Trolling for the attention he hopes might jumpstart an otherwise nondescript career, Los Angeles Times staff writer Tim Rutten sneers at weblogs:
Bloggers, in case you have been spending the irreplaceable moments of your one and only life reading serious newspapers and good books, are people who maintain Internet logs of their personal analysis and reflections. It’s sort of old wine in new skins, since the bloggers are basically a narcissistic throwback to an easily recognizable American type, the 19th century cranks who turned out mountains of self-published pamphlets.
Hmm. Not to nitpick, Timmy, but wouldn’t bloggers remain “people who maintain Internet logs of their personal analysis and reflections” regardless of how those who’ve never heard of blogging happen to be spending their time (whether in “reading serious newspapers and good books,” or working on ways to milk cats efficiently)? Ontologically speaking, I mean…?
Bloody awful sentence, either way.
And let’s be honest about the narcisism thing too while we’re at it. Because what’s your piece, Tim, if not a narcisistic grab for web traffic and name branding…?
Yep. Ten bucks says you’ll be running a blog inside of a month. With the help of an editor, of course. Dear God please with the help of an editor.
Welcome to the 21st, buddy…
[via Instapundit — who most assuredly ain’t the L.A. Times]
[update: Moira Breen is more on point than am I. And the coastally hip Matt Welch makes mention, too.]
Oh, come on. That’s a usage issue, and nobody’s going to misinterpret this use of “in case” as a conditional. (Like “In case of fire, break glass.”) Or rather, it is a conditional, but the implied result of the condition “you aren’t aware of bloggers” is not “therefore they exist,” but rather “therefore I must explain them to you.” In case my point isn’t clear, I’m telling you that no one is going to misinterpret it. It’s not a true ambiguity because the alternate meaning is absurd.
Still and all, Tim Rutten is a pompous bloviator who keeps one hand on his nipple while stroking his collection of good books and serious newspapers with the other.
“[…] <i>no one is going to misinterpret it. It’s not a true ambiguity because the alternate meaning is absurd.</i>”
I did.
And only through sheer interpretive energy was I able to recover.
In any event, I expect precision craftsmanship out of a man who reads all those serious newspapers and good books.
You guys give me good belly laughs. I’m not in tune with the nuances of English Grammar as you erudite fellows debate usage issues. I’m still giggling over the “milking cats.”
Jeff, am I correct this came from
“Meet the Parents?”
<a href=”http://us.imdb.com/Title?0212338″>http://us.imdb.com/Title?0212338</a>
Indeed, Jacques.
Boy, comparing us to pamphleteers…that’s mean. Who wants to be compared to, oh, Samuel Johnson, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, Richard Steele, and all those other semi-literate hillbillies?
No, we must thrust their work aside in horror and strive to be more like writin’ professional Tim Rutten of the very serious newspaper (whispers reverently) the LA TIMES. (cue choirs of angels.)
I’ll make a note of it.