Symposeur

Hello. I've just participated in a round table discussion w/ several bloggers I read pretty regularly. It was great! Especially because by "round table" I mean we all wrote stuff individually and were surprised to see when we'd basically copied what everyone else said!

Well, not all of it. Some interesting contradictions in there, and I was very forceful with my commenting response, but in the deep dark recesses of my soul, I too fear troll invasions. My point, though, and the reason I'm so insistent, is that not everyone is a troll (even when they seem trolly), and (for now) I've realized that most trolls are disarmed when you overpower them with three thousand words or so. Not sure what the exact count is (let's say five consecutive comments at 500 words apiece -- that's 2500, close enough!).

When the trolls are overpowering the main content, there's a problem bigger than just trollage happening. (Says the optimist.) If every post were my Aly and AJ GOD & CONSPIRACY THEORY post (google it), I might have to change my position a bit, but damn, I wish every post got several comments a month for two years! Even from trolls. (And the time factor is major here -- it's not like all the A&A fans -- many of whom are quite perceptive and even right in some ways, for the record -- posted all at once.)

My other point, though, is that not everyone is INSANE and accordingly they don't have enough words lying around. But I don't think about those people, because enough people are insane (committed) and kind of bonkers (open to new ideas and unconventional approaches to etc. etc.) to have a really awesome conversation.

(Aside: Unlike Simon, I don't want to see any "blog battles/clashes," only "blogspats," which suggests the potential for compromise and understanding -- or at the very least a cool-down and then let's grab an ice cream bar and forget about it for a few weeks -- instead of a definitive struggle and suggestion of possible "victory." A crucial distinction. Sometimes when you have a blogspat, you act kind of like a jerk (even though you were right), and sometimes issues are irreconcilable. People break up and change and get back together, but more often they change and stay split anyway. This is part of life. But you can still talk to them on the weekends sometimes.)

Anyway, I think that's where interdisciplinary tactics come in -- finding a subject matter everyone is interested in and cramming them together in a very small space, even if they're not that inclined to do so (just reasonably inclined). And then doing it again, preferably in a different space (with different interested parties). Frank Kogan's term "interplanetary" nicely rockets us outta academia baggage, but I think the principle is nearly the same.

Top o' the head thought: Is there something about edging out of a comfort zone (listening to a new kind of music; thinking seriously about the "legitimacy" of a new kind of thinker -- say, teenyboppers of the US of A and Canada) that is commonly perceived as perversely enjoyable (leading to "guilty pleasure")? And does this "perverse" enjoyment need to be somehow transformed into enjoyment-enjoyment? This sort of describes my process into figuring out what this blog was about, to the extent that we can say it's "about" something -- a kind of titillation (y'know, tee hee) followed by more reasonable reflection that pretty much forever undid that sense of (perverse) giddiness (not that I wouldn't describe plenty of my posts as "giddy"). There was...

[pauses to capture the mouse that ATE MY SUNFLOWER SEEDS from my backpack yesterday.....WITH MY BARE HANDS (and half a cardboard box)!!!!!!!! See what we're capable of in our best moments, especially if the smaller, faster creatures are in their worst moments? The mouse seemed to be stunned or dying.]

...uh, there was a pretty clear separation point, even if it wasn't a literal "point." When skepticism transformed into acceptance and (I think) the conversation actually began. (It helped that a few people started talking to me. Sometimes I need a slap in the face and a glass of water.)

I don't think everyone is like this, not even sure if a lot of people are like this. How do we draw in a sociologist who's already kind of digging what Fergie is doing -- or if not, he/she doesn't necessarily preclude Fergie from being "the sort of artist" capable of doing something worth digging (and that exploring this, he/she might be doing some interesting and valuable sociology)? My new roommate (sociology grad student) happens to find this stuff pretty interesting (and tends to love the kind of pop I love) but probably wouldn't dream of participating in an online conversation like this. Or maybe you have to drag people into conversations even when they wouldn't otherwise do it.

Anyway. Just ramblin'. The new rockcritics.com is shaping up to be pretty awesome!