1) Note that I'm merely coding and passing along the majority of suggestions I receive (with a lighter editing touch for others' nominations than for self-nominations). If one seems atypical, it's because of someone's atypical tastes, and I wasn't editing heavily enough.
2) I'm not thrilled with "Blog Nation" for a title, either. So I'm certainly open to a different name. Suggestions?
3) Some authors have thanked me for the nominations, but, again, I'm just the messenger. Thank your readers.
And now, some nominations. Again, still not a complete list, I'm just trying to put them out there at least as fast as they're coming in.
Josh Trevino, and on September 13.
Andrew Sullivan (in the Sunday Times, though), and the "Moral Equivalence Again" entry.
Sgt. Stryker.
Cathy Seipp, who is an honorary blogger, I suppose.
Jane Galt.
Asparagirl.
An omnibus of Glenn Reynolds' works:
Tom Clancy was right, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, September 14, September 17, September 20, September 23, September 28, October 3, October 5, October 8, and October 17.
Matt Welch: September 17, September 20, September 25, September 29, September 30.
Ken Layne: October 11 and December 9.
Shiloh Bucher: November 18, November 20, December 5.
Pejman Yousefzadeh.
A bunch of people have nominated Oriana Fallaci's work, which has been admirable, but not actually from a weblog. Plus, her lawyers haven't been happy about having the translations blogged.
Sunday, April 28, 2002
Sunday, April 21, 2002
Lots of Suggestions
This will not be a complete list, but just an initial sampling (nominations through the afternoon of April 16). Keep nominating (including authors named here if there are other writings that are missed--I know there's more out there from, inter alia, Reynolds, Lileks, and Den Beste), please don't be offended if I haven't gotten to your e-mail yet, and please don't be offended if I haven't had (or won't have) the chance to acknowledge your e-mails personally. (I never thought when I first got into blogging that I'd be blowing off e-mails from so many writers I respect.)
A request, though: please include the entire link in your e-mail.
Keep in mind that we don't have clearances or permissions from all of these people. The fact that a post has been nominated does not mean that the author of the post has agreed to be in the book, or has endorsed the project in any way.
A lot of people have suggested Jason Kottke's September 11 post. This will come in handy as source material (though a lot of links are dead, or link to copyrighted material by professional organizations), and I certainly remember reading that page on September 11 as I searched for information on the Web.
Brian Bernstein
Tristin Laughter.
Jeff Jarvis; and here; and here; and here (scroll down).
Last Page.
Jonathan Wishnia.
Tama Starr and Virginia Postrel on September 12 and September 13.
John Scalzi.
Lileks, September 13.
Andrew Sullivan, September 16.
Selections from Lane McFadden and his defense of the flag.
Bjørn Stærk; also this.
In a perfect world, where we could do a CD and costlessly get all the photographers of the world to donate their work, I'd love to use Tony Pierce's Dear Kids of Afghanistan and Dear Terrorists. The real problem is going to be getting the legal rights to use all of those photos--the Rev. Pierce is unique among bloggers the way he does photo-essays, and too much is lost without them. We'll probably have to let it go. A shame, because it would be such a clear refutation of the faux controversy around the selection process.
Steven Ovadia.
Gabrielle Taylor.
Rand Simberg's "Media Casualties Mount".
A non-blog piece by Glenn Reynolds.
Steven Den Beste.
Moira Breen's "A High Wind In The Isles".
Stephen Green.
Martin Devon.
Me, I'm off to find a route downtown that isn't blocked by anti-WTO protestors. Have a good weekend, everyone.
A request, though: please include the entire link in your e-mail.
Keep in mind that we don't have clearances or permissions from all of these people. The fact that a post has been nominated does not mean that the author of the post has agreed to be in the book, or has endorsed the project in any way.
A lot of people have suggested Jason Kottke's September 11 post. This will come in handy as source material (though a lot of links are dead, or link to copyrighted material by professional organizations), and I certainly remember reading that page on September 11 as I searched for information on the Web.
Brian Bernstein
Tristin Laughter.
Jeff Jarvis; and here; and here; and here (scroll down).
Last Page.
Jonathan Wishnia.
Tama Starr and Virginia Postrel on September 12 and September 13.
John Scalzi.
Lileks, September 13.
Andrew Sullivan, September 16.
Selections from Lane McFadden and his defense of the flag.
Bjørn Stærk; also this.
In a perfect world, where we could do a CD and costlessly get all the photographers of the world to donate their work, I'd love to use Tony Pierce's Dear Kids of Afghanistan and Dear Terrorists. The real problem is going to be getting the legal rights to use all of those photos--the Rev. Pierce is unique among bloggers the way he does photo-essays, and too much is lost without them. We'll probably have to let it go. A shame, because it would be such a clear refutation of the faux controversy around the selection process.
Steven Ovadia.
Gabrielle Taylor.
Rand Simberg's "Media Casualties Mount".
A non-blog piece by Glenn Reynolds.
Steven Den Beste.
Moira Breen's "A High Wind In The Isles".
Stephen Green.
Martin Devon.
Me, I'm off to find a route downtown that isn't blocked by anti-WTO protestors. Have a good weekend, everyone.
Thursday, April 18, 2002
Keep the Nominations Coming
We've gotten dozens of responses with dozens of nominations. Apologies to the extent we haven't been able to write back everyone who's taken the time to write in. We'll start listing stuff this weekend. Keep the nominations coming.
"Balance"
I think there's been some confusion over this book based on the words "September 11."
September 11, of course, means a particular day, an unforgettable day, a day when people woke up with one expectation of the world and went to sleep with another. There was a lot of panic, a lot of uncertainty, and a relatively small and insular community of webloggers used that medium to communicate with each other about what news they had heard. Matthew Caughey complains that reprinting a Metafilter thread would capture reactions adequately, and we're not being "balanced" because that's not the approach we're using. I think that's unrealistic:
"September 11" also means a concept, the day that America realized that it was in a battle for its existence. It was a catalyzing factor (often together with the example of Glenn Reynolds) that encouraged people of all political persuasions, people without extensive computer backgrounds, people who had never heard of the little-girl-on-a-bicycle-story to start their own weblogs to share their exasperation with the traditional media outlets' faux "objectivity." It strikes me that a lot of the backbiting is really a complaint from long-time bloggers that the center of the weblog universe isn't where it used to be, but it's this political movement of the last seven-plus months that the book is largely about.
Is this a "narrow" view? Not to those of us who've read these weblogs: they include Nader voters, Gore voters, Bush voters, whatever-libertarian-finished-in-fifth-place voters, non-voters, and for all I know even someone who accidentally voted for Buchanan; they include Jews, Muslims, Christians, and the secular; Israelis, Australians, Canadians, Persians. A Chomskyite might think this is only the gamut from "A to B", as one e-mail accused me of attempting, but, again, all we've stated is that we're against terrorism, and that leaves plenty of room for debate. It's no less unbalanced than the hypothetical core-sample-of-weblogs-on-one-day-only book (as opposed to my example below of a core-sample-of-the-Web-as-a-whole), which would be biased towards voices in the computer professions.
September 11, of course, means a particular day, an unforgettable day, a day when people woke up with one expectation of the world and went to sleep with another. There was a lot of panic, a lot of uncertainty, and a relatively small and insular community of webloggers used that medium to communicate with each other about what news they had heard. Matthew Caughey complains that reprinting a Metafilter thread would capture reactions adequately, and we're not being "balanced" because that's not the approach we're using. I think that's unrealistic:
Somebody with access to a TV please post details!! There's no getting into any of the news sites ----This is perhaps historically interesting to see people relaying to the Internet what they're hearing on TV (and this is not an atypical sample of the thread Caughey cites) for the benefit of the fraction of a percent of the population that had Internet access but no radio or television. But it's not the book that we're putting together.
A plane impacted the top of one of the WTC towers at about 10 minutes to nine this morning. While everybody was still trying to figure out was was going on, a second plane flew in a straight line into the second tower and impacted it at a height a little lower than the first collision. Both building are clearly on fire. The government has apparently received no warning or claims of an attack. The president will address the nation shortly.
posted by iceberg273 at 6:28 AM PST on September 11
the phonelines here are going crazy, ours just died. i can here ambulances heading downtown. the TV just said that FBI is already investigating. they're talking about a possible hijacking. bush is also supposedly going to talk soon. Tv just said that US officially declared this to be an act of terrorism.
posted by karen at 6:28 AM PST on September 11
I'm very glad to hear your father's okay Adam.
posted by cCranium at 6:29 AM PST on September 11
Holy fuck. It was a commercial jetliner according to MSNBC
posted by owillis at 6:31 AM PST on September 11
second plane looks like a boeing 737
posted by mich9139 at 6:31 AM PST on September 11
The second plane is an American Airlines 767 that took off from Boston, CNN is reporting.
posted by rcade at 6:32 AM PST on September 11
NY1 reports that the airports, tunnels and incoming traffic into Manhattan has been shutdown.
posted by riffola at 6:32 AM PST on September 11
"September 11" also means a concept, the day that America realized that it was in a battle for its existence. It was a catalyzing factor (often together with the example of Glenn Reynolds) that encouraged people of all political persuasions, people without extensive computer backgrounds, people who had never heard of the little-girl-on-a-bicycle-story to start their own weblogs to share their exasperation with the traditional media outlets' faux "objectivity." It strikes me that a lot of the backbiting is really a complaint from long-time bloggers that the center of the weblog universe isn't where it used to be, but it's this political movement of the last seven-plus months that the book is largely about.
Is this a "narrow" view? Not to those of us who've read these weblogs: they include Nader voters, Gore voters, Bush voters, whatever-libertarian-finished-in-fifth-place voters, non-voters, and for all I know even someone who accidentally voted for Buchanan; they include Jews, Muslims, Christians, and the secular; Israelis, Australians, Canadians, Persians. A Chomskyite might think this is only the gamut from "A to B", as one e-mail accused me of attempting, but, again, all we've stated is that we're against terrorism, and that leaves plenty of room for debate. It's no less unbalanced than the hypothetical core-sample-of-weblogs-on-one-day-only book (as opposed to my example below of a core-sample-of-the-Web-as-a-whole), which would be biased towards voices in the computer professions.
Wednesday, April 17, 2002
If that's not the book you want written
Jason Kottke makes a valuable point about Eric's gung-ho post below:
At the same time, and perhaps I'm wrong, there's very little interest in printing Chomsky-style prattle. A "balanced, accurate snapshot" of the Web would include the white supremacists who cheered the collapse of the towers on September 11, Jorn Barger's conspiracy theories implying Israel was behind the attacks, Saudi newspapers telling tales of Jews baking Gentile blood into pastries, Counterpunch's and Robert Fisk's excuses for the terrorists, and Arab newspapers on alternate days applauding Osama Bin Laden for his bold strike and denying that he had anything to do with it. It would include masses of frankly unreadable attempts at writing from people of all viewpoints. Such a "core sample" may be the source of an interesting sociological analysis, but it's not the goal of this compilation. I don't believe in the definition of "objectivity" that says you don't call a terrorist a terrorist because someone might disagree with that assessment, or that the talking head condemning suicide-bombing pizzerias has to be "balanced" by a supporter of the practice. There's going to be biases in the finished work, biases towards good writing, biases towards tolerance and pluralism, and biases towards the belief that crashing fuel-and passenger-laden jumbo jets into skyscrapers is not a laudable act and that there's something wrong with those that suggest otherwise.
If that's not the book you want written, we're fortunate enough to live in a free society that permits you to write a different one.
MEMORY HOLE UPDATE: Because the author is an idiot, the original version of this post misidentified Mr. Kottke as "Brett"
So, what are the choices here? Either a) everyone with a weblog is a hawkish right-wing Westerner; b) only those webloggers who are hawkish right-wing Westerners can submit something for consideration; or c) I'm not getting a joke here. What seems like an opportunity to take a balanced, accurate snapshot of what people all across the Web were writing online at the time of the events of 9/11 has somehow turned into us vs them. Isn't there enough us vs them going around these days? How about letting everyone play...or at least make folks who may not be right-wing or pro-West feel welcome to contribute?I think Eric was being a bit tongue-in-cheek. We're certainly not limiting contributions to those from the right wing. Christopher Hitchens, hardly a right-winger, had some of the best September 11 commentary around. My personal favorite non-Lileks 9/11 post was from a leftist punk rocker on Dr. Frank's site for whom the attacks hit personally.
At the same time, and perhaps I'm wrong, there's very little interest in printing Chomsky-style prattle. A "balanced, accurate snapshot" of the Web would include the white supremacists who cheered the collapse of the towers on September 11, Jorn Barger's conspiracy theories implying Israel was behind the attacks, Saudi newspapers telling tales of Jews baking Gentile blood into pastries, Counterpunch's and Robert Fisk's excuses for the terrorists, and Arab newspapers on alternate days applauding Osama Bin Laden for his bold strike and denying that he had anything to do with it. It would include masses of frankly unreadable attempts at writing from people of all viewpoints. Such a "core sample" may be the source of an interesting sociological analysis, but it's not the goal of this compilation. I don't believe in the definition of "objectivity" that says you don't call a terrorist a terrorist because someone might disagree with that assessment, or that the talking head condemning suicide-bombing pizzerias has to be "balanced" by a supporter of the practice. There's going to be biases in the finished work, biases towards good writing, biases towards tolerance and pluralism, and biases towards the belief that crashing fuel-and passenger-laden jumbo jets into skyscrapers is not a laudable act and that there's something wrong with those that suggest otherwise.
If that's not the book you want written, we're fortunate enough to live in a free society that permits you to write a different one.
MEMORY HOLE UPDATE: Because the author is an idiot, the original version of this post misidentified Mr. Kottke as "Brett"
Monday, April 15, 2002
I still prefer Magen David Adom
One possibility for the overflow money is to pay Michael Moore's beleaguered landlord, but I still prefer Magen David Adom.
CD-ROM with electronic copies?
Would there also be a CD-ROM with electronic copies of the essays included with the book, to provide a permanent digicopy? Stuff falls off the net fast. Even though the links within the pieces will become exponentially more useless each month, it would be nice to include what the author originally intended.
Nominate the Work of Others
I took this on because Matt Welch indicated that there was this great idea sitting around that would die unless someone picked up the cudgel, and I'm never one to resist mixing metaphors. It turns out that Eric Olsen of Tres Producers has already gotten an agent and Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Reynolds aboard. I've given him co-admin status to this blog and, realistically, he'll probably end up taking the lead on things.
I had thought about just asking bloggers to nominate their own work, but Matt Welch suggests that it would be more interesting to get people to nominate others' work. Well, we're certainly not going to turn down nominations: people are sending them in, and I hope we get more before we start spamming bloggers. My only concern is the chance we end up with 40 pieces by Lileks and ten by everyone else, but I'm quickly learning how deep the blogging talent pool is beyond the dozen I regularly read and the several dozen I check in on once in a while.
I had thought about just asking bloggers to nominate their own work, but Matt Welch suggests that it would be more interesting to get people to nominate others' work. Well, we're certainly not going to turn down nominations: people are sending them in, and I hope we get more before we start spamming bloggers. My only concern is the chance we end up with 40 pieces by Lileks and ten by everyone else, but I'm quickly learning how deep the blogging talent pool is beyond the dozen I regularly read and the several dozen I check in on once in a while.
No one seems to be posting
No one seems to be posting, but Jeff Jarvis and Asparagirl have signed on.
Sunday, April 14, 2002
Hi, I'm Max Power
Hi, I'm "Max Power", and I'm taking up Matt Welch's call for a book-length collection on bloggers' reactions to September 11. I nominate Magen David Adom as a charity for the royalty run-off, but I leave it to others to decide. I'm already in discussions with a publisher.
If you'd like to be part of this, please send me an e-mail to safblog at yahoo dot com, and I'll get you a password to the site so that you can post entries also. Please also send nominations for the book to the same address.
If you'd like to be part of this, please send me an e-mail to safblog at yahoo dot com, and I'll get you a password to the site so that you can post entries also. Please also send nominations for the book to the same address.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)