Tags: blogging

book 1

In Which I Win the Internet

A couple of weeks ago, I got annoyed at some interview or another where a writer was speaking about the strong female character they'd created when really, she didn't do much more than provide a romantic interest for the male protagonist. Oh, she was competent enough in her fireld, but she could never outshine the men she was saddled with, and she never did anything noteworthy. But she didn't cower in the corner or anything, so that's progress, right? Right?

Guh. It's something that happens a lot, so I took my annoyance and wrote up a rather sarcastic rant about the issue, after which I figured I could leave well enough alone and move on to something that hopefully provided female characters who actually get to be people.

I intended just to forget about it after that, but it seems my rant has struck a chord with a surprising number of people. I don't think I've ever gotten so many responses to a blog post, and between the messages left directly to the blog and the e-mails from people who wanted to reply with something a bit longer and more personal, it kept me busy for several days.

Yesterday damned_colonial wrote to let me know my rant has been linked to the Geek Feminist Wiki, which is just about the coolest thing ever. I'm quoted and everything! (My husband laughed that they even quoted the word "wusstastic.")

Apparently, I should put my ranting hat on more often.
cookie

Blog Fail

The NYT came up with 10 Rules For Blogging the other day. What do they have to say?

-What should be avoided in all of them is any hint of racist, sexist or religious bias, or any suggestion of nasty, snide, sarcastic, or condescending tone — “snark.”
-If something could easily fit in a satirical Web site for young adults, it probably shouldn’t go into the news pages of nytimes.com.
-Contractions, colloquialisms and even slang are, generally speaking, more allowable in blogs than in print.
-Obscenity and vulgarity are not.
-Unverified assertions of fact, blind pejorative quotes, and other lapses in journalistic standards don’t ever belong in blogs.
-Writers and editors of blogs must also distinguish between personal tone and voice and unqualified personal opinion.
-A blog or news column has to give readers the arguments and factual information that led to the writer’s conclusion — enough argument and fact on both or all sides of the issue to enable the reader to decide whether to agree or disagree
-That does not apply to editorials or Op-Ed columns, which “are not intended to give a balanced look at both sides of a debate,” as the Readers’ Guide says.
-Headlines on analysis should try to capture the debate rather than taking sides in it.
-If the comments contain vulgarity, obscenity, offensive personal attacks, say that somebody “sucks,” or are incoherent, moderators are advised just to chuck them out.

So apparently I fail at blogging. Yup. Or the NYT doesn't really understand blogging. One of the two. I'm going with the second one, not for my own sake, but because the most popular blogs I know are highly opinionated, snarktastic, and very fond of all things obscene and vulgar. Which, let's face it, is kind of the point of blogging, isn't it? That everyone can have their own voice and we don't have to pretend to be all professional and unbiased like the newspeople?