Thanks to Dorinda and Odetteroulette for inspiring this...
Last night, I read Dorinda's post "Writing and Ethics." She said she reminds students that "learning to write and communicate persuasively comes with ethical considerations."
Not a fan of debasing humor, I loved her post. But at the same time, there were parts, echoed in the comments, that stuck in my craw. Ethics, satire, screen names and the OS cover...
O'Stephanie commented that "the editors need to "sell newspapers" so we have vaginas and anti-choice posts on the cover" - and I laughed.
That post was like an earworm. Stuck in my head.
(Who let the dogs out?)
Then this morning, I read Odetteroulette's "The Humor of Sleeping Babies." The very mention of Howard Stern reincarnated and amplified the earworm. Trying to work wasn't happening. The literary earworm had become an elephant in the room.
Where to start?
On Satire ...
Satire is about holding vices or shortcomings up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, irony, etc. Although satire is meant to be funny, the purpose is the attack of a concept using the weapon of wit.
And while satire often uses ridicule, everyone who ridicules is not necessarily a satirist anymore than anyone holding a paint brush is Leonardo da Vinci. A lot of people who use ridicule are simply shock jocks, purveyors of potty humor or just being insulting. Juvenile humor seems to be all the rage, too. Not all ridicule is satire.
On Humor...
Like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder.
On Ethics ...
Ethics is no more than a branch of philosophy. It deals with human conduct regarding right/wrong and good/ bad. If writing comes with ethical consideration, the question becomes... whose ethics? Because clearly, all humans don't share the same ethics. The ethics of the reader are not necessarily the ethics of the writer, or vice verse.
On Screen Names...
People who use screen names use them for their own reasons. Some, like me, use them to keep their business and personal writing separate. Others use them so they can act like a jackass anonymously. It's not about the name, it's about the conduct. A jackass is a jackass whether they use their real name or a screen name. A rose by any other name, would smell as sweet.
Ego and the OS Cover...
I'm still snorking with glee at O'Stephanie's comment. I'm sure it feels good to make cover. That's just human ego. Especially for anyone that doesn't already get paid to write, making cover can be a validation of the soul bleed that writing can be.
But the reality is that O'Stephanie is right... it's all about eyeballs and clicks. We live in a world where Britney Spears shaving her head made "top news" on CNN. Controversy, sex, nudity and absurdity get clicks - and clicks are what it's about.
The editors don't "really" decide what makes cover. They just respond to viewers. They give us more of what we click on. If you like shock jock writing, keep clicking it. Writers and editors will happily oblige. If you don't want that stuff on the main page, don't click it. Click on what you want to read. WE get to decide that.
Once upon a time, writers took comfort in the belief that the pen is mightier than the sword. It was. But the world changed. The editors are not in charge. Nor are the writers. The end user is in charge now, and the lowly mouse reins supreme.
What you click is what you get. Forever and ever, amen.
/rant
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Ingrid Ricks
Alan Milner
Charles M. Rupert
Brassawe
Lunchlady 2
Amanda Gulledge
Salon.com
Comments
Someone put this on the cover!!!
I never even get Editor's Choice anymore myself. Sigh. Someone hates me. Or, I'm not writing about vaginas enough. hee hee
Truth from beginning to end. I do note that certain posters make the cover, inexplicably, regardless of the merit or credibility of their posts, much less the quality of the writing.
I, too, am glad I followed this link...and those you referenced, too.
-es
Controversy, sex, nudity and absurdity get clicks - and clicks are what it's about.
you nailed it.
so it isn't "just" mouseclicks..there's an editor's endorsement to consider. and as for satire...those points I agree that it doesn't all qualify as satire..but what if the caricature did hurt someone? if someone was hurt by it because they are poor or maybe missing a tooth...is it still funny? is it funnier? or does the hurt take some of the funny away?
i'm just wondering what the parameters are. and as for the pen being mightier that the sword...nothing has changed. in the old days people could by a paper so maybe there's less money involved in what we click on . but readers decide what they like. i think still the most powerful satire is where the weak (& most writers are or identify themselves with the weak) pick on the strong. not the reverse.
my .02 euro
Odette.... lol... Maybe you should try something that includes "breaking news," a celebrity name AND vagina. Wait. And nudity, too. Bet you make cover. I dare you. ;)
Even on real Salon, where once upon a time my Premium Subscription paid to keep them off my computer screen, there they are, sometimes even in pop-up form.
I'd like to invent a smart bomb that would destroy all advertising executives and insurance agents.
Loved your second paragraph. If someone is hurt by a post, is it still funny? Does the funny take away some of the hurt? Personally, I don't think making fun takes away the hurt, I think it makes it sting more. That's why I don't like humor that debases or ridicules. Others do, and that's a choice. I'm just not part of that audience.
I think part of the drive behind this discussion is not only the ethical considerations of satire but also the broader questions of what it says about OS (ethics, principles, quality, high-mindedness, whatever?) when the more ribald, lighter or irreverent posts are pushing more intelligent, serious, or issue-oriented controversial posts off the front page.
That's as good a description of Stephen Colbert as I've ever read. Ridicule is the only weapon in his arcenal. A one trick pony, and not a particularly good trick at that.
Lainey sez;"I keep going back to Stephen Colbert, who I think is brilliant and truly as good as Jonathan Swift."
Were there two White House Correspondents' Dinners in 2006? The one I saw featured Colbert spouting his juvenile "humor", getting no laughs. He didn't kill, he died.
I sometimes go back to intelligence, which is a dicey subject and politically incorrect as all get-out, but there really is a continuum, and people way up at one end really are less likely to find a big audience...
The squirrel has nothing over you. lol. You forgot EQ, which probably speaks louder than IQ, imho. I'm going to duck now.
This is a great point, Lisa. Unfortunately, we don't really have much control over this big picture; as Kent's commment implies (I think), we only have one really effective choice: stay or leave.
... and I really am irritated ... seriously ... I am.
He was so spot on about the Bush administration and the Washington Press corps it was uncanny and I believe that one speech catapulted him to a level of stardom he'd have never achieved as Jon Stewart's sidekick alone.
...soaring, like the Hindenburg!... indeed.
You make some valid points. There is lots of room. The cover is half empty... Halloween was the only time it was filled. "Room" is like time - we don't have it, we make it.
There's a new Seth Godin book out called Tribes... it's about groups of like minded people. And that's the underlying point. Every where we go, we all have to decide if *this* group is where we fit in and belong. Thing is... if the editors choose what makes cover based on what's read and rated most, are they deciding.... or are we as a whole?
I'm deeply interested in evolutionary biology and am intrigued by a recent idea that the highly intelligent are simply more evolved, biologically.
Intelligence is only one way to aid reproduction (the 'aim' of evolution after all). And overall, more intelligent people seem to have fewer, not more, children. So in that sense one might call them *less* 'evolved'. Humans are a pretty recent evolutionary experiment and perhaps not a particularly successful one from anyone's POV other than our own. Roaches have been around a lot longer than we have; they'll probably be the only macroscopic creatures to survive nuclear armageddon and if that happened I'd call them the ultimate evolutionary success story.
We are clearly moving in that direction, as scores of IQ tests of all variety demonstrate an increase among younger populations
Yeah, the Flynn effect. That happens way faster than evolution. No evolution can account for differences that pop up within a generation. I suspect it's the sheer ubiquity of quizzy-type questions. People are just exposed to them more frequently in our test-obsessed culture, and hence become better at answering them.
rated/clicked on/read Not in that order. :-)
Greg
I've had some Eps and a couple covers and--no lie--it was thrilling to see my stuff up there. However, if you notice, the cover pieces often get little attention while there--almost the kiss of death... Except for Bill S and BBD's great bird pictures and Bob Eckstein's cartoons. So, covers I can live without but I do like those EPs but most esp I like ratings and comments. I love my readership. I love commenting on other's posts.
I do notice a lot of new voices on the cover which I love. It is such a great mix here. (Thanks, Rob, for linking to Kerry's article--very informative as always.)
rated for quoting me! (ego, ego...)
I will say, with regard to EP designations and promotion on the cover, often enough an EP gets put on a post well before the 2nd or 3rd rating thumb, and plenty of stuff on the cover I find to be lightly rated and, I'm guessing, lightly read.
Similar to when cuteboysmakemenervous first showed up, it seems like JTH gets on the cover with every post and I believe that's not the best editorial judgment. But, then again, if I was such a great f*cking editor maybe I'd have the job, youknowwhatI'msayin?
However, if you notice, the cover pieces often get little attention while there
That is true and it's pretty weird. The cover pieces are the most attention-grabbing things on the site; yet the overlap between cover selections and 'highest rated/most read' is quite minimal.
It's amazing how the non-cover posts can still garner tons of reader attention. I wonder how they even 'get found' in the first place among the avalanche of stuff on this site. Seems like the OS community has a way of making its collective wishes known.
Nope. I don't. There's lots of folks doing jobs they shouldn't and equally as many not doing what they should. But now I'm just being a smartass.
O'Stephanie... you're welcome. You come up with some good ones. I just don't say it often enough.
Chicago Guy... :) Thanks.
Lainey.... I don't think I've ever managed 7 a month nevermind 7 a week, so it wouldn't bother me. Might not go over well with the more prolific writers, though.
I'm not saying I'm a fan but she can write humor very well and produces pull-quotes that the covers need.
I agree. Btw I think Jocelyn is hilarious. Can we all just get over ourselves enough to admit she is funny. And very creative.
Lainey said:
Still, I read somewhere a few years ago about this intelligence being the next edge or something and thought I'd throw it out there.
Actually I think we're getting dumber. I think it was Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs, and Steel who said the aboriginal New Guineans he'd spent time with were way smarter than your typical Westerner, and with better eyesight to boot. He attributed this to the unyielding pressure of natural selection. It's been a long time since those of us in agricultural/technological societies were exposed to that kind of selection pressure.
1) regarding our ability to influence the editorial direction, I tend to agree with kent's POV...
Actually, Rob, I was hoping Salon would hear me and understand the situation was more serious than they think. Ultimately, yes, if the situation does not resolve itself, there is little choice. But the power of words is that they, perhaps believing they might achieve an end they don't desire, could choose to modify their behavior.
I think it IS important to let the editors know that we want to be part of the conversation as well as provide feedback when things feel like they're going off-track or changing the nature of the community.
I don't want it to sound all high and mighty, impose rules or want it to be a closed community. I believe that Lainey's point
As for the power of the pen, I think it's one of those long-term, short-term deals. Excellent writing makes a difference in the long-term, but quickie ideas--whether themselves original or merely bandwagon-popular in nature--sometimes grab the spotlight short-term.
is an excellent one.
I don't think there's anything wrong with saying to the editors - hey, look, there's some really good writing and discourse happening here and we'd like you to help us find it.
2) I am not in favor of limiting the number of posts per person.
I would like to see a way to control or self-tag our own posts or something other than just timing. That is, I'd like to be able to move a post of my own that I care a little more about to the top of the list, not just by time.
3) Someone mentioned a need to better segregate posts that do make the cover and I think this is a fabulous and necessary idea. It is important to keep it fresh - but maybe color coding or some other more clear visual separation could help.
4) I'd be interested in exploring the whole IQ/EQ question; I'm hopeful Lainey will someday start a new post on this and I promise to give it more thought.
great discussion, all.
As I've read some of the discussions going on, I can't help but worry a bit. I write humor, too, though not satire like JTH. Is all humor going to be attacked on OS for not being intellectual enough? I'm trying to entertain, not save the world, and hoping that is good enough. I'm guessing that JTH, no matter what anyone thinks of her, has a similar goal.
I really think that when push comes to shove, we handle blogs like tv - if we don't like one person's posts, we change the channel (so to speak) and read someone else's post. The people who love your humor - and JTH's humor, for that matter - will keep reading. How's that old saying.... different strokes for different folks. And we have ALLLL of them here. lol.
LPS.... "I would like to see a way to control or self-tag our own posts or something other than just timing. That is, I'd like to be able to move a post of my own that I care a little more about to the top of the list, not just by time."..... is a most excellent idea. I'd love that, too.
If you're talking about the order in which your posts appear on your blog page, I think you're able to have them sorted by 'top rated' and 'most read' in addition to 'most recent'. Just click the respective headers.
The traditional, or Darwinian, view of evolution was that it was a very slow process, resulting from the gradual accumulation of small differences. Recently, several alternative views on the pace and events in species formation have been proposed. These are collectively called quantum speciation.
According to another model based on the fossil record, speciation occurs rapidly over a short time, followed by a long period of little or no change.... This differs greatly from Darwin's original view of slow and gradual change continuing over very long periods of time.
You may want to read Stephen Jay Gould's Evolution's Erratic Pace, in which he offers an opposing view to Darwin's statement that evolution occurs through gradual change, using fossil species and modes of evolution to lend support to the author's model of "punctuated equilibria," in which... "Lineages change little during most of their history, but events of rapid speciation occasionally punctuate this tranquillity."
As an example, it has been postulated that a dramatic change in mental acuity in humanids may have come about as a result of a single tribe of pre-humans eating mushrooms which had psychotropic effects. The change in brain activity would certainly have been sudden and a distinct evolutionary plateau.
Rhetoric is a tool. (lol) It can be used for good or evil, whatever that is. I thought it was insulting that she doesn't think the Chinese student is going to get satire. Or bad jokes. Or be able to form her own opinions. And that everyone on OS is American.
Am I "proud?" Grrrrr. I hate people who think they can manipulate me by telling me how to feel or what to think. Grrrrrr.....
I never say this, (honestly, I never have), I rated you because your post was thoughtful and well written. This should be on the cover of Salon.
There other profiles that have not been mentioned in this thread that fall into the category.
Maybe they aren't editor's pets, but editors. In which case all the whining in the world is not going to get them booted off the cover. It's not like you're a paying customer.
Wayne and Rob... evolution of cognition could make for a whole conversation of it's own, I think. I have not read the books you've referred to, but added them to my ever growing list.
Marcelleqb... Thank you. From what I've read so far, I feel you post sincerely and choose words with care, so I appreciate your kind words greatly. :)
BBE... lol. You're funny, but wrong - I *am* a paying customer. We ALL are. Money is not the only currently people seek to extract from us. Time and attention are also currencies. Money is the easiest currency to replace if I've spent it foolishly. If people want me to give them my time or pay attention, that's a different story. As for the editors, I have no idea who they are. I just know I wouldn't want their job. ;)
Cover is nice, but just a blink. I appreciate the EP's more.
One more thing. I'm constantly working on putting out what I think and feel without too much of a filter. Discovering OS has begun to open new possibilities in this realm.
Hearandnow... Thanks for the kind words and welcome to OS. I've been a commercial writer for too many years and came here to have a place to unload some of the other stuff in my head - I'm an avid reader, too, and love good conversation. There's lots of both here - good reading and good conversation!
Wayne and Rob,
I am very interested in the topic of big brain evolution and subscribe to Stephen Jay Gould's opnion on this. Even geologic time has the same sort of jumps in evolution--like the 15,000-year-old Missoula flood which gave the Willamette Valley a large chunk of Washington state's top soil so I can grow massive tomatoes.
My particular interest lies in anecdotal evidence that "disabilities", notably Tourette's Syndrome and Aspergers, represent an evolution of the big brain. Am looking for any peer reviewed discussions of this.
I personally have no problem with the humor that generated Dorinda's post, though I am not all that drawn to it, except for its shock value. To label it satire is probably incorrect. I don't remember if I used that word in my comment to Dorinda. But I take it to be meant as humor and not as factual blogging. Though I have taken the liberty of asking the individual some questions in her most recent post.
I did, and do, object to the idea that I have committed some ethical lapse by reading and commenting on the original post in question. If I am, then none of us live such pristine lives that we aren't all complicit in much, much worse crimes, some quite a bit more real. Is it an ethical lapse to pay federal income taxes, if we know ahead of time those taxes will be used to harm innocents in Afghanistan and Iraq? If so, then at least my responding to humor with more humor on an obscure blog somewhere seems to pale in comparison to that.
O'Stephanie, if you find that discussion (2nd paragraph) do let me know. It's fascinating to me as well. :)
No worries... it shouldn't embarrass you. I don't have a lot of posts, but most of them resulted in great conversations and getting to know some truly awesome people that I'd never meet in my work life. I'll take conversations over EPs anyday anyway. :)
A couple of comments have stated that sudden increases in IQ scores could not be explained by evolution, as their pace is so rapid. Such comments betray a reliance on traditional Darwinism, which has been considerably modified... Stephen Jay Gould... "punctuated equilibria,"
"Rapid" is a relative term. "Rapid" in punctuated-equilibrium terms means change over a few generations, with many thousands of generations of stability in between. It's a good theory and fits the fossil record more consistently than the old steady-glacial-change view.
This is different by orders of magnitude from something like the Flynn effect, which describes significant changes in standardized test scores within the span of a single generation. There is no way any kind of evolution by natural selection can explain this.
Humbly, your OS friend, :-)
Greg
Here, it's me interacting with people, and when I see 40-80 comments on a post -- well, that just feels darn GOOD. I'll take a bucket of friends having conversation over an EP any day. EP is just the cherry on top - you all are the hot fudge sundae. lol.
I'm still fairly new hear and I 've gotten one Editor's pick. (It happened to be on a story that I wrote about OS---just saying.)
I was so thrilled by that honor, you would have thought that I was just awarded a paying gig.
That said, I have posted some articles, and they've gotten "okay" coverage. The comments are always the most important aspect to me---and I usually get generous praise on my writing style, and I couldn't be happier. But then I'll see an article that makes the front page, on almost an identical subject, that IMHO is not as well written...and I have to say, it makes me wonder what I'm missing--What is it that the editors are looking for that I fail to deliver?
It can be frustrating, but I love it here and I so appreciate those that do stumble upon and read my stuff---that I'm not complaining. I hope this doesn't sound like complaining, because it isn't!
I agree, the conversations on OS are the fudge!
Much well-said here.
I found OS as a kind of 'practice field' to tweak my stories; I guess I didn't really realize what a blog was, seriously.I thought it was made for writers to hone themselves,but that was my error. Even if I don't click on some stories I still have to see the horrible, attention seeking titles ...Hamas,blah,blah, anti-semite,blah,blah,orgasm,blah,blah,Bush,blah,blah,penis,blah,blah,blah...
I think folks should be allowed only one posted story per 24 or even 48 hours. Maybe then they'd reflect before spewing space-wasting drivel. In the end, this is free , and I want to sincerely thank the creators... sincerely.If I find a site built around writing more than ranting,I will move there ( if it's free!)
For me, the shock value of saying words like those wore off at about 13. If you find that place, let me know, too. I'm right behind you.
Btw... I think blogging is whatever you want it to be.
If I have a say - keep honing your writing. I'm lovin' it. :)
I prefer the long play, too. The love's in the comments.
Just sayin... ;)