November 29, 2004

“Weblogging” No-Nos We, the crack

“Weblogging” No-Nos

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have long heard our fellow “webloggers” excitedly discuss all the “buzz” (as Tina Brown would say) in which they are embroiled. It was the “blogosphere,” after all, that short-circuited Dan Rather’s prestigious career as a teleprompter reader. And the “webloggers,” moreover, helped “energize the base” (as the pundits would say), ensuring that George W. Bush was re-elected.

Naturally, the “webloggers” were also largely delighted to find that four more years for the Bush Administration greatly perturbed our European friends, who appear to consider President Bush a curious amalgam of Jack Palance and Gomer Pyle.

Despite this impressive resumé, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have the sneaking suspicion that pretty much all of our fellow “webloggers” pine to write for prestigious publications. Or, failing that, The American Spectator.

We know what you are thinking, fellow “webloggers”: Not me; I’ll never sell out and pen articles for hoity-toity journals and receive impressive book deals. To which we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” respond: Yeah, right. We think that pretty much every “weblogger” yearns to become the next Norman Mailer—except, unlike Mr. Mailer, they don’t want to stab their wives, and experience their artistic peak in 1948. We mean, come on: Has anyone actually read Mailer’s rancid The Naked and the Dead? The publisher should rename that “The (Thankfully) Clothed and (Unfortunately) Still Alive.”

But we collectively digress. As far as we are concerned, manifold “webloggers” hope to use their “websites” as stepping-stones to careers as famous public intellectuals.

Now, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have no idea how to do this. In fact, if we did, you can be darned sure we wouldn’t be tied down to this sinking ship, writing a bunch of arrant piffle each weekday.

Even so, dear reader, we believe that we can offer you a few good ideas of what not to do, if you secretly yearn to parlay your “weblogging” into a career in the world of literature and journalism. As such, we are pleased as peacocks to present:

“The Hatemonger’s Quarterly” Official “Weblogging” No-Nos:

1. Never give your “weblog” a title that could be deemed offensive to some, such as “Women, Minorities, and Other Problems,” or “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly.”

2. Don’t dilate on uninspired personal anecdotes. Sure, you work in a cubicle, and your boss is a jerk. Thanks, Dilbert. That’s about as interesting as watching paint dry.

3. Never write a “weblog” as feculent as Sullywatch. (If you have a third-grade education, you needn’t worry about this, as your musings—however stupid—will surely dwarf his.)

4. Although attempting to find a niche market for your “weblog” is all fine and good, topics such as animal husbandry and royal blue crayons probably have too limited an appeal to catapult you into the intellectual stratosphere.

5. Don’t write in Norwegian, as even Swedes won’t be able to read your posts.

6. Never carp on the sins of a publication to which you would like to contribute. For instance, never “weblog” about the hypocritical pseudo-radicalism of Perry Anderson, Marxist-cum-millionaire editor of The New Left Review.

7. Don’t write ridiculous posts that offer inane lists of things for other “webloggers” to avoid.

Posted at November 29, 2004 12:01 AM | TrackBack