Dvorak's back and he's Annnngray! February 25, 2002 1:46 AM Subscribe
Dvorak's back in the second of three promised installments, where he boisterously calls out the Cluetrain gang and webloggers...
"Get over yourselves."
Somebody's got their cranky-trousers on!
This is gonna be fun.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:59 AM on February 25, 2002
Somebody's got their cranky-trousers on!
This is gonna be fun.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:59 AM on February 25, 2002
Before we return John's flames, let's try to understand where he is coming from.
John loves the PC, always did, always will. But unfortunately his home base, PC Magazine is about 1/4 the size that it used to be and the PC has become a common place appliance. Even with the dot-com downturn, the action is still on the Internet. John is not a big fan of the Internet. That's OK. It doesn't make him bad or stupid.
The Cluetrain community loves the Internet as much as John loves the PC. Nobody claimed that Cluetrain is divinely inspired or 100% correct. But it does offer up many insights into the social aspects of the Internet. Anybody who dismisses the book out of hand, is fighting a different battle.
John just needs to feel the warmth of blogging, it might drive him batty, but deep down it will hit the spot. Give him a blogroll and some understanding, everybody will feel better.
posted by MikeSanders at 6:14 AM on February 25, 2002
John loves the PC, always did, always will. But unfortunately his home base, PC Magazine is about 1/4 the size that it used to be and the PC has become a common place appliance. Even with the dot-com downturn, the action is still on the Internet. John is not a big fan of the Internet. That's OK. It doesn't make him bad or stupid.
The Cluetrain community loves the Internet as much as John loves the PC. Nobody claimed that Cluetrain is divinely inspired or 100% correct. But it does offer up many insights into the social aspects of the Internet. Anybody who dismisses the book out of hand, is fighting a different battle.
John just needs to feel the warmth of blogging, it might drive him batty, but deep down it will hit the spot. Give him a blogroll and some understanding, everybody will feel better.
posted by MikeSanders at 6:14 AM on February 25, 2002
Dvorak has coded his own personal sight(s) for years, and he has been a professional Mac journalist as well. Dismissing him out of hand might not be the right approach either.
posted by NortonDC at 6:45 AM on February 25, 2002
posted by NortonDC at 6:45 AM on February 25, 2002
He pretty much dismisses Cluetrain out of hand.
I'm not the biggest fan of how they wrote it, but hell, it's a manifesto. He can't seem to get past that and look at what they're saying. I don't think it's the most profound thing in the world, but it is important, and needed to be said.
posted by D at 6:54 AM on February 25, 2002
I'm not the biggest fan of how they wrote it, but hell, it's a manifesto. He can't seem to get past that and look at what they're saying. I don't think it's the most profound thing in the world, but it is important, and needed to be said.
posted by D at 6:54 AM on February 25, 2002
As a casual observer I found the article to be entertaining and well argued. Whether it has any merit or not is a different matter, and one that I'm not qualified to comment on. Out of curiosity, how true is this statement?
'In fact the brown-nosing that goes on between bloggers singing each others' praises makes the worst office kiss-ups look tame by comparison. I mention this anomaly since these Cluetrain folks all believe the opposite to be true. Somehow networking like this, according to the Cluetrainees, reveals truth—when in fact it supports and forces the worst kind of conformist behavior. Try to find a blog that is ever critical of another blog. I've never seen it.'
posted by RobertLoch at 7:11 AM on February 25, 2002
'In fact the brown-nosing that goes on between bloggers singing each others' praises makes the worst office kiss-ups look tame by comparison. I mention this anomaly since these Cluetrain folks all believe the opposite to be true. Somehow networking like this, according to the Cluetrainees, reveals truth—when in fact it supports and forces the worst kind of conformist behavior. Try to find a blog that is ever critical of another blog. I've never seen it.'
posted by RobertLoch at 7:11 AM on February 25, 2002
RobertLoch: Ha! That guy is living in a different universe.
posted by bingo at 7:24 AM on February 25, 2002
posted by bingo at 7:24 AM on February 25, 2002
Dvorak's problem is not that it's wrong to call out the hyperbolic rhetoric of the Cluetrain manifesto -- I agree that it, like a lot of the bizness-utopian rhetoric sold in the mid and late 90s, the book reads somewhat laughably.
His problem is that he's shooting fish in a barrel (after all, is there a big part of his readership that needs convincing about this? Is there anyone left on this benighted globe who hasn't heard that We Shouldn't Have Believed the Hype?); and that his weapon of choice is a blunderbuss loaded with sand. Where you saw a convincing argument, RobertLoch, I saw nothing of the sort. The man's writing is dreadful, heavy with cliches like "lunatic fringe dingbat thinking", and "Get over yourselves." As with his previous column, his incoherence betrays the lack of care with which he writes -- is this about Cluetrain? About blogrolling? What's the connection? There's no structure to his article at all, just a series of derisive comments. God knows it wouldn't be hard to dissect some of the bigger misconceptions in Cluetrain (and measure them against some of its insights, perhaps), but that would require effort.
This is the dumbest kind of "journalism": find a safe target (a business idea now unfashionable), assert its connection to some other stuff you can diss (like a hobby you think is silly, like blogs or model railroads), and shout as loud as you can.
posted by BT at 7:34 AM on February 25, 2002
His problem is that he's shooting fish in a barrel (after all, is there a big part of his readership that needs convincing about this? Is there anyone left on this benighted globe who hasn't heard that We Shouldn't Have Believed the Hype?); and that his weapon of choice is a blunderbuss loaded with sand. Where you saw a convincing argument, RobertLoch, I saw nothing of the sort. The man's writing is dreadful, heavy with cliches like "lunatic fringe dingbat thinking", and "Get over yourselves." As with his previous column, his incoherence betrays the lack of care with which he writes -- is this about Cluetrain? About blogrolling? What's the connection? There's no structure to his article at all, just a series of derisive comments. God knows it wouldn't be hard to dissect some of the bigger misconceptions in Cluetrain (and measure them against some of its insights, perhaps), but that would require effort.
This is the dumbest kind of "journalism": find a safe target (a business idea now unfashionable), assert its connection to some other stuff you can diss (like a hobby you think is silly, like blogs or model railroads), and shout as loud as you can.
posted by BT at 7:34 AM on February 25, 2002
BT, excellent. Thank you.
I also didn't see anything approaching a good argument in Dvorak's article. He mentions that the article is about Cluetrain, the book, and then spends the majority of the article slamming the Cluetrain fan site as well as weblogging in general, throwing in references to the book more to provide weapons against weblogging rather than the book, itself.
Any argument that you could apply counter to his vision of weblogging or Cluetrain or both is casually dismissed as either a cult-like devotion to the same or reliance on our belief that "he doesn't get it".
Others may wish to take a reasoned approach to Dvorak's attitude, but I choose not to. However, I'll continue this discussion in my weblog, brown nosing weblogger that I am.
posted by shelleyp at 7:50 AM on February 25, 2002
I also didn't see anything approaching a good argument in Dvorak's article. He mentions that the article is about Cluetrain, the book, and then spends the majority of the article slamming the Cluetrain fan site as well as weblogging in general, throwing in references to the book more to provide weapons against weblogging rather than the book, itself.
Any argument that you could apply counter to his vision of weblogging or Cluetrain or both is casually dismissed as either a cult-like devotion to the same or reliance on our belief that "he doesn't get it".
Others may wish to take a reasoned approach to Dvorak's attitude, but I choose not to. However, I'll continue this discussion in my weblog, brown nosing weblogger that I am.
posted by shelleyp at 7:50 AM on February 25, 2002
The man's writing is dreadful...There's no structure to his article at all
That kinda is his style, Bill. Working in a PC store we always have copies of PC lying around so naturally I'm familiar with ol' Johnny Dvorak. He's not so much a columnist as a snipe from the sidelines bleacher-creature in the tradition of Morton Downey Jr and Waldorf and Statler from The Muppet Show., with the side effect that when you agree something he says you love him, and when you disagree you despise him.
But you are correct, making fun of cluetrain is fish in a barrel. Reading the Manifesto now give one the same feeling that reading The Greening of America must have in say 1984.
posted by jonmc at 7:54 AM on February 25, 2002
That kinda is his style, Bill. Working in a PC store we always have copies of PC lying around so naturally I'm familiar with ol' Johnny Dvorak. He's not so much a columnist as a snipe from the sidelines bleacher-creature in the tradition of Morton Downey Jr and Waldorf and Statler from The Muppet Show., with the side effect that when you agree something he says you love him, and when you disagree you despise him.
But you are correct, making fun of cluetrain is fish in a barrel. Reading the Manifesto now give one the same feeling that reading The Greening of America must have in say 1984.
posted by jonmc at 7:54 AM on February 25, 2002
OK, perhaps 'well argued' was the wrong term. It was obviously an antagonistic rant that did not attempt to include any form of balance. I suppose what I was trying to say is that he put his point well, even though it was obvious that his attack was seriously biased. He clearly isolated issues, gave them no context and then ridiculed them. That is not good journalism, but it can brighten up a Monday morning.
posted by RobertLoch at 7:56 AM on February 25, 2002
posted by RobertLoch at 7:56 AM on February 25, 2002
RobertLoch:
As a casual observer I found the article to be entertaining and well argued. Whether it has any merit or not is a different matter, and one that I'm not qualified to comment on. Out of curiosity, how true is this statement?
...
i refuse to consider to consider reputable the writing of a man who attacks weblogs without citing even one that matches his stereotype. i can't even claim such writing to be entertaining; when read, my eyes roll and i move onto something (hopefully) more interesting.
posted by moz at 8:32 AM on February 25, 2002
As a casual observer I found the article to be entertaining and well argued. Whether it has any merit or not is a different matter, and one that I'm not qualified to comment on. Out of curiosity, how true is this statement?
...
i refuse to consider to consider reputable the writing of a man who attacks weblogs without citing even one that matches his stereotype. i can't even claim such writing to be entertaining; when read, my eyes roll and i move onto something (hopefully) more interesting.
posted by moz at 8:32 AM on February 25, 2002
Waldorf and Statler from The Muppet Show
My favorite thing about those guys was when one of them would backhand the other in the face, causing the lower jaw of the victim to sort of fold up into the nose. Surprising little bit o' senseless violence in otherwise pacifistic muppetland.
I'm not surprised, jonmc, that Dvorak's rep is as you describe, and I hope I'm not guilty of barrel-shooting by going off on his blithering style, which, as Mr. Loch notes, some may find eminently entertaining when directed fortuitously.
posted by BT at 8:44 AM on February 25, 2002
My favorite thing about those guys was when one of them would backhand the other in the face, causing the lower jaw of the victim to sort of fold up into the nose. Surprising little bit o' senseless violence in otherwise pacifistic muppetland.
I'm not surprised, jonmc, that Dvorak's rep is as you describe, and I hope I'm not guilty of barrel-shooting by going off on his blithering style, which, as Mr. Loch notes, some may find eminently entertaining when directed fortuitously.
posted by BT at 8:44 AM on February 25, 2002
'weblogs without citing even one that matches his stereotype'
I think that you can infer that weblogs such as Doc Searls and those of Cluetrain signatories were the target of his comments.
posted by RobertLoch at 8:59 AM on February 25, 2002
I think that you can infer that weblogs such as Doc Searls and those of Cluetrain signatories were the target of his comments.
posted by RobertLoch at 8:59 AM on February 25, 2002
Surprising little bit o' senseless violence in otherwise pacifistic muppetland.
Aren't you forgetting Miss Piggy's famous "hii-ya!" karate chops and Animal's tendency to eat his drums? It was a regular bloodbath over there.
and I hope I'm not guilty of barrel-shooting...
No, you're not guilty,although Dvorak's generally more cogent when he's talking about the business and technical end of computing, when he wanders over into the more artistic and personal side of the tech world he's clueless, but then when I want insight on that, I go here.
posted by jonmc at 9:07 AM on February 25, 2002
Aren't you forgetting Miss Piggy's famous "hii-ya!" karate chops and Animal's tendency to eat his drums? It was a regular bloodbath over there.
and I hope I'm not guilty of barrel-shooting...
No, you're not guilty,although Dvorak's generally more cogent when he's talking about the business and technical end of computing, when he wanders over into the more artistic and personal side of the tech world he's clueless, but then when I want insight on that, I go here.
posted by jonmc at 9:07 AM on February 25, 2002
Try to find a blog that is ever critical of another blog. I've never seen it.
Man, he is just so, so not trying very hard then.
posted by youhas at 10:32 AM on February 25, 2002
Man, he is just so, so not trying very hard then.
posted by youhas at 10:32 AM on February 25, 2002
He didn't try very hard at the article. If I could get paid to write fluff like that.. sheesh.
Maybe Metafilter should go paid subscription - to read. The quality of arguments here is usually better than that.
And what is up with that Derogers guy in the discussion forums? He's all blog-crazy. Like blogs are the only thing that ever existed in the web.
I think the article came down heavy on the Cluetrain folks.. the cluetrain was just that 'get a clue'. When you tell someone to get a clue, it's usually because what the answer is is sitting right in front of you and is obvious. And in many ways they are right.. it's just that there hasn't been a golden manuscript that guarrantees success on the internet, even if you 'get it'.
posted by rich at 10:49 AM on February 25, 2002
Maybe Metafilter should go paid subscription - to read. The quality of arguments here is usually better than that.
And what is up with that Derogers guy in the discussion forums? He's all blog-crazy. Like blogs are the only thing that ever existed in the web.
I think the article came down heavy on the Cluetrain folks.. the cluetrain was just that 'get a clue'. When you tell someone to get a clue, it's usually because what the answer is is sitting right in front of you and is obvious. And in many ways they are right.. it's just that there hasn't been a golden manuscript that guarrantees success on the internet, even if you 'get it'.
posted by rich at 10:49 AM on February 25, 2002
Dvorak is a hit whore.
Guess what? It works. Everytime anyone posts a mainstream (and usually clueless) article on weblogging it hits the Daypop Top 40 faster than you can say "Kottke".
Ignore this guy and he'll go away. Oh and beating up on the silly and hyperbolic cluetrain manifesto (reminds me of Winer's constant self referential bunk about the weblogging "community") is about as challenging as kicking newborn puppies. It's so 2000!
History has largely erased the new economy. Thanks for telling us what we already knew there John!
posted by mark13 at 10:50 AM on February 25, 2002
Guess what? It works. Everytime anyone posts a mainstream (and usually clueless) article on weblogging it hits the Daypop Top 40 faster than you can say "Kottke".
Ignore this guy and he'll go away. Oh and beating up on the silly and hyperbolic cluetrain manifesto (reminds me of Winer's constant self referential bunk about the weblogging "community") is about as challenging as kicking newborn puppies. It's so 2000!
History has largely erased the new economy. Thanks for telling us what we already knew there John!
posted by mark13 at 10:50 AM on February 25, 2002
I'd say that he's jealous that someone online is getting more attention than he is. he's feeling inconsequential, and he's trying to make himself seem relevant by criticising what he sees as the latest thing.
posted by rebeccablood at 11:01 AM on February 25, 2002
posted by rebeccablood at 11:01 AM on February 25, 2002
the latest thing?
Rebecca, I think even you can agree that the weblog buzzworthiness was so early 2001.
posted by rich at 11:26 AM on February 25, 2002
Rebecca, I think even you can agree that the weblog buzzworthiness was so early 2001.
posted by rich at 11:26 AM on February 25, 2002
Rebecca, I think even you can agree that the weblog buzzworthiness was so early 2001
actually, from my perspective, weblogs were buzzworthy in mid-1999.
I meant the cluetrain. the book has done very well, and the authors have accrued quite a following. I would regard *that* as so 2001, but, as I said, what he sees as the latest thing.
posted by rebeccablood at 11:32 AM on February 25, 2002
actually, from my perspective, weblogs were buzzworthy in mid-1999.
I meant the cluetrain. the book has done very well, and the authors have accrued quite a following. I would regard *that* as so 2001, but, as I said, what he sees as the latest thing.
posted by rebeccablood at 11:32 AM on February 25, 2002
What is the latest thing?
posted by RobertLoch at 11:40 AM on February 25, 2002
posted by RobertLoch at 11:40 AM on February 25, 2002
Yeah, I figured you were saying 'what he sees as'..
And I was just saying 2001 would have been the end of the buzz.. saturation and all that. But you're right.. 1999 is a much better date. Let's agree on 2000.
As for cluetrain.. the book has done so well that there have been spin-offs. Joho and EGR had pretty good followings before cluetrain, which I think helped fuel the underground demand and buzz. Maybe focusing on what *new* perspectives the authors of cluetrain have *today* and how they may have changed since the original book was published would be at least noteworthy.
posted by rich at 11:40 AM on February 25, 2002
And I was just saying 2001 would have been the end of the buzz.. saturation and all that. But you're right.. 1999 is a much better date. Let's agree on 2000.
As for cluetrain.. the book has done so well that there have been spin-offs. Joho and EGR had pretty good followings before cluetrain, which I think helped fuel the underground demand and buzz. Maybe focusing on what *new* perspectives the authors of cluetrain have *today* and how they may have changed since the original book was published would be at least noteworthy.
posted by rich at 11:40 AM on February 25, 2002
Regardless of how you feel about the issue at hand, how can anyone argue that any of this is well-informed criticism. As thin as the "manifesto" seems to be, his attacks are even thinner.
My decision revolves around whether to skewer the rest of this list next week, or not.
He never actually "skewered" it this week. Watch:
"To be, or not to be..." Exactly what is that supposed to mean.
"The sum of the square roots of any two sides of a right triangle is equal to the square root of the remaining side." Huh? Gosh, whatever. Okay. Wow.. To me it sounds like something someone would find written on a napkin after a two-week LSD bender.
"Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared" Now you're freaking me out. Can we move on?
I guess I just don't get it either. Now, can I have his paycheck?
posted by jpoulos at 1:42 PM on February 25, 2002
My decision revolves around whether to skewer the rest of this list next week, or not.
He never actually "skewered" it this week. Watch:
"To be, or not to be..." Exactly what is that supposed to mean.
"The sum of the square roots of any two sides of a right triangle is equal to the square root of the remaining side." Huh? Gosh, whatever. Okay. Wow.. To me it sounds like something someone would find written on a napkin after a two-week LSD bender.
"Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared" Now you're freaking me out. Can we move on?
I guess I just don't get it either. Now, can I have his paycheck?
posted by jpoulos at 1:42 PM on February 25, 2002
by the way, if any of you are working on an "i hate john dvorak" page for any good or bad reason he really hates this picture of himself.
something to keep in mind...
posted by boogah at 6:55 PM on February 25, 2002
something to keep in mind...
posted by boogah at 6:55 PM on February 25, 2002
Now, can I have his paycheck?
He got paid for that piece?
*secretly rekindles longlost hopes for Making-Money-From-Talking-Crap;&trade*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:42 AM on February 26, 2002
He got paid for that piece?
*secretly rekindles longlost hopes for Making-Money-From-Talking-Crap;&trade*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:42 AM on February 26, 2002
Out of curiosity, how true is this statement?
'In fact the brown-nosing that goes on between bloggers singing each others' praises makes the worst office kiss-ups look tame by comparison.
I think John confuses consensus with courtesy.
posted by onegoodmove at 6:11 PM on February 26, 2002
'In fact the brown-nosing that goes on between bloggers singing each others' praises makes the worst office kiss-ups look tame by comparison.
I think John confuses consensus with courtesy.
posted by onegoodmove at 6:11 PM on February 26, 2002
it's true on some, untrue on others.
an early convention arose whereby webloggers would always credit another weblog if that is where they had found a link. by and large, that convention survives, though there are some webloggers who ignore it. courtesy.
on the other hand, there are some weblogs that seem to do little else but wave "hi" to each other. call that what you will. conversation, maybe.
so, it depends on which corner of the weblog universe you're poking around in.
posted by rebeccablood at 6:42 PM on February 26, 2002
an early convention arose whereby webloggers would always credit another weblog if that is where they had found a link. by and large, that convention survives, though there are some webloggers who ignore it. courtesy.
on the other hand, there are some weblogs that seem to do little else but wave "hi" to each other. call that what you will. conversation, maybe.
so, it depends on which corner of the weblog universe you're poking around in.
posted by rebeccablood at 6:42 PM on February 26, 2002
an early convention arose whereby webloggers would always credit another weblog if that is where they had found a link. by and large, that convention survives, though there are some webloggers who ignore it. courtesy.
In these days of google, blogdex and meme propagation, this adds next to nothing for the reader, unless the accrediting link is to an article which adds material to the discussion. Since no-one knows who found something first, it's a convention helpful only for the linker and linkee, as a piece of social currency. As such it's a fairly useless (to the reader), but harmless, convention. I certainly don't feel it's at all discourteous to drop it by the wayside ... I try to avoid it personally, because it feels too much like name dropping.
posted by walrus at 10:30 AM on February 28, 2002
In these days of google, blogdex and meme propagation, this adds next to nothing for the reader, unless the accrediting link is to an article which adds material to the discussion. Since no-one knows who found something first, it's a convention helpful only for the linker and linkee, as a piece of social currency. As such it's a fairly useless (to the reader), but harmless, convention. I certainly don't feel it's at all discourteous to drop it by the wayside ... I try to avoid it personally, because it feels too much like name dropping.
posted by walrus at 10:30 AM on February 28, 2002
I always try to link my source, but especially when the source is one I've never heard of before or which isn't widely known, but deserves more exposure.
posted by kindall at 1:35 PM on February 28, 2002
posted by kindall at 1:35 PM on February 28, 2002
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by anildash at 1:48 AM on February 25, 2002