Well, it seems that Nanette’s post articulating a number of her issues with library blogs has rubbed some people the wrong way. So much so that Nanette felt compelled to address the issue again.
Now, not every one took offense to Nanette’s remarks. My commenters thought she made some good points, as did Jessamyn, Peter and a few of the commenters in the reactionary posts listed above.
I tried my best to hold forth from commentary, in order to avoid being instantly characterized as kin to “the Smelly People of the World” or the “huffy, pissy easily-offended troglodytes.” But I just can’t help myself.
First, inflammatory responses should come as no surprise. Write inflammatorily - expect inflammation. However, it does seem that people felt personally attacked by Nanette. Why exactly - unless she struck a chord? What surprises me most is that anyone would feel the need to strike back on a personal level. I’ve seen some pretty rude words bandied about in regards to Nanette’s character. Folks, if you thought she was talking about you, then at some level, she probably was, but in the most general of contexts. Are you really that insecure about your blogging? Well, maybe you are…and that’s OK too.
Enough about that…on to Nanette’s three inevitable hate-worthy elements of library weblogs (excerpted…apologies for potential loss of context…you can always read the post yourself) and why they just might be off-based. But first, let me concur that at least one of these three elements pervades just about every library blog, including Nanette’s, the library blogs to which she chooses to link, and of course, my own.
1. “Every day, approximatly [sic] thirty librarians or wannabe librarians write some half-assed weblog entry bitching and moaning about how they don’t wear their hair in a bun or say “shhh.” It would be great if they threw all that energy into something productive and meaningful.”
Or into bitching and moaning about other library blogs. Hmmm…what was that about productive and meaningful uses of energy?
2. “poorly-written anecdotes about interactions with surly, smelly, or otherwise offensive patrons at the [circle one] ref desk / circ desk / public access internet computers.”
We can debate the uneven quality of blog-writing all day long. I, for one, use too many pointless adverbs, but on the other hand, I make an effort to check my spelling before publishing (see 1). To this complaint, I must simply comment: judge not, lest you be judged yourself.
3. “The same links to whatever Ashcroft or Meese or whatever conservative flavor-of-the-week is saying about librarians…Is some jerkoff’s column in his online super-duper conservative webzine really worth the energy we throw into ranting about it? No, it probably isn’t. I suspect it is worth about as much energy as pondering the image of librarians.”
It seems that most reactions have been directed at the first two complaints, but this seems to me to be the riskiest assertion. There appears to be two points contained within this one rant: a. excessive link duplication and b. unnecessary, pointless confrontation with the right-wing pundits.
a. While I’m not a huge fan of pure link-dumping (despite my occasional engagement in same), I think that there is something important to be gleaned just from the number of different people who link to a story. That’s why Popdex and Blogdex are seen as such useful, powerful tools. The more librarians (and the more different varieties of librarians!) that link to a particular story, the broader professional implications one might infer said story to have. This is far from foolproof logic, but may help one make decisions about which stories bear the greatest urgency for the profession.
b. Along similar lines, addressing the rants of those expressing anti-library or anti-librarian sentiments is of paramount urgency to the profession. I don’t understand how it could be any other way. Blogging has the potential to be influential. Why let the pundits have all the influence? Should we expect others to voice our opinions for us?
Do I have a point with all of this rambling? Sure. As someone who has read many, many library weblogs over the past year (many more than Nanette herself, I reckon), I can safely say that Nanette makes some valid observations about them. There is a lot of redundancy and ranting. But I refuse to see this as negative.
Perhaps I’m a library blog apologist. I accept that role gladly. One of the glories of library blogging is that it demonstrates both commonality and difference within the profession. The tendencies towards redundancy and ranting often reflect the commonalities. Posts like Nanette’s demonstrate that there are differences. Both are ultimately worthy of consideration and dialogue, encouragement and celebration.
