There appears to have been a small firestorm in the blogosphere today. Both John Scalzi and Justine Larbalestier have put out posts trying to head off a flame war directed at Robin Hobb for this rather amusing post.
Oh Noes! Someone has said that it is more important to write novels than spend all of your time blogging!
But you know, I’m not really surprised. Blogging is instant daily entertainment. Novels you have to wait months for. And blogging is free. Novels you have to pay for. Is it any wonder that fans would prefer to have writers spend their time blogging than writing books? Why does the phrase “sense of entitlement” come to mind? Maybe what Robin needs to do is employ a ghost writer to blog for her.
It never ceases to amaze me that folks can be smug in their self-righteousness about what they think is going on in people’s heads and be absolutely, completely wrong all at the same time! I don’t think the problem here is entitlement, nor that people are upset that Hobb pointed out that blogging can be a timesink. People already know that it can be a timesink. What the folks I’ve seen online are objecting to is the tenor of her argument, in which she appears to be setting up an either/or. Either you blog and don’t write ever, or you write and stay away from teh ebil blogz! Though she may have written what was supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek piece (satire only works if the audience GETS it, someone *missed* that mark), the either/or bit is what she meant to deliver on. And, you know, anytime people start delivering either/ors I get suspicious, because the world is rarely either/or. Fans like blogs, yes. But if you were to ask them if they preferred to see fewer books from authors and more blogging, a significant majority would say “Hell, no.” Thus your characterization of what’s going on in the conversation is more than a bit condescending.
One of the characteristics of satire is that it tends to exaggerate positions to absurd extremes. Criticizing a piece of satire because it does just that seems to be to be pretty pointless. And if a piece of satire is always bad if some of the people who read it have a sense of humor failure then obviously no one should ever be allowed to write it. Is that what you want?
All I’ve done here is observe that people like getting their entertainment regularly and free. I could add to that the fact that fans (in a fairly general sense) have a habit of getting upset when the entertainment they love dries up. Fans of Sherlock Holmes were upset when Conan Doyle killed him off. Fans of Star Trek were upset when the original series was stopped. It happens all the time, and it is entirely understandable. Blogging is providing excellent entertainment for some people, and I think it entirely possible that some people will be upset at the suggestion that writers shouldn’t blog.
What struck me as interesting here is that those writers who can and do blog successfully, and keep up a good fiction output as well, may be creating a standard by which other writers will be judged. It probably won’t be a career breaker issue, any more than whether or not you turn up at conventions is a career breaker – it can help a lot, but you can still sell books without it. But if there are people out there who are saying that they won’t buy Robin’s books any more because she won’t blog, and she advises other people not to blog, that’s worth noting.
If there is an “either/or” position that I’m seeing here it is one of, “thou shalt not criticize blogging, even in jest.”
Now having read the posts you pointed to, I’m taken aback by how third parties seemed to be trying to engineer a verbal death match between two bloggers. Unsuccessfully, to the credit of the two people concerned.
It did seem that way to me. I’d comment that some people seem to regard verbal death matches as entertainment, but I guess that would get me accused of being arrogant and condescending again.
One of the characteristics of satire is that it tends to exaggerate positions to absurd extremes. Criticizing a piece of satire because it does just that seems to be to be pretty pointless.
actually, I’m more criticizing it because it’s bad satire. And at least one other person whose read her rants before isn’t convinced it’s even that.
Furthermore, I don’t think it’s sense of humor failure I’m suffering from here. I’m a funny gal. I make others laugh. I’m pretty secure my sense of humor is healthy. basically arguing that I’m faulty because Robin Hobb wrote something that isn’t funny nor true? Really not the way to come out ahead in this one.
Honestly, I’d be happy if people stopped writing BAD satire. but that’s not likely to happen as long as there are people around to laugh uproariously at bad jokes.
All I’ve done here is observe that people like getting their entertainment regularly and free.
no, that’s not all you’ve done. You’ve made that observation while looking down your nose at “fans” and waving your hands about entitlement, which is certainly an easy bugaboo to conjure, kinda like “Nazi” and “terrorist” for the political blogger crowd.
I could add to that the fact that fans (in a fairly general sense) have a habit of getting upset when the entertainment they love dries up.
yeah, and yet, that’s not even what’s going on here. perhaps you’re reading some stuff I’m not, but the only people I’ve personally seen comment on this issue are pros and semi-pros, like Scalzi, Justine L., PNH, Carlie Stross, and you. So where are all these entitled fans you’re on about? (I suppose they could be around as I don’t read ALL of LiveJournal nor bothered to look at the comments on Scalzi’s post.)
Blogging is providing excellent entertainment for some people, and I think it entirely possible that some people will be upset at the suggestion that writers shouldn’t blog.
Oh, so it’s only a possibility that you’re talking about then? That’s not real helpful. Pre-condescendingly chastising people for what they might get upset about and why? Not cool.
And again, I don’t think that any reasonable person lives in fear that Robin Hobb is going to make the blogging stop. Most people who’ve brought up objections to the rant are, like me, rolling our eyes at the notion that blogging is de facto anathema to getting some writing done. Not screaming, “BUT THINK OF MY FREE ENTERTAINMENT.”
What struck me as interesting here is that those writers who can and do blog successfully, and keep up a good fiction output as well, may be creating a standard by which other writers will be judged.
May be. And that’s certainly an interesting discussion to have (but oh look, we’ve already had it, a lot… ah well). there’s a lot to be said for helping writers understand that they don’t HAVE to blog to be successful, just as one can help writers understand that if they blog the world will not end and their next book won’t languish in the dark corners of the unconscious. Every writer must find their own way. Which is why the either/or people make me roll my eyes so hard. There IS no either/or in this case. It’s a personal preference thing.
But if there are people out there who are saying that they won’t buy Robin’s books any more because she won’t blog, and she advises other people not to blog, that’s worth noting.
I think it’s less that she advised people not to blog and won’t do it herself and more that she did so in such a way that showed her to be dangerously out of touch with us here in the 21st century. You say it’s satire and that’s all fine and good, but enough people missed that that I maintain: Robin missed the mark on that one. It’s so much easier to make your case about the dangers of something, if you actually care, if you do so in a more straightforward manner. If she didn’t actually mean any of it (HAHAHAHAHAHAHA SO FUNNY) then we might as well not give a care what her opinion is. That people refuse to buy her books–well, it’s sad but that is sometimes the result of being a jerk on the internet.
If there is an “either/or†position that I’m seeing here it is one of, “thou shalt not criticize blogging, even in jest.â€
yeah, I guess you missed the other.
Criticize blogging all you want. But at least do it in such a way that doesn’t insult the intelligence or working habits of those who do. there are plenty of legitimate ways to look critically at blogging and writers who blog without being a damn snooty princess about it.
Tempest, I’m not going to bother to respond to that offensive nonsense. You want to pick a fight with me, so you read a whole lot of things into what I said that I didn’t intend, and then you have the cheek to accuse me of putting words into other people’s mouths. Well, I know that picking fights with people is what you do. It gets you a lot of attention. And sometimes you do it for very good reasons. But I don’t approve of your methods. I’m sure that if you want to you can whip up a nice little witch hunt and try to drum me out of the blogosphere. You can probably find all sorts of creative excuses for explaining why I’m a bad person and everyone should hate me. That will probably make you feel very good. But it won’t make me have any respect for you.
Being drummed out of the blogosphere… That’s not literally possible of course, but it is possible to be treated as persona non grata at a favorite high-traffic blog, and become unable to participate in a valued community. That reminds me of a time in the 70s when I teed off a local fan who hosted a lot of parties. I could easily have ended up being a fan who was still a very active part of fandom everywhere in the world but a 10-mile-radius around where I actually lived.
oh lord, I drum people out of the blogosphere? I have the powah!!
No, but seriously, I never intended to drive you away from blogging or somesuch silliness. Goddness, you act as if I run around the internet stabbing people’s avatars and laughing about it.
I read the tone of the original post as being extremely condescending and looking down one’s nose. You didn’t intend it that way? Fine then. Wouldn’t be the first time that tone was misconstrued on the web. Still and all, you still completely misrepresented the conversation around this issue as being about folks getting mad because their free entertainment might dry up. It’s just not about that, plain and simple.
Also, there’s a difference between “picking a fight” and “strongly disagreeing”. I’m pretty sure I’m on the strongly disagreeing side, perhaps you think I’m not. there we go with that tone thing again. In any case, I’m attempting to tell you that I think you’re wrong. If that’s offensive to you, oh well. I don’t spend time on the ‘net telling people they’re wrong just because it gets me attention, I do it because, well, wrongness must be corrected.
And there you go again preemptively chastising people for something they have NOT done. I’ve NEVER, ever gone about the Internet saying you’re a bad person or that everyone should hate you. Nor do I intend to. There’s a difference between disagreeing with someone and hating them for godsakes. And I have no reason to dislike you. I disagree with you sometimes and sometimes I don’t.
So, yeah, put that crap back in the box in came from. Disagree with me all you want, but don’t play like I’ve launched a hate campaign against you because of one blog post.
Here we see traditional online communication issues in play. I don’t recognize much of what I meant to say in your complaints above, and you don’t recognize yourself in my response. Nevertheless, we both see what we see.
A useful starting point might be Mike’s comment above. It does seem to be the case that there has been a campaign to try to get prominent bloggers such as Scalzi (and most recently Neil Gaiman) to attack Robin Hobb. They have both declined to do so, which I think was wise. I have no idea if this campaign was deliberately orchestrated or just one of those things that happens spontaneously online, but it certainly seems to have happened. I confess that when I saw you were involved my heart sank, because you do seem to get involved in a lot of this stuff.
I suspect that you underestimate the effect that an internet campaign can have on people. You might want to read this book, which has some graphic examples of how badly online attacks can get out of control. More generally, bullying of all sorts appears to be a major issue these days, whether online, in school or even in the workplace. I base this observation on talking to people who work with gay and trans kids, not just on what I read in the media.
You, of course, will claim that you don’t bully people, you just oppose “wrongnessâ€, and in many cases you are quite right. If you are going to oppose racism, misogyny, homophobia and the like then I’ll happily applaud your cause, if not necessarily your methods. Recently, however, with issues like this, and the Eclipse cover, it seems to me that your attacks are becoming seriously out of proportion to the level of offense given, and that you are even possibly crossing the line between attacking actual offenses and misinterpreting comments so that you have an excuse to attack people.
Most of this, I think, comes down to anger. Goddess knows you have a right to be angry about many things. I have lots of things I am angry about too, though most of them I can’t do anything about because doing so would only hurt me and my family. Sometimes you have to get angry. But sustained over time anger is a corrosive and self-perpetuating emotion that causes you to lash out at anyone and anything in search of release. It isn’t healthy to be angry all the time. And I know from bitter experience that most of the times I’ve got angry at people it hasn’t hurt anyone but myself.