Been a lot of "debunking" of this latest foofaraw in the blog-o-sphere…

Lev Grossman’s article seemed to spawn the latest to-do in the blog-o-sphere. Lots of others have debunked his original article already.

As fun as it is to debunk the article as editorial fluff, I must take a defensive stance.

Nobody, in books, has all the knowledge. What we do have is the combined narrative matter of all our remembered favorites, and all our remembered discussions of books with others.

What Lev Grossman seems to be describing, to me, is not necessarily some grand sweeping pronouncement against all books. Instead, it seems like he’s describing a grand sweeping pronouncement about his own reading history and discoveries and beliefs.

It’s actually very easy for any well-read individual to make grand, sweeping statements based on their own experience, becasue it’s easy to believe we have achieved some level of mastery after all our time spent reading.

If this were on his personal blog, I wouldn’t bat an eye. I might roll one. I know I’ve caused a few eye rolls in my day.

It’s the fact that this article passed muster at the Wall Street Journal, of all places, that makes me bat an eye. I know my grand sweeping statements on my blog have no place in Locus, The Sacramento Bee, or anything like it. That’s why they’re on my blog.

Nothing makes one feel like one is scribbling in a ghetto than to watch The New Torker, the Wall Street Journal, and other lions of mainstream media report so poorly on what’s happening out here on the edge of the imagination. They’re all such smart, erudite, well-meaning folks, too.

I hope the Wall Street Journal contacts someone like Ellen Datlow, Cheryl Morgan, Cory Doctorow, Jeff VanderMeer, John Scalzi, or any one of our many eloquent, knowledgable representatives that can actually write meaningfully about what’s happening over here, and what that means to the rest of the world, the next time they want to publish something celebrating our little corner of the bookstore.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Been a lot of "debunking" of this latest foofaraw in the blog-o-sphere…

  1. to be fair if you were going to compile a list of the top 10,000 most damaging and dishonest and deranged opinion pieces ever published in the WSJ this wouldn't even be in the running

  2. Fair? Who's being fair? This is my blog, not the Wall Street Journal, and I don't even have to pretend to be fair. I can make any sort of grand, sweeping indictment I want.This is the greatest crime against fandom since the last greatest crime against fandom!

  3. Oh, okay. Well, if they don't have anything to say in their defense, I declare them guilty. Still, wrong and I'll-intentioned are not the same thing, even when the wrongness is head -in-arse wrong and loving it won't you all join us in stinkland, so I still doubt they are intentionally malignant in much the same way I think evangelical republicans are basically well-intentioned even if they are often dumb as drunk geese.Sent from my iPhone

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s