Taylor Grace, you continue to rock

I just need to post again. Nothing else will do, and my friend Taylor Grace has the perfect thing for me to blog about. A post about what numbers do to the mind. Especially a writer’s mind. Here’s the lede:

I have to admit, I’ve done it. I stared at the blog stats until I knew the numbers by heart, then I would check and recheck. The blog became a live entity I needed to keep happy…and, well, I wasn’t miserable but it was close.

Here’ s the rest. Taylor’s post includes lots of good links – nearly all of her posts do. One of the reasons I love her blog so much is because she turns me on to things I would never see otherwise.

I’ve been right there – looking at those numbers, checking and rechecking, and it wasn’t that long ago. You can measure it in weeks rather than in months. But if the events of the last two weeks have taught me anything, it’s that the numbers don’t really matter from day to day. Your blog is not a living thing. Your blog is a sheet of paper that anyone can read once you write on it, and that is all it is. Somewhere on the internet today, I said “a blog is a hungry beast.” I meant it, but that is only a metaphor.

I’m not looking at the numbers now the way I was even three weeks ago. I keep tabs. If I see a genuine spike, and I have the time to devote, I do everything I can to help it along. But for the most part, I’m happy with whatever I get on a given day. I do think about packaging content, posting when traffic patterns are good, using the right tags, and so forth. But for the most part, I’m just doing what I need to do at this point.

The traffic we’re getting on all three blogs, even if we add it all together and pretend our followings don’t overlap, doesn’t even add up to a drop in the bucket. More like a subatomic particle. (We know they do overlap, but have no idea how much  – I could analyze that, but no time, and it isn’t important right now). So I’ve given up the numbers game unless I see a way for us to have the best day ever on our big blogs, and engineer a two-week increase. Because a two-week increase, once it goes away, leaves us with a few more regular readers. And that is really what this post is about. Regular readers.

Regular readers are the only part of this that really matters. Because regular readers, if I’m diligent about responding to comments, and visit their blogs when I have the time, and give back to them as I am able, turn into friends. And friends can become collaborators.

Page views are a means to an end. The reason I need page views is because I need enough of them to get to the point where it’s cost-effective to own my own domain, and control the ad space. Control of the ad space means revenue. Revenue means a marketing budget and the ability to pay contributors. And that is what I’m trying to get to – revenue. If I ever get there, I will pocket very little of it. I’ll put nearly all of it into overhead, promotion, and taking care of contributors. I doubt I’ll even compensate myself for my time.

What I want, honestly, is a big-ass network of creative people who can work together to get books published and movies made and art shown in galleries that would never see the light of day if not for the fact that we built this network. I will always be as generous as I possibly can to my collaborators. Always. Whether we remain a bunch of people with tiny blogs and a dream, or whether it becomes something more. Because this is not something one person can do alone. All I have to give right now is social interaction, but if I ever have money, I’ll be happy to give that, too.

Here’s why this is important, and this goes right to the heart of almost everything I’ve been saying since I started.

As far as cultural and aesthetic value is concerned, I don’t see much difference between Watchmen and A Tale of Two Cities. Gaiman’s Sandman series could be The Illiad. I’m not trying to be an iconoclast here. I just think the world has evolved to the point where we have a system for judging the value of creative work that no longer holds up. If we’re not to the point of a Copernican revolution with this, we will be eventually. The old categories do not hold, and one day, they will collapse.

So, until the paradigm shift comes, I’m inclined to do what I can to band together, just publish as much stuff as we can, and let our grandchildren sort it all out. I’m serious about this, and I do not care how crazy it sounds. I don’t believe in saying one work is better than another because one has more pictures, basically. And I am tired of seeing people do work that verges on genius being treated that way just because the work they’re talking about has a lot of pictures.

We don’t get to deny that a cultural artifact has something to say about the culture that produced it just because it is not to your taste, is another way of putting it. And you especially don’t get to do that without proper evidence. Here is a short and non-exhaustive list of things that do not, ever, count as evidence in the adjudication of either the value of cultural artifacts or the dynamics of social relationships. Not ever.

This list applies equally to literary journals and internet threads, as far as I am concerned. This is a list of things that, when used to support an argument about the value of a cultural artifact – even if they are used surreptitiously and not stated as such, or even used unconsciously to make assumptions, I am happy to smack down without apology:

1. Our credentials.

2. Our feelings.

3. The gender of either the author, or the critic who is arguing that the artifact in question has value.

4. Our life experience, work history, or age.

5. The names of philosophers, unless we clearly relate those philosophers to what we’re discussing.

6. Our perception of the emotional state of anyone involved in the discussion.

7. Our taste, because our taste is neither rational nor empirical. It is subjective, informed by emotions, shaped by culture, and subject to so many other variables that it absolutely does not count as evidence to support any statement presented as fact about a genre, a specific work, an author, or a social relationship.

8. All this is basic empiricsm. People who have lost sight of it need to retire gracefully before some up-and-coming scholar who sees these things clearly cleans their clocks in a big academic journal and discredits them in such a way that the next generation questions their entire body of work AND the school of thought that produced them.

I know that is strident, but it is friendly advice. And I’m right about this stuff.

I feel like I shouldn’t post this. It wanders. I should revise it for a day or two, or maybe turn it into a couple of posts. But screw that. This is a blog, not a journal. I’m posting it. As a compromise, I’m not publicizing or tagging it.

If this is meant for you, I trust you to find it, and to know it when you see it.

Thank you, Taylor, for posting today. If I hadn’t found your post, I never would have written this. And I really needed to write this.

About Gene'O

Compulsive writer, amateur photographer, and blogaholic. Also an evil genius.

17 thoughts on “Taylor Grace, you continue to rock

  1. Thank you so much for the wonderful compliments, Gene’O! That was such a lovely post to read! I was fighting insomnia and got up and this greeted me. I love your dream for the future!


    • Gene'O says:

      Thanks! I had no idea it would be that long, or go where it went, and I really was concerned about the quality, which is why I did not tag or send it out on the social media. But I really needed to just publish it. My wife read it while you were reading it and she agrees with you. I really believe this stuff. Just publish as much as we can, and get as many people creative people paid as we can, that is my new motto. I’m hoping I am done with crazy conflicts for awhile. They’ve taken a toll. And I still need to write for the A to Z challenge, hehe.


      • I’m so sorry you went through that crazy conflict. They do take a toll. Smart of you to just publish that post and not send it out. I knew you believed it. I could tell by the passion in your writing. It was a beautiful thing to write, Gene’O.


        • Gene'O says:

          Thanks. One more thing, then maybe I’m done. If not, I’m off to work anyway, and will pick this up later.

          That list at the end. When people who are at the top of the academic hierarchy – people who purport to be critics of both literature and society, and who teach other people to do criticism – write things that make me question whether or not they understand that list, it disturbs me greatly. Especially when it’s politely pointed out to them and they don’t see the problem. It is like a priest not knowing the 10 Commandments.

          That was a big factor in all of this.


          • Hypocrisy is so hard to take, especially if you’re someone who goes to great pains to be honest and have integrity. And I think you are both. I get really upset when I see it, self-serving purposes hidden under an excuse, ignorance in someone who claims to be an expert…It’s particularly disturbing when someone like that is a teacher because they can do so much harm. It’s so hard to watch.


  2. Reblogged this on Infinitefreetime.com and commented:
    Second of two posts I needed to reblog.


  3. […] Taylor Grace, you continue to rock | The Writing Catalog. […]


  4. First, just realized I wasn’t following your third blog???!!! Second, your aspirations with what you want to do in the blogging world are pretty awesome. Third, YES! That list! So glad you put that out here! It needed to be said (I read that thread, I couldn’t help it).


    • Gene'O says:

      I’m sorry you read it. I hated to attract that kind of attention to it.

      Yeah, I don’t promote this one much. It’s totally about the engagement and giving writers reblogs.

      Thanks! The aspirations are big, I know, but I need a productive goal of some sort, and that’s what I’d do with a huge network if I had one.

      I’m working on a Feminist Friday post right now to re-visit some of our discussions from January and invite people to talk about feminism on Friday. Once I’m sure I’m going to be able to finish it, I’ll post an announcement and ping some people – Can’t announce something like that until I have post in hand – not sure if the announcement will go tonight or tomorrow, but either way, it’s coming soon.


  5. Gene'O says:

    Hehe. This is the most shared post I’ve ever written, and the most liked at this blog. Funny, because I didn’t think it needed to be sent to feeds or social media.


  6. Gene'O says:

    Since I really just wrote this to get some things out of the system, but it has been shared around so much, I need to add a note of self-criticism here for posterity.

    What I say about the paradigm shift is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that I’m not offering evidence. I will glady concede that point,and I will also say that attempting an evidence-based case for that would be time-consuming and it might not be possible. But I feel it coming. I wouldn’t dare predict when. That would be like trying to predict the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1984, only with less information to work with.

    I do believe I can take a LOT of popular works and show that they have as much value as cultural artifacts as canonized works of literature. That would also be time-consuming, as it would require the comparative analysis of texts. But it can be done.


  7. Fabulous write!! That list….oh, a beautiful thing to behold. And peer collaboration. This is what I love about the blogging world. Posts like this that really hit home.


  8. […] I believe criticism that aims to get at the value of a piece of writing should be criteria-based, and the criteria should exclude things like taste, religious sentiment, “popular” versus “literary,” etc. If you’d like to read a much longer piece that explores my views on how we value literature, and cultural artifacts in general (among other things), click here. […]


  9. Reblogged this on DBCII and commented:
    I have to admit, part of why I am sharing this post is because the author, Gene’O, said it was his most-shared post. Just adding to that expansion…

    A couple of lines of thought here. One is about watching, and stressing over, the blog stats. The other is about Canon and Canonization. I care about both things, making this a great post to think over.


Talk to me

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s