I’ll offer my own report of Bud Parr’s blogging panel later, once I have had the time to log and arrange my extensive notes. But for the moment, I must respond to Michael Rogers, who appears to be a wuss of letters more content to bitch about the warmth (we’re all feeling it, fella; shut up and deal) than offering a report on events. If Rogers had paid less attention to what he styles “self-aggrandizing” and more attention to Anne Fernald’s excellent points of what blogging can do, then he might have had less of a shaggy dog column on his hands.
I think it would be interesting for book bloggers to list their “degrees” It is my perception that most book bloggers are accomplished, literate people and not ignorant hacks working out of basements in Terre Haute. I don’t put myself forth as a major book blogger or reviewer, but I have had a book blog for more than two years and I do have readership so I guess I can be considered one of the people everyone is complaining about. And I have degrees from major institutions and lots of good publishing credits.
Would it be instructive to be more revealing about the credentials of bloggers? Wouldn’t this help quell the complaints about our ignorance? Or would this just be playing into the hands of those who will never respect bloggers, no matter what they do?
Michael Rogers’ post once again throws out massive generalizations about bloggers and their abilities to comment on books.
Agree with you completely, but none of the piker assholes so happy to crucify me ever considered that. I said what I said not because I believe bloggers have no place in legitimate reviewing (didn’t seem to occur to anyone that my comments were posted in a fucking book blog!), but because I believe you DO have a place. The reason I wanted to see Bookbabe and Bookarausus, etc., on the panel is NOT because I think they would have fallen on their asses, but because you would have been GREAT!
Left my statement open-ended specifically to see the temper of responses, and you’ve failed horribly. You’re so easily suckered. After my 18-cat comment, I volunteered that I hold meaningful conversations with my dog–for god sake what more indication do you need to understand I’m on your side???
On the reading comprehension test (paramount to book reviewing) you guys get an big, fat F.
So sorry, Mr. Rogers (and if you claim your folderol as a blog post, I can assure you that you’re certainly not MY neighbor), for failing to recognize your misunderstood genius. You failed to get your facts straight, as Bud Parr noted on your blog. You failed to cite any specifics to defend your argument that the panel was “disappointing,” like a dutiful hack. And you banged out the same old generalizations with the cat/dog comparison. How does any of this contribute to reporting? How does any of this contribute to the argument? The least you could have done is called us parasites, like all the others have.