October 01, 2004

Any Comments? Of all the

Any Comments?

Of all the e-mails that we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” receive each day, surely the largest number of them pertain to one subject: Our humble “weblog’s” lack of a “comments” section. According to many “webloggers,” eschewing “comments” on one’s “website” is well nigh un-American. Or, according to our friends on the Left, un-Iranian.

Recently, as impressive an e-eminence as Gordon, the proprietor of the mordantly witty “website” Cranky Neocon, has suggested that we open our “weblog” to reader comments. Obviously, with such impressive members of the e-community weighing in on the issue, we have had to ponder a “comments” section seriously.

Ever since we founded the Internet version (a.k.a. “Al Gore version”) of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” we have had a distinct aversion to reader comments. And this is not because the general reading public is a gaggle of slack-jawed yokels. (Or at least that isn’t entirely the case.) Nor are we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” like professors in Black Studies departments, intent on merely “preaching to the converted.”

Rather, the Official “Weblog” Perusal Team of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” has examined manifold “weblogs,” and has discovered that many of them have become sullied by the odious rants of idiotic readers. The “weblogger” in question serves up an exquisite, thoughtful piece on, say, the novels of Peter Handke, and he receives the following “comment”:

Hay, fascist. you donnot know nothing bout handke. stop killing those babies. I hope you blead in hel.

Naturally, the commenter gives himself an elusive nom de guerre, such as “Peacemonger,” “Trotsky69,” or “Howard Dean.” This way, he can feel free to present the most ridiculously ungrammatical, nonsensical rant without any fear of reprisal.

Just imagine if Marcel Proust presented the first volume of Remembrance of Things Past on his “weblog.” (Yes, it would be an awfully long post.) He probably would have received diligent exegeses such as:

this writing suks. You are tottaly an idiot. And a fascist. Why are the sentences soo long, you dufus? You should get the heck out of your room some time and learn to write. You queer.

Or what if the Marquis de Sade wrote for the World-Wide Web? He’d be the recipient of such comments as:

You suck. You should eat poop, Frenchie. Wait: You’d probably like that.

Or how about if James Joyce offered Ulysses on his “weblog”? (Naturally, Joyce’s URL would have been riverrun.blogspot.com.) He would have been the beneficiary of comments such as:

You are such a Jew-lover. You drunken potato-farmer.

Or how about if Virgil gave the world his masterful Aeneid on his “website”? (Naturally, Virgil would get in some sort of legal tussle with The New Criterion for the armavirumque tag.) He might have gotten such feedback as:

This whole thing sucks. No one writes in dactylic hexameter anymore. Homer pretty much wrote this whole story before—except he did it better. You fascist.

So, dear reader, we think you can get an idea as to why we are hesitant to allow “comments” on our humble “weblog.”

It’s not that we don’t love you dearly. And it’s not that we don’t use double negatives. Both of those things aren’t not untrue. On the contrary: We have the feeling that such a section might degenerate into a bunch of ungrammatical screeds. And, frankly, if anyone is going to write ungrammatical screeds, it’s going to be we.

Posted at October 1, 2004 12:01 AM | TrackBack