Rebecca Blood interviews #1 June 22, 2005 12:26 PM Subscribe
Part one of Rebecca Blood's interview with Matt Haughey, the first subject of her new "Bloggers on Blogging" series; part two is to be posted Friday. Both Matt and Rebecca were listed among the AlwaysOn/Technorati Open Media 100 list.
And this thread--of course--is blogging about bloggers on blogging.
posted by ColdChef at 1:01 PM on June 22, 2005
posted by ColdChef at 1:01 PM on June 22, 2005
"but! but! but! what about x?!" -- isn't there a word or phrase for that? Some kind of philisophical fallacy or something more academic than "ass drudgery" or "douche baggism"?
posted by geoff. at 1:12 PM on June 22, 2005
posted by geoff. at 1:12 PM on June 22, 2005
And this thread--of course--is blogging about bloggers on blogging.
Metavich, metavich metavich. Metavich? Metavich!
posted by tweak at 1:21 PM on June 22, 2005
Metavich, metavich metavich. Metavich? Metavich!
posted by tweak at 1:21 PM on June 22, 2005
I never thought I'd find myself saying this about these two, but this is uncomfortably close to watching Barbara Walters interview Stone Phillips.
*sign*
Online world, you were a great refuge for a while.
posted by jonmc at 1:23 PM on June 22, 2005
*sign*
Online world, you were a great refuge for a while.
posted by jonmc at 1:23 PM on June 22, 2005
hot blogger on blogger on blogger action! explicit navel-gazing!
posted by keswick at 1:51 PM on June 22, 2005
posted by keswick at 1:51 PM on June 22, 2005
I probably would have posted this on Blogroots like the metatalk posting page recommends, but since it's gone, I posted it here.
posted by me3dia at 2:11 PM on June 22, 2005
posted by me3dia at 2:11 PM on June 22, 2005
watching Barbara Walters interview Stone Phillips.
I have no idea what that means.
posted by jjg at 3:20 PM on June 22, 2005
I have no idea what that means.
posted by jjg at 3:20 PM on June 22, 2005
I have no idea what that means.
It means the A-list congratulating the A-list on being so A-list. I'm sure that's not what Matt and Rebecca are like or have in mind, but it seems to have inadvertently happened. Our nice democratizing medium has developed a star system.
posted by jonmc at 3:29 PM on June 22, 2005
It means the A-list congratulating the A-list on being so A-list. I'm sure that's not what Matt and Rebecca are like or have in mind, but it seems to have inadvertently happened. Our nice democratizing medium has developed a star system.
posted by jonmc at 3:29 PM on June 22, 2005
I've been saying this for quite a while. And just like all the A-List media players before them, they will continue to circlejerk their A-List buddies until they, too, lose influence and power. And the A-List will be replaced by the new thing, just like newspaper, radio, and television before them.
Oh, how I long for that day.
posted by keswick at 3:36 PM on June 22, 2005
Oh, how I long for that day.
posted by keswick at 3:36 PM on June 22, 2005
As cool as it might be to snark at all the cute little bloggers blogging about their friends, what I took away from the interview was a little more inclusive. I was struck by the commonality and shared expierience that Matt eloquently conveyed. Bradlands, Zeldman, Glassdog, Kottke and Fray are all sites that anyone interested in this stuff visited religiously and in some way, shape, or form emulate to this day. Everyone with a weblog, that is -- and I'm thinking the bulk of the people reading this have, or contribute to, a weblog.
Granted, it's frequently a self-referential circle-jerk, but weblogs have proven to be a legitimate force for change and it would be a mistake to lump every one of the three million* weblogs out there into any particular niche. Let's give some credit where it's due.
Kos, Instapundit and LGF didn't invent this stuff. They haven't built shit and are essentially parasites making a name (or dollar) on the backs of the the Trott's and remnants of Pyra. There is a downside to this self-publishing business, but, there are a shitload of weblogs that generate compelling, personal and interesting content on a daily basis. If you don't know about them, I suggest you look a little harder before cracking wise on the people who built the stuff you so enjoy denigrating.
* I totally made this number up.
posted by cedar at 3:42 PM on June 22, 2005
Granted, it's frequently a self-referential circle-jerk, but weblogs have proven to be a legitimate force for change and it would be a mistake to lump every one of the three million* weblogs out there into any particular niche. Let's give some credit where it's due.
Kos, Instapundit and LGF didn't invent this stuff. They haven't built shit and are essentially parasites making a name (or dollar) on the backs of the the Trott's and remnants of Pyra. There is a downside to this self-publishing business, but, there are a shitload of weblogs that generate compelling, personal and interesting content on a daily basis. If you don't know about them, I suggest you look a little harder before cracking wise on the people who built the stuff you so enjoy denigrating.
* I totally made this number up.
posted by cedar at 3:42 PM on June 22, 2005
If you don't know about them, I suggest you look a little harder before cracking wise on the people who built the stuff you so enjoy denigrating.
cedar, I've been reading weblogs for around six years. I blogged myself for three of them before throwing in the towel. I've earned my right to denigrate and snark about whatever the hell I want, thanyouverymuch.
posted by jonmc at 3:45 PM on June 22, 2005
cedar, I've been reading weblogs for around six years. I blogged myself for three of them before throwing in the towel. I've earned my right to denigrate and snark about whatever the hell I want, thanyouverymuch.
posted by jonmc at 3:45 PM on June 22, 2005
I thought for sure it was going to be quonsar with the A-list snarking.
posted by Mid at 3:51 PM on June 22, 2005
posted by Mid at 3:51 PM on June 22, 2005
Kos, Instapundit and LGF didn't invent this stuff. They haven't built shit and are essentially parasites making a name (or dollar) on the backs of the the Trott's and remnants of Pyra.
This is one of the stupidist fucking things I've ever read. This is like saying Edward R. Murrow was essentailly a parasite making a name (or dollar) on the back of Farnsworth.
It is hardly the fault of the three named websites that MovableType and/or Blogger was free.
Daily Kos is powered by Scoop by the way.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 3:56 PM on June 22, 2005
This is one of the stupidist fucking things I've ever read. This is like saying Edward R. Murrow was essentailly a parasite making a name (or dollar) on the back of Farnsworth.
It is hardly the fault of the three named websites that MovableType and/or Blogger was free.
Daily Kos is powered by Scoop by the way.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 3:56 PM on June 22, 2005
Jonmc, good for you. There certainly isn't any reason you should feel compelled to read things you don't enjoy -- however, why tear down what many other people seem to find pleasure in?
You don't enjoy maintaining a weblog. So don't. On the other hand, it wouldn't be hard to make a case for hypocrisy coinsidering how much you contribute to another persons weblog.
posted by cedar at 3:56 PM on June 22, 2005
You don't enjoy maintaining a weblog. So don't. On the other hand, it wouldn't be hard to make a case for hypocrisy coinsidering how much you contribute to another persons weblog.
posted by cedar at 3:56 PM on June 22, 2005
Fuck you, Steve.
You can read whatever you want into my words and play semantic games until you choke on Cheney's dick. My point was that it is foolish judge an entire culture on a few high-profile examples. They *are* parasites. They are all people desperate for a voice who couldn't get their words past an editor. You think Markos (whatever the fuck his name is) from Kos has contributed to the Scoop code?
Hell, I can't stop the blogads and advertising in RSS feeds and I'm not sure I would want to if I could. Barnum said it best and weblogs just made for a bigger pool of suckers. But, I admit to missing the 'personal' part of personal publishing -- I would far rather look at some fat girls cat than read the latest recycled Fox or Democratic Underground spin on the site of some guy sucking up ad impressions at any price.
posted by cedar at 4:06 PM on June 22, 2005
You can read whatever you want into my words and play semantic games until you choke on Cheney's dick. My point was that it is foolish judge an entire culture on a few high-profile examples. They *are* parasites. They are all people desperate for a voice who couldn't get their words past an editor. You think Markos (whatever the fuck his name is) from Kos has contributed to the Scoop code?
Hell, I can't stop the blogads and advertising in RSS feeds and I'm not sure I would want to if I could. Barnum said it best and weblogs just made for a bigger pool of suckers. But, I admit to missing the 'personal' part of personal publishing -- I would far rather look at some fat girls cat than read the latest recycled Fox or Democratic Underground spin on the site of some guy sucking up ad impressions at any price.
posted by cedar at 4:06 PM on June 22, 2005
They are all people desperate for a voice who couldn't get their words past an editor.
I thought that's what blogging was all about. Power to the People and all that.
posted by keswick at 4:18 PM on June 22, 2005
I thought that's what blogging was all about. Power to the People and all that.
posted by keswick at 4:18 PM on June 22, 2005
They *are* parasites. They are all people desperate for a voice who couldn't get their words past an editor.
Wow, Cedar... projection much?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 4:19 PM on June 22, 2005
Wow, Cedar... projection much?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 4:19 PM on June 22, 2005
Oh, and I think mathowie writes very well. I have a lot of respect for him, what he's done (specifically MeFi and his light touch), and his writing--- especially in comparison to Kottke, whose analysis usually consists of "this could be cool."
posted by keswick at 4:20 PM on June 22, 2005
posted by keswick at 4:20 PM on June 22, 2005
Jonmc, good for you. There certainly isn't any reason you should feel compelled to read things you don't enjoy -- however, why tear down what many other people seem to find pleasure in?
From here on out I'll own voice pleasant thoughts, cedar, so's I don't disturb you too much.
You don't enjoy maintaining a weblog.
I enjoyed maintaining my weblog just fine. It's when the blogosphere turned toxic that I bowed out. It stopped being about self-expression and uniqueness and became about making sure the right people linked you, or that you spread the latest kewl "meme," or mouthed the current approved opinion of whatever tribe you inhabit. I've watched people turned into self-satisfied balls of arrogance as their blog profile rose, and it wasn't fun.
And it's not matt and rebecca I'm mad at. what i see here is just symptomatic of what's happened in general. In retrospect we should have seen it coming.
posted by jonmc at 4:37 PM on June 22, 2005
From here on out I'll own voice pleasant thoughts, cedar, so's I don't disturb you too much.
You don't enjoy maintaining a weblog.
I enjoyed maintaining my weblog just fine. It's when the blogosphere turned toxic that I bowed out. It stopped being about self-expression and uniqueness and became about making sure the right people linked you, or that you spread the latest kewl "meme," or mouthed the current approved opinion of whatever tribe you inhabit. I've watched people turned into self-satisfied balls of arrogance as their blog profile rose, and it wasn't fun.
And it's not matt and rebecca I'm mad at. what i see here is just symptomatic of what's happened in general. In retrospect we should have seen it coming.
posted by jonmc at 4:37 PM on June 22, 2005
the A-list congratulating the A-list on being so A-list.
I don't see anything in this interview that matches this characterization.
posted by jjg at 4:37 PM on June 22, 2005
I don't see anything in this interview that matches this characterization.
posted by jjg at 4:37 PM on June 22, 2005
jjg, it's not the interview or it's content that's the problem. It's merely symptomatic of the fact that what was supposed to a democratizing medium has now developed a star system. The fact of matt and rebecca's name being recognized is what will get people to read it. If it was joe blow and jim schlim interviewing, we wouldn't even be discussing it.
posted by jonmc at 4:42 PM on June 22, 2005
posted by jonmc at 4:42 PM on June 22, 2005
I enjoyed maintaining my weblog just fine. It's when the blogosphere turned toxic that I bowed out. It stopped being about self-expression and uniqueness and became about making sure the right people linked you, or that you spread the latest kewl "meme," or mouthed the current approved opinion of whatever tribe you inhabit
See, I don't understand this at all. What does what other people do have to do with your weblog? You sound like people who complain that gays getting married will somehow ruin their own marriages. If you enjoyed writing your weblog, why not keep writing it and ignore what the "A listers" are doing? That's what I do, and it works for me. I haven't got the faintest idea what Rebecca Blood and Matt (aside from running MeFi) are up to, nor do I care, nore would it affect my own writing even if I did.
And dude, as one of MeFi's own stars, whether you wanted that position or not, you come off a bit strangely being so bitter about the phenomenon.
posted by languagehat at 5:37 PM on June 22, 2005
See, I don't understand this at all. What does what other people do have to do with your weblog? You sound like people who complain that gays getting married will somehow ruin their own marriages. If you enjoyed writing your weblog, why not keep writing it and ignore what the "A listers" are doing? That's what I do, and it works for me. I haven't got the faintest idea what Rebecca Blood and Matt (aside from running MeFi) are up to, nor do I care, nore would it affect my own writing even if I did.
And dude, as one of MeFi's own stars, whether you wanted that position or not, you come off a bit strangely being so bitter about the phenomenon.
posted by languagehat at 5:37 PM on June 22, 2005
An amicable overlord.
Meanwhile, kottke gets naked:
posted by The Jesse Helms at 5:43 PM on June 22, 2005
Meanwhile, kottke gets naked:
posted by The Jesse Helms at 5:43 PM on June 22, 2005
See, I don't understand this at all. What does what other people do have to do with your weblog?
Well, to use a metaphor close to my heart: imagine you found a bar where the bartender made exquisite cocktails, but the other patrons played shitty songs on the jukebox and puked all over your shoes. would you go back? (I might, but I'm weird).
And dude, as one of MeFi's own stars, whether you wanted that position or not, you come off a bit strangely being so bitter about the phenomenon.
That's exactly why I'm a bit bitter about the phenomenon. I post a lot here, because I've got a lot to say. But the "star phenomenon" oftentimes means that people are reacting (positively or negatively, because I've had people agree with me for all the wrong reasons) to the fact that jonmc said something rather than the substance of what's being said. And that goes for the weblog world at large.
posted by jonmc at 5:48 PM on June 22, 2005
Well, to use a metaphor close to my heart: imagine you found a bar where the bartender made exquisite cocktails, but the other patrons played shitty songs on the jukebox and puked all over your shoes. would you go back? (I might, but I'm weird).
And dude, as one of MeFi's own stars, whether you wanted that position or not, you come off a bit strangely being so bitter about the phenomenon.
That's exactly why I'm a bit bitter about the phenomenon. I post a lot here, because I've got a lot to say. But the "star phenomenon" oftentimes means that people are reacting (positively or negatively, because I've had people agree with me for all the wrong reasons) to the fact that jonmc said something rather than the substance of what's being said. And that goes for the weblog world at large.
posted by jonmc at 5:48 PM on June 22, 2005
It makes sense to compare MeFi to a bar. It doesn't make sense to compare blogging to a bar. Blogging is the universe of bars in which individual bars exist. You're basically saying "there are a lot of shitty bars around, so I'm closing my bar." I'm not trying to convince you to blog, just get you to see that your stated reason doesn't make sense. You got tired of blogging, fine, lots of people do. But it doesn't make sense to say you had to stop something you genuinely enjoyed because over across town somebody had an annoying blog.
posted by languagehat at 6:01 PM on June 22, 2005
posted by languagehat at 6:01 PM on June 22, 2005
I'm not trying to convince you to blog, just get you to see that your stated reason doesn't make sense.
I beg to differ. If you started hanging out on a specific music scene, at least in part because the atmosphere was welcoming and freindly and nurturing, then suddenly the scene became hostile, competitive and self-satisfied by turns, you'd probably stay home and watch TV instead. See what I mean?
posted by jonmc at 6:04 PM on June 22, 2005
I beg to differ. If you started hanging out on a specific music scene, at least in part because the atmosphere was welcoming and freindly and nurturing, then suddenly the scene became hostile, competitive and self-satisfied by turns, you'd probably stay home and watch TV instead. See what I mean?
posted by jonmc at 6:04 PM on June 22, 2005
And that goes for the weblog world at large.
Scratch weblog out of that statement and you've got it.
posted by me3dia at 9:28 PM on June 22, 2005
Scratch weblog out of that statement and you've got it.
posted by me3dia at 9:28 PM on June 22, 2005
I beg to differ. If you started hanging out on a specific music scene, at least in part because the atmosphere was welcoming and freindly and nurturing, then suddenly the scene became hostile, competitive and self-satisfied by turns, you'd probably stay home and watch TV instead. See what I mean?
Beg away. A personal blog is not like 'hanging out on a specific music scene'. It is like a journal or a log kept on the web. Wait! That's it! It is a web log, get it? Weblog! Blog! Wow!
The only real reason for a personal blog is personal enjoyment. If you aren't keen on the comments you receive, grow thicker skin or close to comments.
You shouldn't blog competitively. It shouldn't even be a concern unless your ego is so attached to your hit count that you can't step away from the keyboard. It sounds like you weren't as understood or as popular as you thought you should be so you threw in the towel. Or brought it to MetaFilter where you can bitch about puke on your shoes and music not to your taste on the jukebox.
posted by geekyguy at 9:53 PM on June 22, 2005
Beg away. A personal blog is not like 'hanging out on a specific music scene'. It is like a journal or a log kept on the web. Wait! That's it! It is a web log, get it? Weblog! Blog! Wow!
The only real reason for a personal blog is personal enjoyment. If you aren't keen on the comments you receive, grow thicker skin or close to comments.
You shouldn't blog competitively. It shouldn't even be a concern unless your ego is so attached to your hit count that you can't step away from the keyboard. It sounds like you weren't as understood or as popular as you thought you should be so you threw in the towel. Or brought it to MetaFilter where you can bitch about puke on your shoes and music not to your taste on the jukebox.
posted by geekyguy at 9:53 PM on June 22, 2005
So what you're saying Jon is that my linking to you wasn't enough to keep you going? (I kid because I love).
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 11:35 PM on June 22, 2005
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 11:35 PM on June 22, 2005
Kos, Instapundit and LGF didn't invent this stuff. They haven't built shit and are essentially parasites making a name (or dollar) on the backs of the the Trott's and remnants of Pyra.
So, people like Ernie Kovacs and Lucille Ball are better than people like Norman Lear or Bochko or David Kelley because the first 2 made technical/structural innovations to the medium of TV while making TV, and the other 3 only made TV?
posted by amberglow at 6:04 AM on June 23, 2005
So, people like Ernie Kovacs and Lucille Ball are better than people like Norman Lear or Bochko or David Kelley because the first 2 made technical/structural innovations to the medium of TV while making TV, and the other 3 only made TV?
posted by amberglow at 6:04 AM on June 23, 2005
If you started hanging out on a specific music scene
I guess this is the part I don't understand. I hang out with people, I hang out in bars, I hang out on MeFi, but I don't even know what it means to hang out on a scene. I just don't see how what other people do on their blogs could possibly affect you and what you do on yours unless you actively go out looking for it. If you're just writing your blog and reading blogs you like, you can completely ignore the existence of the "A listers." Trust me, I do it every day.
I mean, how would you like it if some unknown band you really liked decided to hang it up because "the music scene sucks," even though they were getting by doing their thing in little clubs and both they and their audiences enjoyed it? Wouldn't you be telling them the same things I'm telling you?
Not trying to argue, just to understand.
posted by languagehat at 6:33 AM on June 23, 2005
I guess this is the part I don't understand. I hang out with people, I hang out in bars, I hang out on MeFi, but I don't even know what it means to hang out on a scene. I just don't see how what other people do on their blogs could possibly affect you and what you do on yours unless you actively go out looking for it. If you're just writing your blog and reading blogs you like, you can completely ignore the existence of the "A listers." Trust me, I do it every day.
I mean, how would you like it if some unknown band you really liked decided to hang it up because "the music scene sucks," even though they were getting by doing their thing in little clubs and both they and their audiences enjoyed it? Wouldn't you be telling them the same things I'm telling you?
Not trying to argue, just to understand.
posted by languagehat at 6:33 AM on June 23, 2005
languagehat, maybe I haven't found the exact right metaphor, but what it boils down to is this: the blog world is a very different place from what it was when I started hanging around. It used to be freindly, tolerant of difference, and encouraging to newcomers. Now it's just another competitive place full of conformists and strivers, and if you don't fit into any easy pigeonhole, you're effectively isolated and marginalized. And some of us eventually get to the point where we say "why even fucking bother anymore? Do I really want to part of something so fucked up?"
posted by jonmc at 6:48 AM on June 23, 2005
posted by jonmc at 6:48 AM on June 23, 2005
You think Markos (whatever the fuck his name is) from Kos has contributed to the Scoop code?
WTF does that have to do with anything? Do you mean by "parasite" "someone who uses freely distributed material for its intended use"? Because that's an awfully funny definition.
posted by kenko at 7:48 AM on June 23, 2005
WTF does that have to do with anything? Do you mean by "parasite" "someone who uses freely distributed material for its intended use"? Because that's an awfully funny definition.
posted by kenko at 7:48 AM on June 23, 2005
What geekyguy and languagehat said.
Does what the so-called "A-listers" do or say affect my blog? Not at all, because I don't give them that power. I write for me. My little blog (actually, it's more journal than blog) is so off the scope it's in another galaxy. If other people should stumble upon what I write and stick around for a while - cool. I may pass along a link or two that I find interesting or funny or whatever, but, for the most part, my blog is for me.
Why worry about what other people are doing?
posted by deborah at 8:29 AM on June 23, 2005
Does what the so-called "A-listers" do or say affect my blog? Not at all, because I don't give them that power. I write for me. My little blog (actually, it's more journal than blog) is so off the scope it's in another galaxy. If other people should stumble upon what I write and stick around for a while - cool. I may pass along a link or two that I find interesting or funny or whatever, but, for the most part, my blog is for me.
Why worry about what other people are doing?
posted by deborah at 8:29 AM on June 23, 2005
holy freaking fuck, I'm actually agreeing with Linwood. the world is wonderful sometimes.
posted by mr.marx at 9:49 AM on June 23, 2005
posted by mr.marx at 9:49 AM on June 23, 2005
It means the A-list congratulating the A-list on being so A-list.
Which makes little sense, but then again I thought creating an entire book on the subject of blogging was silly, and there are more than a few of those.
Rebecca Blood interviewing someone less known (an interview with matt isn't exactly ground breaking stuff) would make for a better read, but her online career is dependent on the whole "beginning of blogs" story line, so it's not in her best interest.
the A-list congratulating the A-list on being so A-list.
I don't see anything in this interview that matches this characterization.
No bias there, I'm sure.
posted by justgary at 10:01 AM on June 23, 2005
Which makes little sense, but then again I thought creating an entire book on the subject of blogging was silly, and there are more than a few of those.
Rebecca Blood interviewing someone less known (an interview with matt isn't exactly ground breaking stuff) would make for a better read, but her online career is dependent on the whole "beginning of blogs" story line, so it's not in her best interest.
the A-list congratulating the A-list on being so A-list.
I don't see anything in this interview that matches this characterization.
No bias there, I'm sure.
posted by justgary at 10:01 AM on June 23, 2005
If you think I've been dishonest (or even just wrong) please go ahead and say so.
posted by jjg at 12:02 PM on June 23, 2005
posted by jjg at 12:02 PM on June 23, 2005
Personally, I see this as one of the shapers of the weblog medium interviewed by one of the thoughtleaders on the medium. Would you rather read an interview of a kid who started his blog last week by some random livejournaler?
I don't see the alluded-to self-congratulation, either. If these people are "A-listers," it's because they've been doing it the longest and they do it well (or reasonably well), so they've remained popular. There are probably examples of early adopters whose weblogs were less interesting or well-read, who didn't gain the fame.
posted by me3dia at 12:59 PM on June 23, 2005
I don't see the alluded-to self-congratulation, either. If these people are "A-listers," it's because they've been doing it the longest and they do it well (or reasonably well), so they've remained popular. There are probably examples of early adopters whose weblogs were less interesting or well-read, who didn't gain the fame.
posted by me3dia at 12:59 PM on June 23, 2005
If you think I've been dishonest (or even just wrong) please go ahead and say so.
I think you're wrong, and for the reasons I stated before that comment.
There's really nothing new in that interview. I've read most of that elsewhere, and I've read enough about matt to know more about him than my next door neighber. So I'm not so sure how it's not an a-lister congratulating an a-lister, or simply basking in the golden light of the blog world. And, there's nothing wrong with that, let's just call it what it is.
And I don't think your being dishonest. You're just a little to close to the topic. No harm meant. I don't listen to anything Janet says about Michael Jackson either.
Personally, I see this as one of the shapers of the weblog medium interviewed by one of the thoughtleaders on the medium.
Yep, that's what it is.
Would you rather read an interview of a kid who started his blog last week by some random livejournaler?
Oh please. There's a happy medium. In between matt and the newest kid on live journal, there are thousands of other interesting bloggers who probably have interesting things to say, and, unlike matt, have not been interviewed in such a way.
posted by justgary at 1:06 PM on June 23, 2005
I think you're wrong, and for the reasons I stated before that comment.
There's really nothing new in that interview. I've read most of that elsewhere, and I've read enough about matt to know more about him than my next door neighber. So I'm not so sure how it's not an a-lister congratulating an a-lister, or simply basking in the golden light of the blog world. And, there's nothing wrong with that, let's just call it what it is.
And I don't think your being dishonest. You're just a little to close to the topic. No harm meant. I don't listen to anything Janet says about Michael Jackson either.
Personally, I see this as one of the shapers of the weblog medium interviewed by one of the thoughtleaders on the medium.
Yep, that's what it is.
Would you rather read an interview of a kid who started his blog last week by some random livejournaler?
Oh please. There's a happy medium. In between matt and the newest kid on live journal, there are thousands of other interesting bloggers who probably have interesting things to say, and, unlike matt, have not been interviewed in such a way.
posted by justgary at 1:06 PM on June 23, 2005
...if you don't fit into any easy pigeonhole, you're effectively isolated and marginalized.
I've been doing it since 1999 with the knowledge that I would remain "isolated and marginalized." Back when the whole "books on blogs" started I was a harsh critic and it may have been tinged by a bit of jealousy. Back then I was pouring a lot of energy and emotion into the weblog, but refused out of principle to do any kind of self-promotion. This built up a seething bitterness that boiled over into the writing and it suffered for it.
Eventually, I realized what I was putting myself through and took a break. Now I write like I did at the start, without regard to popularity. For me it's good to take that filter out and follow my interests no matter how obscure they get.
"The great thing about being ignored is that you can speak the truth with impunity." -Toxicology, by Steve Aylett
posted by john at 1:38 PM on June 23, 2005
I've been doing it since 1999 with the knowledge that I would remain "isolated and marginalized." Back when the whole "books on blogs" started I was a harsh critic and it may have been tinged by a bit of jealousy. Back then I was pouring a lot of energy and emotion into the weblog, but refused out of principle to do any kind of self-promotion. This built up a seething bitterness that boiled over into the writing and it suffered for it.
Eventually, I realized what I was putting myself through and took a break. Now I write like I did at the start, without regard to popularity. For me it's good to take that filter out and follow my interests no matter how obscure they get.
"The great thing about being ignored is that you can speak the truth with impunity." -Toxicology, by Steve Aylett
posted by john at 1:38 PM on June 23, 2005
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Sometimes I feel like I've gotten a bit too defensive from being exposed to places like Slashdot and MetaFilter. I'll want to make a point, but realize I need to plug each and every hole in my argument, on the off chance some dork replies with "but! but! but! what about x?!" When you spend most of your argument defending edge cases, sometimes your original point is lost completely.
-- Matt Haughey
posted by grateful at 12:46 PM on June 22, 2005