InstaPundit notes that Tony Pierce has turned some of his bloggage into a book. That's one way to make money on blogging. Legacy journalists do it all the time, either collecting columns and slapping them between hard covers unchanged, or using columns to explore a subject that is then written up as a book with a unified argument, or taking slices of a book in progress and publishing them in journals as a foretaste of what is to come.
I wonder which blogger will be next to hard-publish some bloggage. The topic must obviously be something of interest to large number of people, but it should also be something that is not ephemeral and has a well-defined ending point. Those two conditions argue against a book version of Charles Austin's Scourge of Richard Cohen series, now up to Chapter LXII: many of Cohen's columns and Austin's comments on them are tied to the times they were written, and there is no end in sight to the foolishness described, so no specific number of chapters could be defined, as long as Cohen is alive, and writing, and writing foolishly.
Here are three rather disparate possibilities for blog-incubated books or pamphlets:
Does anyone have any more nominations for bloggage that is already at least half way to making a well-organized book or pamphlet, and only requires light editing?
And speaking of blog books, what ever happened to the project to make a book out of post-September 11th bloggage? It's been a few months since I've heard anything about it. Are things chugging along behind the scenes?
Posted by Dr. Weevil at November 11, 2002 10:01 AMProfessor O'Connor has been posting a great deal lately to a blog called Critical Mass.
As for Dr. Hlatky's guide to dog shows, I doubt the American Kennel Club, which sanctions most shows of this sort, would permit any unofficial documentation on the premises - especially this documentation, which doesn't even slightly hew to the official AKC line.
I have steadily been converting many of my blog posts into a monograph -- now about 140 pages -- but I have no intention of publishing it other than on the web. A not very up-to-date version can be found via http://jonjayray1.blogspot.com
Surprised at you praising Erin O'Connor as a "down-to-earth Allan Bloom." Have a look at O'Connor's published monograph, Raw Material: Producing Pathology in Victorian Culture (sample chapter available on Amazon). You'll find it to be standard trendy leftist-feminist fare, the sort of book Allan Bloom himself would have found appalling and contemputous. Consider this sentence: "Imagining cholera as a kind of military invader, an infectious imperialist who not only destroyed lives but also dismantled the terms on which the West understood itself, Victorian physicians and social critics used the epidemic disease as a means of questioning how the West was securing its own global economic power" (23). This merely hints at how Raw Material's every page rails against capitalism, industrialism, and the liberal values of the West. Please let Allan Bloom rest in peace and refrain from exalting to his level the author of such leftist twaddle.
--Eric Dowdall, Ph.D.
Posted by: Eric Dowdall, Ph.D. on November 15, 2002 12:32 PMI haven't read O'Connor's book. Her blog, which I have read, is quite sensible, and looks like it may be leading towards a good book. That is what I was praising. Has Dowdall read it?
In any case, I did not 'exalt her to Bloom's level', simply compared the two as people who have written or are (apparently) writing books about what's wrong with American academia. O'Connor's thoughts are more down to earth in that she spends less time (or not time) writing about Nietzsche and Heidegger and more writing about actual examples of what is going on in American universities. What exactly is the problem here?
By the way, lots of people write one or more terrible books when young and then go on to write better ones when older. For instance, Frederick Crews started out as a party-line Freudian interpreter of Hawthorne but went on to become one of the most intelligent Freud-bashers.
Posted by: Dr. Weevil on November 16, 2002 12:21 PMDr. Dowdall seems to be saying, in his criticism of Professor O'Connor, that once committed to a wrongheaded philosophy, one should not change. If that is so, then white supremacy, a supremely wrong-headed philosophy, should never be repudiated. Nor should a conservative ever become a liberal (as I presume Dr. Dawdall to be). Is this really what you are saying, Dr. Dowdall?
Frankly, I think Dr. Dowdall's problem is that Professor O'Connor is criticizing from within the academy, and that gives her special authority. I think Dr. Dawdall and his ilk are threatened up their respective ying-yangs by someone who is as articulate and knowledgeable as Professor O'Connor, and who speaks with her special authority.
Nor is she alone in seeing the leftist prattle for what it really is: she travels in good company with Christina Hoff-Sommers, Daphni Patai, Andrew Sullivan and David Horowitz, all of whom came to see the left for what it really is.
Posted by: Clawmute on November 16, 2002 04:04 PM