It appears that the J in M.J. Rose's name stands for "Julavits."
Without naming names or citing any specific examples (or, for that matter, actually invoking an argument for why any of it is bad), M.J. Rose offers us yet another piece of flummery complaining about what she identifies as "whining" (and what the rest of us might call identifying and criticizing specific publishing issues so as to better understand them) on the blogosphere. Her ostensible point is "because there are over 195,000 books published a year and they can't all get reviews in the NYTBR."
Well, it's clear that Ms. Rose fails to comprehend the argument. The amount of books being published is not the issue. It's the substantive nature of how the current publishing industry is being covered and represented in print that the blogosphere is being taken to task. It's not all bad. But as demonstrated here and at other places, it has been repeatedly shown that the NYTBR continues to give fiction (and specifically literary fiction) the shaft and maintain a balance of male-to-female book reviewers that is completely out of step with the current population (and, in particular, readers). (By the way, a Tanenhaus Brownie Watch is in the works for last Sunday.)
Second, what's wrong with complaints anyway? Voicing grievances is often a good way to get a discussion going and it allows all of us to work together towards contemplating a solution. Plus, it serves as a catharsis for all involved. Publishing is a tough business, one that involves working on a book for years only to see a meager advance completely out of proportion with the labor expended. It's enough to drive just about any stable person crazy.
But most importantly, there's something important that needs to be said here. Why should anybody take an opinion seriously when the person who posits it continues to engage in a passive-aggressive approach to intellctualism without a specific example? I say this because Ms. Rose continues to perpetuate an image as a publishing wag, yet continuously refrains from stating her larger points, stopping at "You'll notice I haven't linked to any of the whining." Either she's afraid of offending or interested in getting out of her "arguments" when backed into a corner, presumably so that she can tell you in person, "Oh, I wasn't really talking about you!"
If Ms. Rose has a beef with me or another blog, that's fine. I'm not going to take offense. What I do take offense to is the idea of anyone presenting herself as an expert and then using their blog as some sort of reserved pulpit instead of contributing to the active discourse.
There have been many times where I've vehemently disagreed with many of the fine folks on the left, both publicly and privately. But I also respect them as adults -- meaning that I know that they are grown up enough to engage in a conversation and not take some of my more exuberant views too much to heart (or vice versa). We're all passionate about books and publishing, but that doesn't mean we all think the same or can't challenge each other.
So my question to Ms. Rose is this: Why not have the courage to say what you genuinely think so that some of us out here can actually understand your points? Or is that too much to expect from someone long in the habit of applying the hypocritical "etiquette" of Emily Post to the blogosphere?
Posted by DrMabuse at July 12, 2005 10:37 AMAll points well taken.
I have nothing but respect for argument.
But I don't think whining is argument.
And a lot of blogs have great arguments.
Including this one.
What I was reffering to isn't what you are doing, Edward.
I'm sorry if you think so because I really like your blog.
I should have posted links but I didnt' want to give the posts more attention.
There is a huge difference between arguing about what's wrong with publishing and reviews etc - which I agree - there's a tone that's wrong - and using that as an excuse for why your own books aren't getting more attention.
I just thought it was an interesting observation and wondered if it was me - or others were noticing it.
Posted by: M.J. Rose at July 12, 2005 12:31 PMMJ: Thanks for weighing in.
The point I was trying to make is that blogs (and their concurrent kvetching) often serve as an impetus for a conversation or what we are referring to in this case as an argument. I should point out again that the blog form is one that often involves fragmented thoughts or ideas which may or may not be half-baked. But I would argue that if they come here in the form of a complaint or a bitch, then they are still valid. Because ultimately, venting does lead to something constructive.
To kill that impulse in the womb before it's been allowed to germinate strikes me as a bad precedent. Particularly when I still don't know what it is you're referring to. (You allude to a mysterious tone, but again you've produced no examples here.)
So I am led to believe that it is bitching, or quite possibly Julavits' anti-snark idea, that you are objecting to. Which I find a dangerous precedent in an age where the forces of politeness and unilateralism discourage people from voicing what's on their minds.
Posted by: Ed at July 12, 2005 01:08 PMWhat kind of argument is this where the combatants make nice to each other and are fawning til sundown.
No blood, no fight!
Sheesh.
Posted by: birnbaum at July 12, 2005 02:18 PMSomeone posted this on www.readerville.com today and it just goes to show that the poor male/female ratio is, sadly, not exclusive to the NYTBR:
http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/4/weiss-numbers.asp
I don't think some of us are complaining - and I'm sure M.J. wasn't referring to me!:) - so much as we're observing that this is the way things are.
Posted by: Lauren Baratz-Logsted at July 12, 2005 02:31 PMAh. Okay. I understand Ed.
No, I wasn't advocating politeness at all. I just didn't express myself well enough.
I'm going to blog my answer to you and send you the link.
Ah. Okay. I understand Ed.
No, I wasn't advocating politeness at all. I just didn't express myself well enough.
I'm going to blog my answer to you and send you the link.
Ah. Okay. I understand Ed.
No, I wasn't advocating politeness at all. I just didn't express myself well enough.
I'm going to blog my answer to you and send you the link.
Since when should reviews be parcelled out according to the number of males and females in the population? Should the publishing industry be obligated to do the same for the authors?
Posted by: Bill Peschel at July 12, 2005 05:44 PMaddware
Posted by: addware at October 14, 2005 12:28 PMspyware
Posted by: SPYWARE at October 15, 2005 02:24 AMspyware
Posted by: spyware at October 15, 2005 02:26 AMSpyware
Posted by: Spyware at October 15, 2005 03:20 AMspyware
Posted by: spyware at October 15, 2005 03:21 AMspyware
Posted by: SPYWARE at October 15, 2005 03:22 AMSPYWARE
free spyware
spyware
free spyware removal
spyware blaster
Spyware
free spyware
spyware
spyware
free spyware remover
Spyware
Posted by: spyware at October 15, 2005 04:47 AMspyware
Posted by: spyware at October 15, 2005 04:58 AMspyware
Posted by: spyware at October 15, 2005 05:01 AMSPYWARE
free spyware
spyware
free spyware removal
spyware blaster
Spyware
free spyware
spyware
spyware
free spyware remover
microsoft anti spyware
microsoft spyware
spyware
microsoft anti spyware
microsoft spyware
spyware
free adware
adware
microsoft anti spyware
microsoft spyware
spyware
virus removal
Posted by: virus removal at October 15, 2005 11:19 AMspyware remover
free spyware remover
spyware
free adware
adware
free spyware scan
spyware scan
spyware
free spyware scan
spyware scan
spyware
free adware
adware
virus removal
Posted by: free virus removal at October 15, 2005 12:28 PMmicrosoft anti spyware
microsoft spyware
spyware
spyware remover
free spyware remover
spyware
free adware
adware
free spyware scan
spyware scan
spyware
free spyware scan
spyware scan
spyware
paxil cr
Posted by: Paxil CR at October 15, 2005 01:45 PMpaxil
Posted by: Paxil at October 15, 2005 01:45 PMbuy paxil
online Paxil
cheap paxil
paxil cr
Posted by: Paxil CR at October 16, 2005 04:41 AMpaxil
Posted by: Paxil at October 16, 2005 04:42 AMfree spyware scan
spyware scan
paxil
Posted by: Paxil at October 16, 2005 05:15 AMpaxil cr
Posted by: paxil cr at October 16, 2005 05:16 AMspyware
Posted by: free online spyware removal at October 16, 2005 05:32 AMfree spyware scan
spyware scan
spyware
Posted by: spyware guard at October 16, 2005 05:42 AMfree spyware scan
spyware scan
spyware
Posted by: free spyware removal tools at October 16, 2005 05:44 AMspyware
Posted by: spyware removal free at October 16, 2005 05:44 AMfree spyware
Posted by: spyware search and destroy at October 16, 2005 05:44 AMfree spyware scan
spyware scan
spyware
Posted by: free spyware program at October 16, 2005 06:05 AMfree spyware scan
spyware scan
spyware
Posted by: spyware removers at October 16, 2005 06:24 AMspyware
Posted by: free spyware at October 16, 2005 06:33 AMfree spyware scan
spyware scan
free spyware
Posted by: spyware cleaner at October 16, 2005 06:33 AMspyware
Posted by: spyware programs at October 16, 2005 06:34 AMspyware blaster
Posted by: spyware blaster at October 16, 2005 07:20 AMspyware
Posted by: free spyware removal tool at October 16, 2005 07:50 AMspyware blaster
Posted by: SPYWARE at October 16, 2005 07:51 AMspyware
Posted by: freeware spyware at October 16, 2005 08:21 AMfree guitar lesson
guitar lessons
online guitar lessons
free guitar lessons
guitar lessons
Posted by: guitar lessons at October 16, 2005 08:45 AMfree guitar lesson
guitar lessons
online guitar lessons
free guitar lessons
spyware reviews
spyware
spyware reviews
spyware
free spyware
spyware reviews
spyware
free spyware
free spyware removal
spyware removal
Free Spyware Removal
SPYWARE REMOVAL
FREE SPYWARE REMOVAL
spyware reviews
spyware
spyware reviews
spyware
free spyware
spyware reviews
spyware
free spyware
free spyware removal
spyware removal
Free Spyware Removal
SPYWARE REMOVAL
FREE SPYWARE REMOVAL
free spyware removal
Posted by: free spyware removal at October 16, 2005 01:21 PMspyware removal
Posted by: FREE SPYWARE REMOVAL at October 16, 2005 01:41 PMfree spyware removal
Posted by: spyware removal at October 16, 2005 01:52 PMFREE SPYWARE REMOVAL
Posted by: FREE SPYWARE REMOVAL at October 16, 2005 02:00 PMspyware
Posted by: Free Spyware Removal at October 16, 2005 02:01 PMfree spyware removal
Posted by: spyware removal at October 16, 2005 02:01 PMfree error remover
Posted by: error remover at October 17, 2005 03:55 AMspyware
Posted by: spyware free downloads at October 17, 2005 03:55 AMspyware
Posted by: spyware downloads for free at October 17, 2005 04:17 AMspyware remover
Posted by: free download" anti spyware at October 17, 2005 04:29 AMspyware
Posted by: free yahoo spyware at October 17, 2005 04:31 AMfree error remover
Posted by: free error remover at October 17, 2005 04:32 AMfree spyware
Posted by: spyware free programs at October 17, 2005 04:42 AMfree error remover
Posted by: spyware at October 17, 2005 04:45 AMspyware
Posted by: norton free spyware at October 17, 2005 04:45 AMspyware
Posted by: free adware at October 17, 2005 05:20 AMfree error remover
Posted by: spyware at October 17, 2005 05:20 AMspyware
Posted by: ANTI SPYWARE at October 17, 2005 08:32 AMspyware
Posted by: ANTI SPYWARE at October 17, 2005 08:44 AMspyware
Posted by: ANTI SPYWARE at October 17, 2005 08:44 AMspyware
Posted by: SPYWARE at October 17, 2005 09:05 AMspyware
Posted by: ANTI SPYWARE at October 17, 2005 09:18 AMspyware
Posted by: ANTI SPYWARE at October 17, 2005 09:18 AM