog person myself, it still seems rather impolite]<br /><br />[[[*DAMN IT!!!!* This is a short answer! SHORT! QUICK! SUMMARISED! GODS, I hate blogs. I can't ****ing SNEEZE without exceeding the character thresholds. HOW DO YOU PEOPLE COPE? I can only assume there's some sort of training you all had as babies - if you talked for more than thirty seconds your parents whacked you with a great big stick. Presumably it's the same training politicians have to learn to speak in soundbites. I hate speaking in soundbites. I'm too bad at it.]]]<br /><br />[OK, calming down now; apologies]<br /><br />[[[[[[NOW ITS DONE IT AGAIN. ITS AN ENDLESS RECURRING LOOP OF BATTLE BETWEEN MY VERBOSITY AND COMPULSION TO COMMENT ON THE BLOG SOFTWARE'S REFUSAL TO LET ME POST, VS. THE BLOG SOFTWARE ITSELF. IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO WIN!!!!!]]]]]<br /><br />*cries*<br /><br />Many, many, many apologies. Don't worry, i think I'll be giving up this blog-commenting thing before too long...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-54675691735362934762009-06-23T08:09:03.404-05:002009-06-23T08:09:03.404-05:00In a way, there is always something personal in an...In a way, there is always something personal in an ethical opinion (such as disapproval directed toward rudeness) - an attack on ethics, and particularly an attack on social norms, is an attack on the way we live our lives, and hence an attack on all of us. We defend politeness with a personal vigour because if the norm of politeness degenerates we all suffer. We may be on the surface standing up for a person, but much of the motivation comes from the fact that we are standing up for ourselves, pre-emptively.<br /><br />That, and humans are empathic and sympathic creatures. We are able to exist socially to some degree because our instincts lead us to develop the same emotions as others, particular when the other person is well known to us. If our friends are hurt, we feel pain. This isn't 'groupthink', it's an inescapable part of humanity - and an admirable one.<br /><br />-------<br /><br />That said, there are sometimes tribal responses to attacks. I don't think those are unjustified either. A person is not only an individual; they are also a symbol. Certain people come to symbolise sets of values, and attacks on those people can easily come be considered attacks on sets of values - which is to say attacks on sets of people. Needless to say, individuals who see themselves as being in those sets of people feel the attack personally.<br /><br />As an example, some people became upset with me recently for my anger toward Harrison for his comments on Tolkien. Why did I care what he said about Tolkien? Well, because he wasn't talking about Tolkien, he was talking about me. When he disparages Tolkien for being a nerd, he disparages everyone else he considers a nerd, which no doubt includes me (albeit in a latent manner, as I doubt he's encountered me). He obviously doesn't intend it, but he's essentially using "he's like Vacuous Wastrel" as an insult, which is insulting to me personally as well as to the people he's talking about. And as he seems to have no moral or literary high ground to make those insults from, I'm naturally annoyed by them.<br /><br />This process doesn't have to involve any sort of tribalism or groupthink, because an attack on a group is usually an attack on characteristics of that group. You don't have to in any way shape your identity around that group to be able to recognise that your own characteristics, and hence you yourself, are being attacked.<br /><br />So, if you attack a person for their characteristics, and people leap to his defence, it needn't be because of any tribalistic solidarity with the man under attack: it can simply be that they know full well that they share those characteristics, and that they would have been in the firing line themselves if they had been the one visible over the parapet. They're defending themselves vicariously - or pre-emptively.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-11697805533534773592009-06-23T08:05:06.095-05:002009-06-23T08:05:06.095-05:00Much though I appreciate your blog in general, I d...Much though I appreciate your blog in general, I do think that on occasions you do over-read things.<br /><br />In this case, I don't think the response on SQT's blog has anything to do with 'groupthink' or 'new tribalism' or anything like that - indeed, I think it's rather patronising to suggest that it is. "Oh, multiple people are disagreeing with me, they must be doing it to agree with each other" - sometimes multiple people do just have the same reaction, independently of one another.<br /><br />In this case, Jonathan was unjustifiably offensive to the woman, by any metric of tact and etiquette, defaming her character and motivations (and by implication her honour and trustworthiness). [I'm not trying to be condemnatory here - we all say things that go too far in internet discussion, or at least I certainly do, and I don't imagine there was any malicious intent in what he said]<br /><br />It is to be expected that she would take some umbrage, and likewise to be expected that her friends would take some umbrage. If he came up and said that to my friend in front of me in RL, I too would have been umbragated. Indeed, we shouldn't be surprised if people who aren't her friends express their distaste as well. If I watch somebody being rude in public, I may not say anything to their face (as I'm a coward, and interfering rarely helps), but I might say something to my own friends behind his back. The only difference is that on the internet 'behind someone's back' and 'to their face' cannot be rigourously segregated.<br /><br />This doesn't require 'groupthink' or 'new tribalism' to explain - just the well-worn principle that if you are rude to people, their friends, and often bystanders, are likely to express disapproval. It's how society enforces norms of politeness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-21521187990674112902009-06-23T06:37:06.628-05:002009-06-23T06:37:06.628-05:00Oh, but Jonathan, you are a jerk. Just ask them. ...Oh, but Jonathan, you <i>are</i> a jerk. Just ask them. :)<br /><br />This isn't directed at SQT but rather at the bunches of "I hope you're not talking about me" comments that were cropping up. <br /><br />Holy shit is there some arrogance going on there, assuming that because <i>you</i> (generically) do giveaways that Larry was talking about you. Assuming that Larry reads you on a regular basis because you show up on his blogroll. Larry does occasionally call out specific blogs here, but didn't in this case. <br /><br />So, I wonder - is it arrogance or insecurity? <br /><br />Is Larry touching a nerve with some bloggers?<br /><br />If he's not - why the hell do you care? Who is Larry to get your knickers in a bunch to the point you have to defend what you do to him (or elsewhere)? <br /><br />Shoot, I like Larry (for having not met him) and what he does here, but who is Larry to get under my skin about how I choose to blog in my free time about something nobody is paying me for?<br /><br />So maybe there is a nerve being struck - and if there is - does that raise questions as to how I feel about my blog? <br /><br />I suspect that if Larry did rant specifically about my blog I'd look at a laundry list of his comments about me and either care or not depending on how much what he says resonates with what is currently bothering me about what i do. <br /><br />So - and damn this is getting long - when something Larry says bothers you - why? <br /><br />Who's Larry?Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16094675116398769415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-626269806180241392009-06-23T05:11:52.026-05:002009-06-23T05:11:52.026-05:00Part of me wants to say: "It's the intern...Part of me wants to say: "It's the internet; what do people expect?" Flame wars, Godwin's Law, it's all part of what the internet is, surely? As long as people have computer screens acting as an etiquette block, I can't see it ever changing. <br /><br />Having said that you seem to negotiate these waters better than many others.<br /><br />As a related tangent - I know of one or two major authors who've been driven offline due to the nature of internet "debate" - they grow tired of it all. We're losing out there. It's certainly tough for authors to have a work that takes a year or so of their life and emotions talked about in such casual terms.Markhttp://blog.markcnewton.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-7711507174457441982009-06-23T02:43:34.951-05:002009-06-23T02:43:34.951-05:00As thoughtful as ever Larry.
To a certain extent,...As thoughtful as ever Larry.<br /><br />To a certain extent, the tribalism comes down to simple online cliques. The people at SQT's blog 'know' her but don't know me and might not systematically follow you and so obviously she's right and I'm a jerk :-)<br /><br />Though it should be pointed out that it was SQT and not me who raised the ethics of her blog. If she didn't want them discussed she could have clicked on by. I wasn't even aware of her blog before she appeared in the comments.<br /><br />I agree that I am a jerk on this issue. I've long since been incredibly vocal on the issue of the ethics of blogging and reviewing and I suspect I always will.<br /><br />However, my aim has never been to force other people to obey my moral standards. I fully accept that they're highly idiosyncratic. Not only did I struggle with the morality of receiving review copies, I still have a problem requesting review copies for Fruitless Recursion. So much so that I actually buy a chunk of the books that the site reviews.<br /><br />I don't and have never expected people to share my ethical standards on this question. However, what I do think is important is that people realise that there ARE moral considerations to accepting review copies, pumping out press releases and doing give-aways.<br /><br />If people think about the ethics of these practices and continue with them then I'm happy because I think the real problem here is not give-away themselves but moral and editorial complacency. As long as people think about the ethics of what their doing and whether or not they can give honestly negative reviews to books they receive for free then I'll be a happy camper :-)Jonathan Mhttp://ruthlessculture.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-75581925820631193022009-06-22T22:34:21.159-05:002009-06-22T22:34:21.159-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Cindyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10285417085465806153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8068873.post-90314157673560348772009-06-22T21:16:05.431-05:002009-06-22T21:16:05.431-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.SQThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04251030404220909306noreply@blogger.com