Best, Worst: Blogs, Pop Singles, Movies
Dear readers,
The Kugelmass Episodes is proud to present the best and worst of 2006, as selected arbitrarily by a panel of qualified judges. Those of you who are selected are still in the running to be America’s Next Top Model. For the rest of you, there were a lot of tears, even more laughs. We’ll always have Paris, unfortunately.
So, without further ado:
The Top Five Blog Fumbles of 2006
1. Embedding YouTube
There are any number of good reasons to embed a video clip from YouTube. For certain political posts, it is important to broadcast a video clip that provides evidence. In the case of pop culture reviews, it sometimes makes sense to post media associated with the artist. However, YouTube made #1 in our list of Top Five Fumbles because over 10 million people visit that site every day. Which means that posting something hilarious or rawkin’ from YouTube to one’s blog, with some minimal, enthusiastic comment snaking around it like a textual bear hug, is so far from fresh that you could use it to make croutons. It’s a substitute for content, and it’s a specific kind that makes blogs look like one of those stoner pads with the televisions stacked on top of each other. Or maybe like a Xerox copy of Times Square. The video quality is just awful, and there’s invariably that horrendous, grainy “sample picture” of the video to come. Plus, most blogs aren’t really designed for YouTube (read: wide enough columns), so the embedded video shoves everything out of its way like a virtual Truck-O-Saurus.
Aesthetic say yuck?!
2. The Google Search Post
Sometimes I ask myself, “where does this post come from?” And I believe the answer is: it comes from unease with being publicly read on the Internet. Every once in a while a blogger makes subjective gold out of an improvisatory response to a particularly weird or sketchy Googler. Most of the time, though, this is a post that tries to be a joke and ends up being full of all those familiar questions: “How weird are other people? Like, seriously?” and “Who reads my blog?” and “Does my blog unintentionally reveal to the world that I am totally nuts in a very real and legally binding sense?”
We are going to answer each of these questions in order. First of all, other people + Google = every possibility that exists in the English language. It’s not so much that people are really weird, as that they sometimes think weird things, are drunk, and have access to a keyboard. It’s way beyond my standard “monkeys with typewriters” trope, we’re talking evil monkeys from the Crichton novel Congo, with DSL. The people who read your blog are…who cares? You started this for you! My words are still mine when I’m reading them, no matter how Google slices them, and the rest of the time they are like candy in a bowl, in an abandoned cubicle. As for the last question: yes. We know. Isn’t that a relief, finally?
(Also, the CAPTCHA test [the anti-spam test] is just noise. Talking about it is like a radio DJ saying “Hey, are you hearing any static on your end? Like this little scratchy etch-etch sound over my voice and the music? C-r-a-z-y!”)
3. George W. Bush
Whereas, when people produce dozens of different readings of Trilogy or The Black Book, I just love it, when people produce dozens of different readings of our president it makes political commitment (and blogging) feel strangely more futile. You can’t say anything about this guy that hasn’t already been said: he’s an idiot, he’s a conspirator, he’s a cowboy, he’s a little child, he’s a madman, he’s a walking talking space alien on coke. His speeches, and his manner of delivering them, have been considered so often and in such depth that we must turn our sights elsewhere. You know when you are flipping channels and every station has defaulted to infomercials? It’s almost 3 a.m. and you are eating Saltine crackers with no topping? That’s what the progressive blogosphere is like when a new rhetoricization of Bush appears.
4. Blogging Is A Dangerous Art, or Who Am I?
Naturally, I had to think through the switch from anonymous blogging to using my own name, and all of us reflect on what our blogs mean and how much of “us” is contained in them. Yet I do like the idea of the blog being the tip of Hemingway’s iceberg. The paranoia about certain readers (such as family or exes) finding us, and the element of artificiality in the construction of identities online, and so forth, could be worked out in the silence of the pre-post sips of coffee. I saw some well-meaning bloggers go down in flames this year because they couldn’t stop posting about the dangers of being read and being other.
We are always other than ourselves; thank goodness that, in keeping an online journal going, we can be the other that gives us greatest satisfaction. Whether or not one blogs anonymously depends on whether that other is within or without the social boundaries of shame, as we individually understand them.
5. Every Word Its Own Link
When I was younger I used to play this video game called “Missile Crisis,” where these crudely pixellated lines would come streaming down from the sky to blow up a 2-D row of shapes that represented my “city.” The better you did, the faster these lines would come down (representing missiles), and the more of them there were. I played this game approximately 6 million times, and am now a black belt in pixels.
Even I cannot manage to click on links that consist of the letter “a”. But the real issue here is not one of physical coordination. The issue is an intellectual one: the archives exist, either on your blog or on a mixture of your blog and other blogs, and you want readers to be able to find them. It is so helpful to explain what the links are, or to start the entry with a full title and link in shopping-list format. It is also very commonly possible to just summarize the prerequisite material without any linking at all. The alternative is a sentence constructed of tiny links. This is the blog version of Alice in Wonderland (and what happens if I eat this cupcake?), and each person who falls for its seductive convenience owes Mark Z. Danielewski ten dollars in royalties. I have confirmed this.
The Top Three Blog Triumphs of 2006
(I know. You’re thinking “shouldn’t there be five? Otherwise it’s too negative?” Well, there’s a difference in importance. It’s a slight annoyance, and occasion for comedy, if somebody makes a bunch of links hard to follow. On the other hand, these three things make reading and writing blogs worthwhile, despite everything.)
1. Respectability
It was so pleasant to be voted Person of the Year by Time Magazine. Sure, it was a cop-out on the magazine’s part, but it did reflect something that was in the air, everywhere. Music blogs are now a greater influence on buzz than any single media source, with the possible exception of Pitchfork. Political blogs were front-page news during the election.
Closer to home, “academic” blogs got a boost from all the attention at the MLA, which I mentioned before. Finally, despite hordes of marauding, adorable photographs of cats, the word “blog” started to refer to what disempowered, ordinary people think. Of course, it takes impartial, organizational sites like Feministe to keep the blogosphere looking sharp at a glance. But after the glance, it is the work of people like the ones listed on the right that makes blogging work, because the idea that “nothing much” was going on in our lives (or nothing much you would want to publicly state) started to yield to the writer’s epiphany: everything can be a thought. Everything can be an occasion for eloquent argument, or poetry. That is what will really make blogging respectable.
2. Excess
I want to put in a good word for excessiveness here. Blogging, as uncomplicatedly recently noted, is a messy affair, and it is certainly surrounded on all sides by anxiety. A certain anxiety about readership tends to buttonhole us into writing snappy posts that look good on RSS feeds, and can be digested in the time it takes to eat a donut. But sometimes you need to write a post that is twelve or thirteen donuts long. I’ve done it, and I’ve seen all of the bloggers listed here do it. You can come back to a blog post over a few days. You can learn it the way you learn a song.
I didn’t read all the way through all the novella-length posts myself. It’s impossible to find the time. But I read through some of them, and the rest are out there waiting to fulfill a passion. The excessive post is the darling of Google, whether one is searching for “Ode on a Grecian Urn,” or “The Klein Bottle + Philosophy,” or “Lieberman,” or “asian fetishes,” or “cult thinking,” or “no Whitman“…you get the idea. Tomemos, I loved to see you going off on Veronica Mars. Spurious, I cannot believe how much you’ve written about Will Oldham; your only match was petitpoussin‘s thing for Justin Timberlake.
3. The Real World
This was the year of the real world. A commenter over at the Valve accused me of getting a little help from my friends on one particular thread, and in a sense he was right: many of the people who started out as Internet acquaintances here have since become friends in real life. There was an exciting moment over at Spurious when Spurious and Jodi Dean meet up, and Jodi makes vague, witty personal remarks. The exchanges at the MLA produced all kinds of unmaskings and new links (including Bitch, PhD risking a lot by giving a presentation of her own). A friend here wondered whether petitpoussin and Jane Awake were people he knew at Irvine.
In addition to revelations of the sort “I am the author of scarletpimpernel.blogspot.com!”, and the friendships that began through posts, there were also the leaks between online conversation and real conversation. Of course, everyone who says “On my blog…” should be shot in the fleshy part of the thigh (I offer myself as the first condemned), but the fact of the matter was that the re-discovery of content online led to an increasing number of parallel conversations over beers or lunch or in the hallway. It was an oasis in the desert of the Real.
And, come to think of it, people never stopped being polite. Perhaps the politest place on earth is the tenuous border between virtual identities, and real ones.
***
One last thing: I’ll list my top ten movies, and top 20 pop singles that weren’t on my favorite albums, in a comment to this post. After that, au revoir, 2006.
Top Singles of 2006 From Uneven Albums:
1. “Thursday,” Asobi Seksu
2. “Black Grease,” The Black Angels
3. “Roka,” Calexico
4. “U + Me,” Cassie
5. “Irreplaceable,” Beyoncé
6. “Ever Thought of Coming Back,” Kelley Stoltz
7. “Promiscuous”/”Maneater,” Nelly Furtado
8. “Analyse,” Thom Yorke
9. “Wolf Like Me,” TV on the Radio
10. “I Don’t Feel Like Dancin’,” The Scissor Sisters
11. “Postcards From Italy,” Beirut
12. “Mrs. McGrath,” Bruce Springsteen
13. “Speed of Sound,” Coldplay
14. “Shattered (You Left Me),” The Exploding Hearts
15. “Just Like We (Breakdown),” Hot Chip
16. “Gold Lion,” Yeah Yeah Yeahs
17. “Keys Open Doors,” The Clipse
18. “4 In The Morning,” Gwen Stefani
19. “Nuclear Daydream,” Joseph Arthur
20. “When You Were Young,” The Killers
The Top 10 Movies:
1. Children of Men
2. Shortbus
3. The Queen
4. Casino Royale
5. V for Vendetta
6. An Inconvenient Truth
7. Little Miss Sunshine
8. Brick
9. Casablanca
10. Oliver Stone Presents The Doors
As someone who’s posted his share of entries on Bush in the past, I guess I would justify it by saying: George Bush is right now the most important person in the world, by virtue of being the worst President in the history of the United States. He is therefore worth analyzing, so that we can understand what makes him so bad and what it means that he was elected. If the analysis were as monotonous as you say, I would agree that the well has run dry, but I actually feel that a lot has been learned and said: I used to join in with those who reductively (though not exactly wrongly) called him stupid (“LOL he said nucular again!”), but have recently been concluding that the problem is not test scores but rather his permanent state of privileged adolescence: entitled, incurious, arrogant. Less high-mindedly, I find it cathartic both to write and read about Bush; while such entries do not necessarily generate much in the way of productive comments
More broadly, I also would tactfully submit that it is perhaps problematic to suggest how people should generally be populating their blogs—or at least, it’s problematic to suggest how they should not be populating them. After all, very few of us are doing this for our jobs, and many of us are writing as much for ourselves as for an audience. That being the case, I don’t think the relationship between blogger and reader is as straightforward as it is between, say, a commercially-released film and its audience: the blogger is rarely dependent on the reader for support, and the reasons to blog are potentially much more varied than the reasons to make a movie. The epithet “plagiarism” in particular is strong meat; I sometimes get tired of endless YouTube vids too, but the author is hardly passing off other work as his or her own own. I suspect that you have in mind blogs which were once creative but have succumbed to the entropy of endless linkage, but as written it seems categorical.
To be clear, I’m not saying that one should always be mum about what happens on the internet—for instance, since blog/online etiquette is a matter of how we treat each other rather than just a matter of preference, discussing it certainly seems legitimate to me. I’m sure that comes as a great relief to you.
Thanks for your kind words on my VM post! I’m still waiting for the twelve-donut fairy to visit again.
Tomemos, I’m not sure I can outright agree that this is a problematic way to go. I know you’ve posted on Bush in the past, and to the best of my recollection I enjoyed those posts. At the same time, new posts about Bush’s psychology continue to crop up, and they continue to do things that I find unproductive. For example, they exhaust themselves trying to understand how American psychology is like George W. Bush psychology. It seems to me that this, like extended attempts to analyze Britney Spears’s psychology, is comforting because it reduces an entire machine (the political machine of the Republican party, and the Bush administration) to the mind of one man.
To a large extent, the Bush “fumble” was a stand-in for political blogging that just doesn’t have the facts to compete with major news sources, and that (rather than being centered on actual “political blogs”) creeps into culture blogs and theory blogs.
Of course, if you feel you’re justified in embedding a YouTube video, writing a funny or introspective post about a Google search that brought someone to you (N. Pepperell did a funny post on that subject, over at Rough Theory), or analyzing the President, then that’s a sign you should do those things. My list wasn’t categorical (my YouTube paragraph starts with a bunch of exceptions), and isn’t intended to do more than to raise the question.
It’s sort of like the question “Should I write a novel?” or “Should I take additional lessons in (x)?” From one standpoint, you should do whatever your impulse tells you. From another, the question about doing something can make the performance of that something better. My sense that a lot has already been written about Bush might give me the incentive to work hard to prove that the new analysis needs to be heard.
I’m not deaf to the cry of “live and let live.” I understand where you’re coming from there. Still, there is a question of time. I can’t predict or prescribe what will happen on the blogosphere. I do find myself truly unresolved, as a person with a variety of obligations in the real world, on the question of how much time I can spend reading and commenting on other blogs. In the attempt to be fleet of foot but also constructive and present, some sand gets in my shoe. The first part of this post was about that, while the rest was about the things of value I’ve found online. There are many of those.
Oh, specifically about YouTube…first of all, it’s not a perfect technology. The chances are high that an embedded video is unplayable because a) the computer has no speakers, b) the computer is somewhere where volume is not allowed, c) the browser is not set up to allow YouTube type content to play. If you have a bunch of interesting commentary around the embedded file, then it doesn’t matter. But if you don’t, then a certain percentage of viewers are just going to be shut out.
Also, the reason I wrote about YouTube the way I did has to do with comment threads. While it’s probably true that embedding a video on your site helps keep it bookmarked for you, the main reason to embed a video is that people watch it and leave comments about it. So, yes, definitely not plagiarism, but a way of sidestepping the possibility of new content. The comment threads generated tend not to be interesting unless you get lucky with a commenter, or, once again, unless the author has added their own interesting commentary. Plus, we’re talking about comment threads because a YouTube video is not an articulation of passion. There is a lot more reason to accept cliché in a written piece where the author’s invested, than to watch a video the author’s already seen, if we aren’t told much about what their viewing experience was like.
I’ll change the language up above to reflect the validity of your point.
I used to be anti-You Tube for the kinds of reasons you give – and in principle I still am. But then I realized it had Archival Footage of Fascinating Things. This ruined me ;-).
Kugelmass, the Barry is strong in you. You may owe some royalties on sentences such as, “I played this game approximately 6 million times, and am now a black belt in pixels.” ;)
She is referring to Dave Barry, of course…and she’s totally right. :)