Thomas’ review is no worse than 95% of the timekilling typography out there (online or on paper)… and it isn’t *half* as nitwitty as some of the slabs pinched off by bloggers we both know and love… why pick on *her*? There’s a howling disconnect here that would puzzle any objective observer.

“To gush about how much you like an author is to capitulate to the poisonous celebrity culture that is presently deracinating the possibilities of independent thought. It is to accept, as Louisa Thomas clearly accepts, the coward’s knee-jerk sprint to conformist groupthink. It is to waste words, sabotage paragraphs, and to offer nothing original. It is to accept the superficial.”

Do you honestly believe that doesn’t apply to lots of webwriters, and cliques of webwriters, who currently call you “amigo”? What about (eg) last year’s online proliferation of xeroxed Bolaño-heads, so clearly in love with the man’s dashing silhouette… or the Denis Johnson brigade, prior to that… don’t they count as “groupthinkers”?

My point being that Louisa Thomas is not going to change anything about her outlook or presentation because of your meta-review, and she wasn’t even on most of our radar screens before you took the time to blip her… but being more bluntly critical of writers who actually have your ear might help elevate the content and produce more “professionals” (not in a mercenary sense) in the tribe.

I’m talking about a mode of frank communication that’s cooler than flamewar, but much, much hotter than what passes for “criticism” or “dissent” on intra-litbloggerverse memos. Energy better spent than feeding bunnies through wringers?

I’m not being (and hoping not to be seen as) combative here; just doing an “on the other hand” kind of thing. Or maybe more of a “what if”.