n+1 is Satan

(I'm kidding, kidding.)

So: This recent post bestows the knockout power of a young Mike Tyson upon the gentlemen and ladies at n+1:

I think it's safe to say that two of n+1's favorite punching bags are the "Eggersards" (associates of Dave Eggers, whose "sub-literary work," according to n+1's inaugural "Intellectual Scene"* column, includes the journals McSweeney's and the Believer), and litbloggers -- that is to say, bloggers who blog about literature. In their most recent "Intellectual Scene" column (Winter 2007), the editors of n+1 described litblogging as an unholy mixture of guerrilla marketing and vomiting; and in the current issue's "Intellectual Scene," they contemptuously dismiss litbloggers in a single sentence, after having praised Amazon.com's anonymous book reviewers. At least the "Amazonians," they claim, actually read the books they're writing about. Ouch!

So who's going down -- the Eggersards? Although Eggers did reportedly once threaten to give up writing forever unless the Atlantic Monthly killed an anti-Eggers essay by future n+1 co-founder Keith Gessen (the essay was killed; Eggers kept writing), this outcome seems unlikely. But the effort to single-handedly silence scores -- maybe hundreds -- of litbloggers is as quixotic as Cuchulain's fight with the sea.

Or is it? This morning, I visited one of the most popular, and reliably informative of all litblogs, Edward Champion's Return of the Reluctant -- hoping, like everyone else perched anxiously on the margins of the lit-review world, to be titillated by (among other things) Champion's fearless, if over-the-top denunciations of New York Times Book Review editor Sam Tanenhaus, whom the Brooklyn-based Champion has described as an enemy of literature. And what did I find? This: "I'm done with blogging. And I'm serious this time."

That's right, Champion -- "the litblog world's preeminent gadfly" -- has suddenly quit litblogging. (Say it ain't so, Ed!) Can the timing be mere coincidence?**

This dispatch prompted about 1,000 words worth of sarcasm and recrimination from your old pal the Rake that, sadly, must never see the light of day.  But I think it's for the best, for as I revisited Round One of n+1 versus the bloggers, I realized that n+1's Intellectual Situation is more lazy and dishonest than I remembered.

In short, the unattributed architects of the Intellectual Situation seem to find litblogs beneath sustained analysis--they're willing to be snide and cast them out categorically, but not willing to name a single name or explore differences in style, approach, or quality.  The entry from Winter 2007 employs naught but insults, gross characterizations, and categorical dismissal.

And it gets worse.

Regardless of their printed output, those responsible for the Intellectual Situation do in fact recognize the existence of quality litblogs, as evidenced in multiple posts in the thread linked here.  And the categorical dismissal of litblogs is explained in this fashion:

As long as [lousy litbloggers] are the ones making noise, when some mainstream media person puts together a list of "leading lit-blogs," they'll be on it. And when a print publication like n+1 decides to write something about blogs, those will be the people on our minds, because they're the ones shoving their half-formed sentences in our faces. You--the better bloggers--have no right to complain about this, because you're not coming forward to say: No, those guys aren't the real bloggers. And you're not telling them to shut up. Until you do that, they will represent you to the world. It's up to you.

Remember this: "Blogs seem to me nearly irrelevant, so unregulated are they."?

Interesting, isn't it, that it often comes down to calls for referees and regulation?

I don't think elitism, distilled, is a bad thing--we could all stand to try a bit harder--but the suggestion that it is incumbent upon the (intellectually) talented and elite to shout down the rabble, lest they find their virgin white garments besmirched, makes me more than a little queasy.

Really, when was it ever anyone's duty in the (so-called) underground to alter mainstream perception?   Is Jens Lekman responsible for telling Daughtry to shut up?  Funny, I thought he was merely responsible for making his own music.

Not to mention that this gives the mainstream media people far too much credit, and sells the average reader far too short.  Those new to literary blogs might find top ten lists useful, and they can be, but anyone with a genuine interest is in time going to find what's cool, what's real, and--most importantly--what appeals.

"The Blog Reflex" was meant as a provocation.  It was a poor, overgeneralized one.  Now n+1 is doing the equivalent of dialing drunk and hanging up.  This is sad.

Black Garterbelt might not merit an official stance, but if it did, it would be against the pernicious misuse of taxonomy in discussing books/texts; that is, using lazy categorical thinking to limit the possibilities of literature and literary criticism. I'm increasingly dismayed with the narrow sensibilities and grand statements of those who would pretend to be the intelligent surveyors of literature and the dedicated caretakers of various intellectual traditions.

Oh, true, n+1 aren't your grandfather's intellectuals, what with their serious treatments of Radiohead and "sex children," and it's clear from a sustained reading of the Intellectual Situation that, somewhat like Slim Shady, they don't give a fuck because their professors sent them to piss the world off.  Still, you're meant to believe that you're in the presence of some heady young minds who are at least the equal of your beloved critics of yesteryear.

If that's so, then they need to shut up when the topic turns to blogs.  No more snark, no more spoofs.

Well, either shut up or put up; to be blunt, start printing in n+1 specific examples and careful, studied observations of the medium, as would befit the finest critical minds.

But if they think that it's beyond their publication to better the online literary conversation, then why waste time on the scattershot bullying of such a thoroughly degraded and meaningless medium, and, further, keep up cheap attacks on it when you have so many other facets of the intellectual situation to glibly judge and shape?

Won't someone please think of the sex children?

* * * * *

(*I'm not sure if this feature is meant to be called The Intellectual Scene or The Intellectual Situation.  n+1's covers say Scene, but the tables of contents and the features themselves employ the title The Intellectual Situation.)

(**Short answer: Yes.)

Comments

[A.Franklin]

An enemy of Eggers is an enemy of mine, and I'm a violent, reactionary ignoramus. Who knows what I might do?

[Mike]

Sure, it sounds like the writers of n+1 are making a blanket statement regarding all lit-blogs, but I think they do have a point. I've read many entries where the writer freely admits to writing about books, classics mind you, that they haven't or are having trouble reading because they fall asleep when reading them. http://www.litkicks.com/JamelahUlyssesPart1/ Come on, you write for a blog that has a weekly feature reviewing the New York Times Book Review, and yet you can't seem to muster up the chutzpah to read Ulysses. That's a poor showing for a supposedly literary community.

[Derek Catermole]

So if you see specific examples, you'll accept n+1's critiques? You are one.

[Mike]

Derek,

I guess I may be one, but the point is that, regardless of the fact that n + 1's writers seem to be pretentious assholes to the point of extremism, there are way too many lit blogs out there with half-assed critiques of books that they haven't read and who partake in the very same shotgun approach that n + 1 engages in with regard to blogs. Hypocrisy at its finest.

[Rake]

Here's the thing: n+1's argument is lousy, first of all because it doesn't live up to any of their bravado about being young, brilliant thinkers. The crimes against logic are just the beginning. Second, their unsigned entry forestalls any potential discussion, because of its utter combativeness and lack of specificity. So, immediately, anyone who jumps to the litblogs' defense sounds unfocused and shrill--there's nothing to respond to except bad attitude. Then, the second wave of people come by to tsk-tsk the overreaction of one or both parties, or to tell the responders to let it go. This is no way to have a literary dialogue.

And, judging by the latest issue of n+1, the boys and girls over there are content to keep stepping in it, ridiculously claiming that The Blog Reflex was satire. If you're keeping score, that means that they produced a satirical piece whose general assertions they've backed up personally and at length in blogs' comments areas. It's like seeing Jonathan Swift laugh off A Modest Proposal while actually eating an infant.

I assume DC's comment is aimed at me, but it's hard to tell, given that no effort was put into engaging with the substance of the post or leaving a thoughtful, cogent comment. For what it's worth, I've asked for "specific examples and careful, studied observations of the medium," and I'm not holding my breath.

Mike: I was inclined to agree with you, but when I clicked over I saw a post that is meant to function as a harmless chat starter about reading Ulysses. Litblogs are allowed some informality, too, along with the more substantive critiques, which at LitKicks are done by Levi, I'm pretty sure. (Andy Rooney's presence doesn't invalidate the rest of 60 Minutes, does it?) And she IS reading it, even if slowly. Is that really much of a travesty?

[Derek Catermole]

No no. My comment is thoughtful and cogent and certainly engages with the substance of the post.

[Mike]

Rake: I think we're in general agreement with regard to the initial premise that n+1's arguments are hollow at best and perplexing at worst. However, I think the basic premise holds true, and that is that the web in of itself is too much of a free for all and an untamed frontier at times. I can't speak for what outlets are promoting the "loudest" lit blogs and are totally misrepresenting the entire enterprise, but it seems to me that this might be akin to the attention that Pitchfork brings to the music blogosphere. Also, one has to keep in mind that with such wide access, one has to be prepared to take the bitter with the sweet, so to speak. The overwhelming majority of blogs are just plain bad, but that's just the price to be paid. I could be wrong, but I think that's more along the lines of what they're describing as the problem with lit blogs. It doesn't excuse their arrogance and hypocrisy, but as with any art form, literature arouses pretty strong feelings in its followers and to see that form dumbed down or misrepresented to the masses is not looked upon kindly.

[Derek Catermole]

Aw, c'mon. Won't you post my extremist rant?