Blogging on Blogging

Natalie Cecire, who works on modernism and the literature of science at Berkeley, as far as I can tell, has written a nice piece about blogging that is making me think. I thought that I would put it up here as part of the very occasional references I have made to smart, intriguing academic commnentary--something rare in the liberal tenure-track race, where jargon and a set of fliptop head attitudes are usually more important. There are still things I only dimly understand (I think), as in the quote 'eschewing anonymity is gendered not neutral' by which I think that she means that proper men ought to put their names to things and say things to people's faces. I always have done, anyway, whereas some of the anonymous cowards you meet on the web wouldn't dare in a month of Sundays.

I am assuming that no one else has paired Natalie with our fellow Doctor, Christopher North, but, then, why not? Dr North has a very consistent point that the main stream media and most of the borg world are not only misinformed but far more so than bloggers, as his general reporting on defence, or his latest coverage of the Bristol riots attest. I haven't bought a paper in years and wouldn't, now I know which monomaniacs with high standards to read on the web. By the way, Dr North is distinct from the other North, a eugenicst who writes for the liberal middle classes and their bloodlust.

Finally, in a different iteration of blogging, which seems somehow very English in its depth but limited scope, my blog-friend Martin has revamped his family history site. It's none of anyone's business, which of course is what makes it fascinating.

Happy Easter.

Comments

Toni said…
The only thing that stops me posting my identity online is that then people would be able to identify the people I discuss. They never agreed to be part of my twisted life. Anyway I sort of agree, I guess.
By the way Happy Easter. Just got back from church and feel good about myself for once.
Martin Meenagh said…
I'm glad to hear how well you are, Toni. Actually, all my favourite people comment anonymously, including yourself, but I tend to remember the haters and blowhards who turned up in the early days and who still revel in personal destruction--I shouldn't, I know.

Anyway, I am very mellow--we've just returned from a Sunday roast, and, as G K Chesterton wrote, it is salvation day. Somewhere-everywhere--in time, Jesus lives and the world as it was, has died. That's a nice way to think of today.

And I have tomorrow off!
Anonymous said…
Martin is thrilled to have a day off while the rest of Australia toils on. Couldn't care less about the wedding.

I have to own up that I liked Diana. She was badly treated and she was so human. I liked her. I still do.

Madam Pompom
Martin Meenagh said…
No one I know seems to care about the wedding. I think that England's history is very bound up with the Crown in good and terrible ways, and that it is one of the few official things left to people here which they are allowed to be proud of--so tampering with it raises all sorts of dark energies.

What's wrong with the British model? Most other European and Asian monarchies move along quite happily as monarchies; most risk fascism when they rip their history up.

Perhaps the middle classes being disengaged from monarchy isn't a sign of them leading people into the future just of them being alienated from their past and, after forty years of liberalism, from the community (I write as a British person who is also a costitutional Irish republican and an admirer of the United States).

Diana as a person, I am told by multiple sources, was unreliably awful, though sometimes kind, mostly trapped. Diana as an icon or story was heartbreaking, especially in the way that the media tortured and eventually murdered her. There's one institution--the British press--which I would happily see scattered to the winds....
Anonymous said…
Hi Martin,

I don't move in exalted circles so I don't have first hand info. but I do know that Diana had a charm and warmth that the rest of them sorely lack. Except for Harry who I am slightly inclined to like. He seems so normal.

The queen is a dry old stick who looks constantly miserable. I can't stand her despite the fact that she is universally admired.

Best wishes from Mdme Pompom.
Martin Meenagh said…
No, Diana could project charm and warmth brilliantly, which is a different trick. I quite like the Queen, who can be warm and smiley in private (having come across her in those settings, sort of, a couple of times). She's very dutiful and sensible, which I like. I know nothing about Harry, except that he would make a great King or Officer in some very serious Command.
Anonymous said…
I don't like dutiful and sensible. I like pompoms and laughter and fun and gay abandon.

I'm thinking of inviting Fergie round since she hasn't got an invitation. Such pettiness is nasty.
Martin Meenagh said…
lol. Count your cutlery, hide the silver, mark the bottles and watch the fridge then....
Anonymous said…
I don't have any silver.
Martin Robb said…
Hello Martin

I've only just noticed your very kind reference to my family history blog - thanks!

Interesting that you say it's 'none of anyone's business'. It always amazes me how many hits the blog gets - sometimes as many as 200 a day, which is many, many more than I ever get at 'Martin In The Margins', which you'd think would have rather wider appeal. Must be a lot of family history obsessives tangentially related to me!

Martin R