Blogging, I’ve decided, can be a humbling and baffling experience. The things I most love sink without trace, while the merely ornamental go on and on. Yes, probably the former are my darlings and are thus in need of a good crucifixion. But it’s the latter that really kill me.
So Chris Clarke, writing recently in the Boston Globe, bucked me up with his piece on blogging entitled How to write an incendiary blog post.
Below is the first part of the article. Clink on the link after to read the rest (including the comments).
How to write an incendiary blog post
This sentence contains a provocative statement that attracts the readers’ attention, but really has very little to do with the topic of the blog post. This sentence claims to follow logically from the first sentence, though the connection is actually rather tenuous. This sentence claims that very few people are willing to admit the obvious inference of the last two sentences, with an implication that the reader is not one of those very few people. This sentence expresses the unwillingness of the writer to be silenced despite going against the popular wisdom. This sentence is a sort of drum roll, preparing the reader for the shocking truth to be contained in the next sentence.
This sentence contains the thesis of the blog post, a trite and obvious statement cast as a dazzling and controversial insight.
This sentence claims that there are many people who do not agree with the thesis of the blog post as expressed in the previous sentence. This sentence speculates as to the mental and ethical character of the people mentioned in the previous sentence …
To read the rest, click here.
*****
I thought the article was one of the cleverest (and accurate) things I’ve read in a long time. Talk about spot on!
And then I read the comments and despaired. What a bunch of morons. I hope they aren’t representative because either (1) they did’t get it or (2) missed the point because they just absorb what they read without applying any sort of analytic filters.
Or am I over reacting?
The comments are part of the baffling bit. Haven’t heard “moron” for ages. Really needs to make a comeback.
I agree and promise to use it proudly!
You say the comments are “part of the baffling bit.” What is the other part?
You could make a case that he belabours the point a bit much, but I was willing to concede that because the types of posts he is lampooning are totally guilty of belabouring the points they are trying to make.
Things that baffle me about blogging include: (1) so many of the people commenting just don’t seem to get what he’s saying … as you suggested, it’s like they don’t even process the meaning of the context in which a word appears; instead, people react to a word as if it’s a bomb, or as if they’re Pavlov’s dog and the word is a bell; (2) that i can never predict what people are going to read and/or respond to on my own blog; (3) that posts of the type the guy lampoons are so popular, yet they make me feel my brain is being sucked out. That’s it for now, though if you’ve got any pet hates let me know cos I’m writing a piece on blogging for a magazine.
Yes! Issue one is how easy it is to be misconstrued. No matter how many times you read something, someone can always read it differently! But my biggest rant is probably the incendiary blogs you are talking about, followed a close second by how motherhood is frustrating and rewarding and then wannabe film and music critics. And of course religion. But I’m sure a lot of people are irritated by my stuff as well.
“And of course religion” HUH?
i’ve noticed that you believe religion to be a “hot topic”, however it need not be.
to be honest i find atheists more leery of discussing their belief system and more evangelical.
SGx, i haven’t read this topic yet, but i reply so i can subscribe. i am not sure if you know i read you faithfully. (pun intended)
X0
I get that you made this comment thinking I said “And of course religion …”. But now the point has been raised, there is something I want to say about it. Though I’ve never said this on my blog, I do believe religion to be a “hot topic” … for you, and for many US readers. It seems to have some crazy-making quality for US citizens. I attribute this to the prominence of Christian fundamentalism, and creationism in particular, in the US. But here’s the thing: this is not an issue in Australia, and possibly, many other countries.
Sgx,
you misread also. the first part of comment was in reply to Thomas, who lists religion as one of his issues with blogs.
however, i would disagree that it is a hot topic for me. i have never once made a critical comment about an others belief system.
my pet peeve is the opposite, i dislike when people assume because they have had one encounter with “crazy”, then they must avoid a topic in general.
fundamentalism is a problem in many cultures, maybe more in the U.S., but extremes in any form will be unable to have a conversation about their beliefs.
Your pet peeve is noted. Possibly we have different understanding of “hot topic.” I mean a topic that galvanises people, gets them passionate and engaged.
“crazy-making” and “you” were the words used.
i don’t believe it makes me or the people i choose to associate with (like you) so hot under the collar that they can’t see reason.
not to be a broken record, but IF i have crazy-posted, i would be the last to know. it is very hard to see oneself objectively, unless a concern is raised repeatedly – then one should take notice.
i have been told repeatedly by people that i “interrupt”… so i’m more aware now and trying not to do it.
thanks for the reply SGx
“This sentence speculates as to the mental and ethical character of the people mentioned in the previous sentence” – you missed a period, you must be on fire.
i have not yet read the article, suffice it to say, you are unique in that you can both write well, and are without doubt above average intelligence.
i am often too ill-educated/capable to comment on your writings, but very much enjoy the quality and subject matter.
as i once mentioned, your topics are self-contained, offering little invitation to comment. like mini-magazine articles, i would not write letters to the editor…
i will try to read the article – i have some pet hates about blogs and some comments about your post; (1) people don’t process context for several reasons, which once i site you will say “of course”.
“Below is the first part of the article.” now i feel like the moron.
at least i did not use the word “um” -perhaps if you had also used quotations. i feel like i fell into a trap.
though i will continue to try to understand the article and share my pet peeves, since you asked.
It was not a trap, you simply misread something. And, bravo, you didn’t use “um” :)
got it, the article lampoons these “incendiary” blogs.
first observation, the author gives the bloggers too much credit. it would appear there is a pattern to these type of blogs, which is the lampoon, but is the pattern deliberate and malicious or simply annoying?
never attribute to malice what can easily be explained by ignorance.
does the author think that these bloggers consciously use an outline to achieve their goal?
i would suggest that the world is full of all kinds of people, not all can write well and not all are intelligent.
so just don’t read/respond to a blog you consider to be stupid.
as for the quality, or lack thereof of the comments to the article – not unique. wherever there is anonymity and a lack of a moderator, you will find thousands of these type of comments (most worse).
people who expect to return to a blog repeatedly behave much better in the comment section.
as far as misconstruing the topic of a blog or previous post, i have a theory about that.