Genre confusion…
James Taranto confuses audience with genre when he declares: “Blogging, in short, thrives on sarcasm.” His post is about politicians who blog, but he misunderstands far more than that interesting topic. A blog is a genre that thrives on the continued interest of a set of readers for a particular topic or writer. Readers interested in sarcasm will find it. Readers interested in something different will find what they seek, too.
Taranto mentions an ideologically limited set of big-name bloggers. In doing so, by inference, he confuses hits with value. We might someday be able to establish such a link, but any assertion at this point is simply opinion. Readers supposedly find what they’re looking for when they read, say, InstaPundit. But no less is true for the regular readers of this blog.
Would adding regular sarcasm increase Rhetorica’s readership? I have no idea. But I can tell you this: I do not care to pander to such readers.
Would you mind expanding on that last paragraph? I have a tendency towards sarcasm, and I’m not sure what implications I’m to garner from the comment regarding pandering. Not offended, just curious.
Re: “Would adding regular sarcasm increase Rhetorica’s readership? I have no idea. But I can tell you this: I do not care to pander to such readers.”
I’m not criticizing the occasional use of sarcasm. I’ve certainly used it on Rhetorica.
Your tone/content/argument, your rhetorical strategy if you will, selects the general readers of your blog. If your rhetorical strategy is mostly humor, then you’re likely to attract regular readers looking for humor. If your rhetorical strategy is somber, serious argument, then you’re likely to attract regular readers looking for such.
Sarcasm, as a particular form of humor doesn’t appeal to me as rhetorical strategy…at least not for consistent use. I wonder about the quality of reader one would attract if, as Taranto suggests, sarcasm is necessary to successful blogging. I’m guessing here, but I would think “ditto-head” might be a fair characterization of a reader who constantly seeks out sarcasm.
One of the great joys of writing this blog is my interaction with a wide range of loyal readers–many of whom disagree with me fundamentally and frequently. I can only suppose that it is my rhetorical strategy–a popularized academic tone and fair inquiry–that keeps them reading. I think I would lose them if I became a sarcastic blogger. And I don’t suppose I would like the replacements.
increase Rhetorica’s readership?
Dropping align=”justify” could help!
I had a similar response to the Taranto essay–it demonstrates a pretty severe misunderstanding of the role of audience in the blogosphere. You’re right to criticize Taranto’s suggestion that hits are a measure of value. Originally, I took that claim at face value, but I don’t think it’s necessarily the best measure. Certainly sarcasm can be a useful argumentative strategy for certain audiences, but I think the blogosphere is a lot more complicated than Taranto suggests.
I’ll keep reading Rhetorica with or without the sarcasm, but maybe you could make it a weekly feature like the Friday Five? Perhaps you could call it Sarcasm Saturday or something similarly splashy? If it’s successful one could open it up and give awards for “Zinger of the Week…”
Chuck…well, I do get sarcastic and snarky sometimes. But I usually regret it.
Thanks for reading!
And to the person who mentioned “align=justify”: Why is that a problem?