Patterico's Pontifications

4/28/2008

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:00 am



SCOTT ERIC KAUFMAN has a post titled Post Like Glenn Reynolds Day. In it he purports to encapsulate the essence of Glenn’s posting style.

Double heh.

P.S. To clarify, I don’t share Scott’s evident disdain for Glenn’s posting style. I just wanted to link to his post in Glenn’s style.

13 Responses to “”

  1. Be sure to read the first comment at the post. I’ll be snickering for days.

    fat tony (601b8d)

  2. Heh!

    Posted by Glenn Reynolds at 9:41:01 a.m

    Patterico likes the new Nikon 3000 Turbocharged Emulsifying Antioxidant Moustache Trimmer.

    Posted by Glenn Reynolds at 9:41:02 a.m

    Ouch.

    Posted by Glenn Reynolds at 9:41:03 a.m

    The Instawife made ChiliMac according to the InstaRecipe.

    UPDATE: Reader nk emails “I like to let my ChiliMac sit for exactly three minutes and eighteen seconds for the perfect consistency”. Yup.

    Posted by Glenn Reynolds at 9:41:04 a.m

    Nanotechnology as a cure for the summer-time blues.

    Posted by Glenn Reynolds at 9:41:05 a.m

    nk (1f1707)

  3. PS. And it’s not disdain on my part either. I like him despite the fact that he is a law professor. He is also praiseworthy for tirelessly promoting blogging and the internet and giving hope to ordinary-looking guys that they too can marry a girl as beautiful as Dr. Helen.

    But I think I have made it clear over two years of commenting here which blogging style I like best.

    nk (1f1707)

  4. If his post and commenters were slamming the brevity quotient, what part of Insta do these people not get? That is, if it wasn’t just some funning going on like nk’s gem. I’m sure everyone has their reason for making it a daily visit, but the Insta part has to count for a good deal of it. Pontificating has its own place…and we all know where to find the good ones. Reynold’s problem is he doesn’t have a DRJ.

    Bias alert. I once made it to the not-so-hallowed, more here backpage of Insta-World with a ‘professional’ comment about Skilsaws and carbon-tipped sawblades. Of all things. But if I helped just one Weekend Warrior, my work there was done.

    allan (d92ce7)

  5. If his post and commenters were slamming the brevity quotient, what part of Insta do these people not get?

    The “insta” refers to the speed at which he can respond, not the brevity of the response, as he noted here [.pdf]. I didn’t actually know that before I looked it up. I’d assumed it, but your assumption was equally valid.

    Bias alert.

    I’m not sure how that’s bias, though. He’s linked to me on more than one occasion, and I’m still more than happy to criticize what I consider his rhetorical and interpretive failures. That’s why I decided to this in the first place: I don’t believe you can split your attention that finely and still have anything worthwhile to say about a subject. (Well, that and I thought it’d be funny.)

    SEK (bd295a)

  6. A “painfully obvious” and “shockingly mundane” attempt to get Instalanched….but his stupidity is hard-scrabbled.

    driver (faae10)

  7. SEK,

    I don’t see Glenn Reynolds’ posting style as lacking in something worthwhile to say. He is what he is, and sometimes it’s nice to have access to quick links to a diverse and occasionally quirky view of the internet world.

    If Reynolds has any “failure” it’s that he’s too familiar. It’s become easy to spot repetitions in his style, attitude or choice of topic. He’s predictable in a world that prizes unpredictability. To which I respond, so what? He’s the Johnny Carson of the internet and even though we know his every expression, reaction, and joke, we still like it.

    DRJ (a431ca)

  8. driver:

    A “painfully obvious” and “shockingly mundane” attempt to get Instalanched.

    Yes, precisely. I do nothing but stare at my stats all day. You know, because it’s so entertaining.

    DRJ:

    I don’t see Glenn Reynolds’ posting style as lacking in something worthwhile to say.

    A while back I wrote about big blogger’s first posts. In the update, I discussed how depressingly thin Reynolds’ gruel is now compared to when he started. He’s a classic case of someone for whom the medium altered the message. Once upon a time he wrote in arguments, and while I disagreed with them, well, I had something to disagree with. Now he’s like the gnomic oracle who’s bought into his own shtick, and the results are intellectually stultifying.

    To pick up your comparison: Carson had an ever-shifting team of writers who kept his material fresh. The list of uncredited geniuses who scribed for him contains the names of pretty much anyone who was funny between 1968 and 1992. If Reynolds had Woody Allen — the early, funny Woody — on hand to pick up some of his slack, he probably wouldn’t be the one trick/note/pony he’s become.

    As I noted above — and in the original post — I’m not complaining about Reynolds so much as seeing how his style influences how he thinks. To be frank, I can’t help but think it’s anything but deleterious to engaged thought.

    Put another way, he thinks he’s ascultating the body politic, when in truth he’s been mesmerized by the thrum of his own pulse. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with that — what else are blogs for? — except for the fact his idiosyncracies are presented as if they’re axiomatic, and they just aren’t.

    You see this happen every time he veers away from right-center/libertarian policy into transhuman sexing up robots. People suddenly realize that his hobbyhorses might not traverse the same wide plains as theirs. The thing is, that’s always the case. It’s just difficult to see that most of the time because he’s adopted a voice people consider homespun.

    But enough complaining. (At the very least, I hope I’ve made it clear that I’m not aiming for an Instalanch.) Let me strike a different note: the reason I respect you and Patterico is that you’re not like Reynolds. I admit to sometimes being annoyed with the excessive quotation, but when you two want to make a case, you make a case. You don’t pander to denominators — low, high, or whatever — you state, forthrightly, what you know, what you think, and what you’d like to find out. I respect people who 1) don’t assume I already agree with them and 2) give me something substantial to disagree with. You two do that. Reynolds doesn’t. Malkin doesn’t.

    SEK (bd295a)

  9. I have to say, that first comment there was PRICELESS….

    I too have caught myself saying “fucking chickens” and then giggling like a drunked schoolgirl…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  10. And I agree with SEK completely reagrading his assessment of Malkin, Glenn, and DRJ & Patterico…

    I mean, look at the Louisiana post. I mean, LOOK at it!!!

    No, seriously… Look at it. Is it still there? I tried to wrap my head around it, and was blinded…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  11. SEK,

    Maybe we aren’t disagreeing as much as we’re viewing this from different angles. For instance, I agree the Instapundit doesn’t offer his personal views as much and has, in essence, chosen quantity over quality. One reason may be that he has so many readers and viewpoints to please. Another may be that his choice of links speaks for him. He frequently links Althouse and Radley Balko and I think one reason is that they espouse views with which he agrees. Finally, I know I have more free time than Glenn Reynolds does, and I don’t see how he works full-time and blogs so prolifically.

    As for excessive quotation, I assume you are referring to my posts because P rarely does that. You are exactly right, and it’s my least favorite part of blogging. However, I use excerpts to make sure people start the discussion with a common frame of reference. I’m happy for them to disagree but it’s much better if we at least have a common starting point. Most people click the links and read the rest. However, if I omit too much detail or unconsciously slant the story, I risk losing the trust I’m trying to build as a blogger.

    DRJ (a431ca)

  12. DRJ,

    You need to learn how to take a compliment. You’re doing a fine job of trust-building. My pet peeve about posts that consist mostly of quotation is that, well, once you’ve built trust, people are actually interested in what trustworthy antagonists have to say. (Don’t go The Way of Heh!)

    Finally, I know I have more free time than Glenn Reynolds does, and I don’t see how he works full-time and blogs so prolifically.

    I do. There’s a point at which you garner audience enough to not have to come up with ideas on your own. One of the reasons the “SEK did this for the Instalanch” line of thought bothers me is that because I already receive far more email daily than reasonable people can respond to. I own a niche, and while it may be small, it’s committed. It wouldn’t be difficult at all for me to churn out 30 posts a day based on what people email me. I could string together cliches here and talk about inertia and tipping points, but the fact of the matter is that once you reach a certain prominence, it ain’t all that difficult to wing it. That temptation is better fought than embraced.

    To put it another way: I’m still working through the Louisiana post you and Patterico wrote. Admittedly, since I’m from there, know the system and some of the players, I’m having a difficult time parsing some of the specifics, but you know what? I spent a good three hours I didn’t have to spare working through it. That’s quality thought, be it on a blog or otherwise. (Whereas I’ve never spent more time pondering any item Reynolds has written in the past five years than he’s spent writing it.)

    SEK (bd295a)

  13. SEK,

    I should have said thank you because I did consider your comment a compliment, but I’ve been thinking a lot about how to excerpt articles. Your comment gave me an opening to discuss it with someone who thinks about these things, and I took it.

    It may seem odd but it’s easier for me to summarize articles than to excerpt them because summaries make me think through the issues before I start writing. However, I’ve found that my summaries don’t always say what I think I’m saying. Thus, I’m doomed to the eternal struggle of excerpting just enough but not too much.

    This has been on my mind recently and since you’re the unlucky commenter who raised it, you had to listen to the long version in response. (Sorry about that!) And I’m grateful you are reading through the long version of the Louisiana post. We spent a lot of time on that and it’s nice to know someone is reading it.

    DRJ (a431ca)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2914 secs.