November 11, 2002
Dr. Weevil's Assignment Desk

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:

  1. Erin O'Connor of Cant Watch has been posting large-scale and relatively systematic essays on academia for months now. Her most recent post, though now almost a month old, is Part IV of what looks like it could be a whole chapter on summer reading programs at universities. The whole thing is well on its way to being a full-scale book on what's wrong with higher education today -- sort of a down-to-earth Allan Bloom. I don't know if O'Connor has a book contract, but I would be surprised if this is not a book in progress.
  2. Greg Hlatky of A Dog's Life has just published Part 23 of his long-running series 'Dog Shows Explained'. There is an index in the left margin of his site, but the whole series looks like it would also make an excellent pamphlet. (When will it be complete? Knowing nothing about dog shows except what I've learned there, I have no idea what topics are still uncovered.) Could such a pamphlet or small book be sold in hard copy at dog shows? I imagine so. Or on the net for money? It seems possible. It could certainly be given away over the net in pamphlet form. That is easy to arrange: just combine the text into one word-processed file, format it nicely, then make a PDF file and invite visitors to print it out. Adobe Acrobat allows the author to make a file printable but not copyable, which would cut down on plagiarism, or at least make it much less efficient.
  3. On a yet smaller scale, PejmanPundit a few months ago had some interesting thoughts on law school and exams that would make a very interesting 10- or 20-page pamphlet. (See here, here, and here, and I think there was at least one more part.) A slightly more systematic version would be very handy, and might sell like hotcakes to those who are thinking of going to law school. With more anecdotes and perhaps more contributors, it could also be a full-sized book. In fact, more juicy anecdotes pretty much requires more contributors, so they can give detailed (but disguised) anecdotes about the brutal and ridiculous sides of law school and law practice without being sued.

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 AM
Comments

Professor 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.

Posted by: CGHill on November 11, 2002 03:37 PM

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

Posted by: Dr John Ray on November 12, 2002 05:45 AM

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 PM

I 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 PM

Dr. 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