Between Bloggers: Copyblogger and Away With Words
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.
August 13th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Nice recap, but you make on big mistake.
I didn’t “presume” that everyone would know me or get the joke. The whole point of the experiment in the first post and the follow-up was that you *can’t* presume that people will get your jokes. That’s why humor can be dangerous, hence the title of the post and warning to be careful with humor.
To answer your question, no, it’s not funny if you have to explain it, but only to the people who need it to be explained, right? All I’m trying to demonstrate is that you have to be willing to lose some readers if you use humor. If you can’t live with that, avoid humor and just try to keep things entertaining.
Also, the first post was far from a flop–a lot of people liked it. The Dangers of Humor post was planned in advance, but would only work if people complained first. Two comments did, and then Nancy provided the catalyst to run with it.
Far from thinking I’m untouchable, I’m always looking for reasons why I’m wrong, because I learn more from being wrong. Nancy, on the other hand, did not leave herself any room for the possibility that she was missing something, and that’s why I lost any respect I might have had for her otherwise.
For every 50 people who take shots at me, I ignore 49. It’s ironic that the “critics” get to say whatever they want, because it’s their sacred opinion, but when the target decides to fire back, everyone is shocked and surprised that the target may have a very low opinion of the critic.
Oh well.
August 13th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Brian - thanks for the comments. This post was a real humdinger on a couple of levels, not least of which was that my first attempt at recapping the exchange got eaten up with an unfortunately timed stroke of the backspace button. Ah, tech. You should have heard the language that came out of my mouth - on second though, be glad you didn’t.
A couple of things:
First- I never indicated, nor did I intend to indicate, that the post itself was a flop. The “flop” comment was actually referring to the “Scoble joke”, the subject of most of your second post, which you yourself admitted didn’t really succeed - at least in the premise that many people didn’t see it as a joke, or didn’t think it was funny.
Second - I’m not sure Nancy meant that as a “taking a shot at you” although I understand completely the impulse to take it as such. She perhaps got a little heavy handed with her “don’t bother” crack - which wasn’t fair. Copyblogger by any measure offers considerable value to those interested in its subject.
And I think that’s what Rory responded to, and what I alluded to, and what you see as “shock and surprise” that the “target decides to fire back” - not so much that there was a response at all, but that the level of response didn’t really seem to match the original “crime.”
In any event, much like a mom, I see value in you both, and I hope everyone can move past this pronto and get back to writing more words!
Thanks for stopping by.
August 13th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
>>The “flop? comment was actually referring to the “Scoble joke?, the subject of most of your second post, which you yourself admitted didn’t really succeed - at least in the premise that many people didn’t see it as a joke.
I only know of three people who didn’t get the joke, although I’m sure there are more. Dozens of others did tell me they got the joke, and I think most of my audience was perceptive enough to see that I was not being completely serious.
In blogging, a vocal few can be very hurtful if you let them, and yet not representative of the true overall response. Unlike sales copy, blogging can’t be measured with precision, so it’s actually very hard to know what works.
Stirring up a little controversy every once in a while seems to do ok, though.
August 13th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Sheryl–Thank you for writing such a thoughtful and balanced post. “Between Bloggers” is a great concept; I look forward to future posts in this category.
I appreciate your criticism of my post and the evenhanded spirit in which you offer it.
I have to admit I was surprised by the vehemence and ad hominem nature of the Copyblogger response to my post–particularly in two of the comments Brian left, which attacked not me or my writing (fair game) but the integrity and identity of one of my commenters (not fair at all). The content of Brian’s comments was so inappropriate, and so disturbing to the other commenter, that I deleted that exchange from the blog. It was the first time in more than a year of blogging that I’ve removed published comments.
As I said up front in my post, Copyblogger generally does a fine job explaining the basics of writing to a general audience for whom writing may be a “second language.” The “Spice Up Your Posts” entry, however–which I read carefully several times, searching in vain for evidence of irony or satire–deviated from the general standard of content and promulgated what to me sounded like bad advice. That’s why I felt it merited critical attention.
My own audience is small and specialized–mostly non-bloggers, as far as I can tell, and mostly people who take writing pretty seriously. My post about Copyblogger wasn’t an attempt to “troll for links,” as I was accused of doing. I’m quite happy for Away With Words to remain small and focused, and to let readers discover it on their own. It’s my personal op-ed column–my platform for celebrating good writing, criticizing bad writing, and letting people know when the emperor has no clothes. And that’s no joke.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
>>The content of Brian’s comments was so inappropriate, and so disturbing to the other commenter, that I deleted that exchange from the blog.
So I guess now we’ll just have to take your word for it. Funny how that works…
>>It’s my personal op-ed column–my platform for celebrating good writing, criticizing bad writing, and letting people know when the emperor has no clothes.
My blog is about marketing, not writing. It’s where it’s at because I practice what I preach. As is yours.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Sheryl,
Thank you for wading into what Brian Clark seems to want to make into a “war” with Nancy Friedman. Even if Nancy’s comments on his first piece were arguably heavy-handed, his response — and his continued unwillingness to let this go — is quite amazing and disturbing from a person who apparently is a well-read, and presumably respected, blogger.
I am the commentor who Nancy references and when I attempted to post a critical comment on Brian’s site, he screened out. Then he posted a comment to Nancy’s site in which he claimed that my IP address was the same as hers and thus, I must really be she hiding behind my name. And he’s still at it here in your blog. It’s really rather offensive to us both if not libelous.
It’s an interesting insight into Brian’s mind that he would assume Nancy took him on because she was seeking to increase her readership. Is that how he got his start?
In Brian’s second post in which he attacks Nancy, he concludes with this:
“I’m not trying to discourage humor, because laughter is one of the most important parts of my life. What you need to ask yourself is this: who are you feeding with your jokes—your audience, or your ego?”
It seems to me that despite his disclaimers, Brian has way too much ego committed to this exchange and is way off base. He should heed the advice of an old rocker whose name escapes me right now: “Paranoia will destroya.”
(PS-I have included above my professional email address and website info in the header so that you see that 1) I am not Nancy and 2) that I, too, do a lot of writing for a living.)
August 16th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Y’know, I really didn’t start this off on anybody’s side, and I wasn’t interested in having this blog turn into a battleground. As Nancy indicated, this was supposed to be a thoughtful exploration of how bloggers interact with each other.
I just thought I should say that.
(And confirm that as far as I can tell, Charles is not Nancy, and Nancy is not Charles.)
August 16th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
[...] came this post, impacting as it did comments in the two blogs which were the focus on that post, which also [...]
August 16th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Nancy and Charles, I’ve been thinking about this a lot, and I want to apologize to you both.
I wasn’t happy with what Nancy wrote, or with the comments Charles made, but I shouldn’t have made an issue of it. That was wrong, and I am truly sorry that any of this happened.
I don’t suppose any of us will end up friends, but I do hope that you will accept my apology.
August 16th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
>>Paranoia, deep destroyer.
The Kinks.
August 17th, 2007 at 8:58 am
[…] So what about the other 15 websites in the Top 20? Did they also get there by following these secrets? Looks like it! Take a look at these great posts they have recently written […]
August 17th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Brian–Apology accepted, with thanks. For my part, I pledge to learn from this experience!