Note: this is the debut entry in a new category called “Between Bloggers” - all about relationships between bloggers, how we communicate and how we treat each other.
It started with a joke - or an attempt at one.
In “Three Ways To Spice Up Any Blog Post,” Brian Clark at Copyblogger gave an example of his exhortation to use sensuous language (i.e., language that appeals to the senses):
The crackling flames danced manically upon the charring husk of the car, illuminating the starless night sky as I stood and watched helplessly. Warm canyon winds pushed the pungent smoke into my face and nostrils, and I tasted my own salty tears at the thought of the laptop in the back seat. All I could think was, how am I going to blog this?
The comments he got in response to this post revealed a rift in perception - some people got the joke, some didn’t. (Do you? Just from this quote, can you discern Brian’s intent? Of course not - you need context. Go read the whole post. We’ll wait for you.)
Nancy Friedman at Away With Words had more to say, though, and responded to Brian’s post in “Very Bad Writing Advice“:
All I could think was, “Get me rewrite!” This passage is the antithesis of “vigorous language.” It doesn’t appeal to the senses; it calls attention to its own overwrought construction. Vigorous language employs nouns and verbs, not flabby modifiers and clichés like “crackling flames.” Granted, Clark is overdoing it for effect (see his Point #3, “Be entertaining”), but even one of his phrases would be too much.
Her comments, in turn, quickly turned to whether Brian had been serious or ‘tongue-in cheek’, and Nancy replied she “got” that it was an attempt at humor, but opined further:
“Quite why” is indeed the question. I think most of his readers will take him literally.
Brian popped in:
I’ll let you know *why* in an upcoming post. And don’t try to set your self apart from the “literal” crowd, Nancy… you’ve demonstrated that you are far less than acutely perceptive, and yet more than willing to step up and let everyone know it.
And explain he did, with this post, “The Dangers of Humor.” After a brief discussion of humor and its risks in copywriting, he takes note of Friedman’s post:
Sure enough, one reader ridiculed me for my “purple prose,” while another actually chastised me. An especially self-important blogger named Nancy Friedman even wasted 963 words of her life equating me to the end of good writing as we know it. Nancy doesn’t get a link, because trolling for links via attack post is so 2005.
“Rory” commented:
I’m not sure Nancy Friedman deserved such an extreme mauling. “Self-important”, “wasted”, “trolling for links” are quite judgmental expressions. I only read an article which took issue with the examples you used. Granted, Friedman made some unnecessary comments, but on the whole it was only her point of view. I didn’t see anything that equated you with the “end if good writing as we know it.” Following her links reveals quite a background in writing. “Do try to keep up Nancy” comes across as being belittling, and sarcasm only stokes the fires. In my opinion, that outburst soured a helpful post. Surely it wasn’t necessary. Honestly, it sounded to me like the extreme reaction of someone in fear of being “found out”.
Not content to accept the drubbing, Brian replied:
Rory, let’s take a look at what poor Nancy Friedman dished out at me first, shall we? “Very Bad Writing Advice” “Brian Clark’s blog, Copyblogger, which *purports* to teach bloggers how to improve their writing skills…” “In a word, it’s rubbish.” “hackneyed…” “don’t bother with Copyblogger…” Frankly, Nancy made herself look like a complete fool. She tries to come across as sophisticated, and yet only establishes that she is anything but. Even if she didn’t think the joke was funny, she should at least have been perceptive enough to realize that I wasn’t being serious. It’s not like I was being subtle beyond the means of a smart gal like Nancy. No, Nancy just wanted to have a go at a bigger dog than she is in the hopes of getting some attention. I think I went easy on her given the nastiness of her post.
(Line breaks omitted.)
And there, we’re going to stop, while we explore the issues.
Using Humor: The First Copyblogger Post
In my opinion, where Clark fell down on the first post wasn’t in his use of humor. True, you’d have to be nigh unto psychic to get that the quoted paragraph was a noir take on Scoble, but that’s not the real point here, which is reflected in Clark’s second post with this line:
If the last line doesn’t give it away, the fact that no one has ever seen me write this way in a year-and-a-half might be another clue.
Clark presumes that everyone reading that first post knows him, knows his style well enough to know that he hasn’t written “this way in a year-and-a-half.” And that’s a dangerous presumption to make. Think about the message to a new reader implicit in such an assumption, and what that new reader is going to think upon reading that post, with that line, and its general sense of “everyone knows me.” Is the new reader more likely to think to him- or herself, “Oh, wow, I’m so grateful I found this blog that everyone else already knew about” or is the response more likely to be “Huh - he couldn’t be that famous if I haven’t heard of him before - what a loser, etc.”? Human nature being what it is, we’re more apt to think “nothing wrong with us - must be something wrong with the other.”
And that’s how blogs stop growing.
However, it’s a bit presumptuous, nothing much more. Although it makes the error of assuming an intimacy that may well not be there, I submit that it’s not the real problem in this exchange.
Friedman’s Post: Attacks on Big Dogs
Friedman’s choice to take Clark to task is an interesting one. I don’t know what sort of traffic she gets but I think it’s fair to say that Copyblogger gets more than Away With Words. So while Clark’s assessment of this exchange as Friedman taking on a “bigger dog” - as distasteful and conceited as it might be - is probably correct, at least factually. In traffic, at least, Copyblogger is the bigger dog.
Friedman’s post, or rather the tone of that post, is a little on the pompous side, as one of her commentators notes. But is it really an “attack”? In one sense, no - she’s merely expressing an opinion about the content in Clark’s post. But when she notes that writers who really want good writing advice shouldn’t “bother” with Copyblogger, she’s treading into attack territory. That’s a little personal. What happens in the comments is even more personal.
But is she, as Clark and some of his commentators note, really simply angling for traffic? That itself is also a dangerous assumption, and one that isn’t warranted by the mere fact that her blog gets less traffic than Clark’s does. Friedman obviously feels pretty passionately about her assessment of Clark’s advice, and apparently at least a few others agree with her.
However, that doesn’t mean the post wasn’t ill-advised. There is something in the tone of Friedman’s post that is self-contradictory, self-important - and I think that’s what set Clark and his supporters off. Friedman could have toned down the language and still made her point effectively.
Which brings us to . . .
Clark’s Last Post: Is It Funny If You Have To Explain It?
Some look at Clark’s post, inevitably, and see an after-the-fact attempt to justify a flop. That’s an opinion - nothing more. Others look at the same post and see a righteous defense to the losers who just don’t get it. That’s an opinion, and nothing more, as well.
Is it funny if you have to explain it? As Clark himself recognizes in that same post, the answer is clearly “no” - or at least “not so much.” But, again, whether the original passage is funny or not isn’t really the issue of this post - it’s how these two bloggers responded to each other, and how their respective readers responded to them in turn, that fascinates me. And here, Clark’s second post is rather disheartening - although not as much as the comment quoted above.
Refraining from any Rodney King homage, I will restrict myself to the effect of Clark’s approach on his readers - or, rather, on this reader. What I got out of this post and comment is an impression, however unfair it might be, that Clark sees himself as rather an untouchable phenomenon - an “A-plus-plus List Blogger”, if you will. I daresay that’s not really how Clark sees himself - but that’s the impression his unfortunate choice of words creates.
In the final analysis maybe that’s the lesson here - you have to take responsibility for your words, if you want to keep your status with your readers.
Final Score?
Everybody loses. Especially the readers.
