Weblogging and Criticism
Mumpsimus has a revealing post here about the perils of bad (or bland) reviewing. Broadening it out from his specific points, I’ve actually been thinking about how rigor–or lack thereof–relates to blogs, and the formal constraints of the blog, whether specifically in regards to a “criticism” blog or no. Specificity matters, but the blog–perhaps because of its dailiness?–also lends itself to the off-handed, the ephemeral, and the aphoristic. What’s still an open book (so to speak) is the myriad ways that the diary aspects intersect with more conventional criticism. Gold-standard blogs like Pseudopodium or Hotel Point have created their own aesthetics–aesthetic choices which are directly tied to the personalities behind them. At the same time, they have the contextual chops as well to back it all up. It’s always a balancing act. The blog at its best, can be both a critical receptacle and link repository, pointing outward and inward at the same time. And, speaking for myself, I need to remind myself that when I’m on the verge of sloppy thinking, to feel free to pass the baton to someone else on a particular subject. What matters is both writing and linking what you’re passionate about; and, at the same time (and this is where Matt’s critique rightly comes into play), pushing the language so it’s more than goldfish floating around in a bowl of codeine.
The good news, at least when it comes to science fiction, is that because of the sheer laziness of many of its “critics,” there is a ton of unexplored territory, i.e., the complicated relationships between fandom, real science, “popular mechanics” science, turn-of-the-century romanticism, modernism. You know, the small stuff–especially as it impinges (if at all?) on particular stories.
And, I have to say, I’m very very passionate about using my “blockquote” tag on my blog, because my template makes those really elegant quotation marks. I’m addicted to them! –Alan DeNiro
