Julie R. Neidlinger: Lone Prairie Blog (via Mowser)

Fisking is blog laziness.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 12 comments link this post

I used to fisk.

It was nearly half of how I used to write on my old blog. Every once in a while small bits of fisking emerge in blog posts here and there on this new version of my blog, but I try to keep it to a minimum. The reason I made a concerted effort to put out original content and not constantly tear the opinions and work of others down is because I saw fisking to be blog laziness. I know I am being lazy under the shameful disguise of debate when I fisk.

Fisking is a sham.

Fisking fulfills the saying that a critic is like a eunuch in a harem: he knows how it's done, he sees how it's done, but he can't do it himself. Fisking is parasitic by nature, relying on the writing and ideas of others to provide contrasting content. Somewhere bloggers decided that in lieu of original content, fisking was the proper way to react to something they disagreed with.

It is inherently easier to dispute something in small pieces rather than undertake a debate on the whole. Fewer words all at once rather than paragraph-for-paragraph is tough. That's why so many bloggers slip into the habit, and that's why I have to literally stop myself from being so lazy.

Fisking tends to bring out snarky rejoinders and the use of one-word sentences such as "indeed" and "ahem" and sentences that start with adverbs that rely upon implied tone rather than doing the work of written thought. There's a wink-wink aspect of fisking, a kind of understanding by those in agreement. That's why one-word sentences work without work: the writer and the reader are thinking the same anyway, and so it's all an inside joke. Fisking fakes a false familiarity, setting up a patronizing tone by over-use of first names or placating language. Fisking sets a false stage, an easy springboard for a topic that allows the writer to circle around the hard parts by setting up an opposing opinion to take the beating with no risk of a parry and riposte. Fisking lets someone else set up the logic, the organization of thought, only to climb aboard and pull it apart.

"Ha, look at this writer. Watch me make piecemeal."

Can you really prove that your opinion is correct by merely disproving someone else's? Is that all it takes?

Fisking is not debate. It's not critical thought. It is merely critiquing. That's something completely different.

I could be wrong. Fisking Central might be the way of the future. But someone somewhere has to be brave enough to put the ideas out there so the little kick dogs can snap at their heels, line by line, quote by quote, with adverbs and laziness.

[image]

Labels: blogging

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Help support this site. Facebook | Stumble It! | Del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Technorati | Blinklist | Furl | reddit | Newsvine

Links to this post:

<$BlogBacklinkTitle$>: <$BlogBacklinkSnippet$>
posted by <$BlogBacklinkAuthor$> @ <$BlogBacklinkDateTime$>

Create a Link

12 Comments:

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Anonymous, at 5/10/06 11:32

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

By andy, at 5/10/06 13:57

Hey, Julie. Brett from Blognostic here. I hesitated to post anything here in case I am too slow to duck after I do, but here goes. No one, Dallas included, is attacking you. He differed with your take on Jesus Camp and assumed that because you have a public blog, you invited differences of opinion. His post didnâ€™t strike me as personal or spiteful at all, so Iâ€™m not sure why it was necessary for your response to be so dismissive and acerbic. Frankly, though, after perusing your blog a little (including your â€œI Donâ€™t Take You Seriouslyâ€ post), I sense that this may be your modus operandi. (Hence the â€œdonâ€™t cross Julie, sheâ€™ll trounce youâ€ comment, I suppose.) All in all, I hope youâ€™ll ease up a little. I know with certainty that no offense was intended.

By Brett, at 5/10/06 14:40

This post has been removed by the author.

By Julie, at 5/10/06 15:10

Juls, you are NOT as you called yourself in the IM you sent me. You have just had to sit and waste precious time on something you thought you were done with. Why this continues is beyond me? The trail of words you have left behind on this subject could fill a small book. All this is, is opinions. You are the one good with words. I am curious to see if any of your friends will say anything?! Enought said. Have to run. I have little people at my house today!

By Anonymous, at 5/10/06 15:31

Would this be called a "Fisk Fight"?

By robbie, at 5/10/06 15:34

Ha ha, Robbie, it may be. It may be indeed. Very true.

By Julie, at 5/10/06 16:16

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Anonymous, at 5/10/06 17:37

I always sign my name to anything I write. Just so you know.

By Dallas, at 5/10/06 17:51

And one other thing: I've been reading and "lurking" on your blog for a long time and think that I'm qualified to say that I don't think Brett understands your "modus operandi" at all. All he's seen is the Jesus Camp-related segments and your response to some incredibly bizarre blog posts and comments on this specific topic. I always hate it when a person who's never read a blog comes in and reads a few posts and makes some huge statement like that.

--Jennifer S.

By Anonymous, at 5/10/06 17:53

Julie,
It seems to me that you have responded with intelligence, strength, good humor, and class.

I think you've made it clear all along that you're not here to debate anyone. You have a piece to say, and when you've said it to the best of your ability, you're done. You refuse to be baited into a pointless argument (that would be in most respects rather like the wonderful Monty Python "I'd like to have an argument" sketch). Well done.

By Roy Jacobsen, at 5/10/06 21:45

I am a huge Robert Fisk fan.

By GraemeAnfinson, at 7/10/06 02:31

----------------------