Fisking is blog laziness.
written by Julie R. Neidlinger 13 comments link this postI 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.
This post on fisking has been sitting in a raw, draft form in my Blogger account, but a recent fisking of my Jesus Camp post reminded me of the need to finish writing it and actually post it online. I read the fisk of my post, saw that somewhere I've gained the reputation for "trouncing", and saw little else of import. It's not sour grapes. It is the truth. I find that any supposed new points or ideas raised over the gutted and shredded body of other's ideas literally stink.
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.
UPDATE: The genteel saga continues as someone thinks I have thin skin for writing this post about fisking. How easy it is to make such proclamations when the response isn't the one hoped for. In a post stating that Evangelicals have thin skin, where I am the stand-in for all Evangelicals and therefore everything I do must be indicitive of all Evangelicals, a person named Dallas thinks he got me to get my undies in a twist. I put forth the truth to you that my undies remain twist-free.
Julie over at Lone Prairie gets her undies in a twist over my fisking of her post on Jesus Camp. Too bad. I had hoped to have a debate on this subject.
However, I will address one point she raises in her unnecessarily petulant response. (It is peculiar to run a web site devoted to broadcasting one’s ideas only to sniff indignantly when a reader responds to them). [...]
My response:
Dallas, I have no idea who you are or why you think you've had any effect on my undies. After reading the "our profile" link here at Blognostic, I admit to being surprised by your post here about me and my skin (as well as my undies). I'm not sure I'm the one with the thin skin and I'm not sure why I expected a different reaction from you.I don't sniff indignantly at response, as was suggested. This was a post about a particular kind of response, a post I had in my draft file and was now reminded to publish. You can believe me or not on that; it's incidental to me. I'm aware that there are people out there who hide under the veil of "intellectual debate" but are merely fishing for some kind of baited reaction. I'm guessing this is such a person. After all, for all the erudite words and call for discussion on the topic, for all the impressive description of the bloggers over at Blognostic and their credentials, Dallas starts his post out talking about my undies. I don't take him seriously.
As I said before, I have responded to nearly all the points you made in what I have already written about Jesus Camp in various posts and comments and said so politely in my comment to your first post. I do not wish to have another rehash on the matter. My last post on Jesus Camp stated that that was the last I intended to blog on it. This was not because I have no further answers but because I believe I've said all that needs to be said and that any further discussion is merely going to arguing into the wind.
Kind of like this.
UPDATE 2: If you think I've crossed the line, perhaps this will explain why I respond the way I do.
Labels: blogging
Copyright (c) Julie R. Neidlinger 10/04/2006 09:01:00 PM
SHARE THIS POST: Facebook | Stumble It! | Del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Technorati | Blinklist | Furl | reddit | Newsvine
Like this post? Subscribe to the feed.
Click here to help support this site.
SHARE THIS POST:
Facebook |
Stumble It! |
Del.icio.us |
DiggIt! |
Technorati |
Blinklist |
Furl |
reddit |
Newsvine
13 Comments:
I am curious as to your thoughts on children being so "educated" on religious social topics such as abortion and homosexuality. I realize you don't want to comment on the Jesus Camp film anymore - but, in general, don't you think children at those ages run the risk of an "education gap" - that is, understanding what abortion and homosexuality are, railing against it through Bible beating, before they understand sexuality? Aren't their the parents the ones who are against teaching sex-ed in the classrooms before High School? It seems contradictory to me.
By 
, at
5/10/06 11:32
Lone Prairie,
I've read, from the beginning, your post on "Jesus Camp"...I've also read this "dallas'" post in response...I have to say something important here...all the fancy words in the world don't get you out of trouble on this one. Your immediate defensive posture makes you look insecure. You call his attempt "fisking" and that he's not really facing the subject matter head on...But after reading it several times through, I have to honestly and objectively, yet humbly note that there seems to be a glimpse of haughty childlike writing in your response. You say that he was not interested in true debate, but was simply picking at your post...In your response, I see you doing exactly what you're accusing him of..."fisking"
And that childishness that you refuse to be a part of in all this is well behind you...you may as well debate him with all the intel you can muster...
By , 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 didn’t strike me as personal or spiteful at all, so I’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 “I Don’t Take You Seriously” post), I sense that this may be your modus operandi. (Hence the “don’t cross Julie, she’ll trounce you” comment, I suppose.) All in all, I hope you’ll ease up a little. I know with certainty that no offense was intended.
By Brett, at
5/10/06 14:40
Anonymous (perhaps Dallas?):
1. All but one of my Jesus Camp posts were written before seeing the film, which I clearly stated. They were a response to people who seemed to be over-reacting to the ABC News clip and the trailer. They were an attempt to clarify questions on language and culture that these short clips had in them that were being misconstrued.
2. My general response to the film was just that: general. I later, in comments here and elsewhere, do express some concerns over particular aspects in the film. More than once I encouraged readers to read the Rich Tatum article on the film because he says many of the same things I would have said regarding concerns I had with what I eventually did see after viewing the entire film. I believed his article to be complete and beyond adequate and saw no need to repeat what he had said. That is why I included his link; I considered his article to be part of the discussion. That is why questions that are answered there were answered with a suggestion to go read that article first.
My main message, whether you wish to quibble over the finer points (fisking) or take exception to the language I used or the arguments I raised, is this: This documentary shows you small parts of something much more complex.
It highlights two children and their families, essentially. It in no way, despite how it resounds with any stereotypes you might have, represents an accurate portrayal of the issue. The very fact that it makes sense to your stereotype is part of the argument against it. The fact that the children in the film seemed to come from "Bible thumping" families, proselytized, had bizarre answers to off-camera questions, etc. is not indicitive of anything but those two children and their families.
It is the same generalization Dallas made when he said that all Evangelicals have thin skin based on one blog post by one Evangelical (me).
I have already, as I've mentioned numerous times, responded to the idea that children are not capable of understanding things and just need to be children, in my comments section on the Jesus Camp post. Though a child cannot fully understand all the complexities of an issue, that is by no means an excuse for not beginning the introduction to it. The concept of an "education gap" can be addressed by a quote from A Canticle for Leibowitz (which I am happy plug): "If you save wisdom until the world is wise, the world will never have it." How can a person, and a child is a person, understand anything if you wait until they understand it?
-----
Andy:
"I have to say something important here."
Generally, anytime someone starts with such an opening means quite the opposite is coming.
"All the fancy words in the world don't get you out of trouble."
I used no fancy words and if you find them as such, you need to up your vocabulary. What trouble you allude to is beyond me.
"Your immediate defensive posture makes you look insecure."
I appreciate your concern for my self-esteem. You will note, however, that the blog post was on fisking in
general and was merely posted because Dallas' post reminded me of it in my draft section.
"You call his attempt 'fisking'."
Unless you work for Reuters, you ought to drop the quotes. What he did is, by definition, fisking. It is. There's no need to bracket it by quotes. Any blogger can see it is fisking. What I'm doing to you right now is fisking. How do you like it?
"I have to honestly and objectively, yet humbly note that there seems to be a glimpse of a haughty childlike writing in your response."
This is the worst sentence I've ever seen. I see little honesty, little objectivity, very little humility as
you pronounce judement, and an ill-conceived oxymoronic combination of adjectives (haughty childlike).
"I see you doing exactly what you're accusing him of...'fisking'."
No, what I did was link to his post and then write an entirly new post on the topic of not Dallas nor his
message, but on fisking in general. That was called writing. That was not fisking. This is fisking. It's not much else. Or, as some might say, trouncing.
"And that childishness that you refuse to be a part of in all this is well behind you...you may as well debate him with all the intel you can muster..."
My my my. You think I use too many fancy words yet continue to compare me with a child's mentality. Do you really think I don't have the chops to debate Dallas? You mistake a refusal to debate as an aquiesence; all it really is is a refusal to waste my time. Which I have just done.
-----
I'm not sure how it is that Anon, Andy, and Brett would like to see me respond.
My comments on Dallas' posts on the Blognostic blog, (posts which, despite what I'm hearing here, are anything but benign non-combative in tone) were polite and non-combative.
My post on fisking was a general response to the practice of bloggers and fisking and it did not, in its original form, reference Dallas' post beyond a link or in any way hypocritically fisk his post. My post on fisking was here on my own blog. I didn't dump it on anyone else's blog.
Perhaps the reason I "trounce" is that, every so often, a blog post on another blog brings all kinds of people to my blog who see it necessary to tell me to stop being defensive, that I ought to lighten up, that I misread tone and intent, and that, despite three people telling me how I'm wrong or how I ought to be, I shouldn't be allowed to respond in any fashion but nicely. Whether these are personal or merely argumentative "attacks" are irrelevant: my way of responding has been seen as defensive. Yet if I do not respond, I am, as Andy implied, lacking intellect and not up to debate with Dallas. This fabulous catch-22 is why I said I no longer wished to discuss the topic of Jesus Camp. Yet here I am, wasting my time.
Granted, I may have a bit of a tongue on me, but I happen to know, having read some of Dallas' earlier posts, that he isn't as level-headed and non-defensive or non-reactive as you think I ought to be.
Thank you for your concern as to how I ought to respond. I disagree.
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 , at
5/10/06 15:31
Would this be called a "Fisk Fight"?
By , 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
I've been reading your Jesus Camp posts and comments here on your blog and on other blogs. You've covered most of this fairly well. Whatever the case, you said a few days ago that you were done with the discussion. I guess its unfortunate that this Dallas joined in at the end, but I take it to be that it was nothing personal against Dallas and more you holding to the fact that you were done talking about it. Its not really fair to say you aren't interested in debate when you've written, like Jacqui said, a small book on the matter all across the web. Its actually kind of selfish of Dallas to expect you to make an exception for him.
That's just what I think, anyway.
--Jennifer S.
By , at
5/10/06 17:37
I always sign my name to anything I write. Just so you know.
By , 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 , at
5/10/06 17:53
Glad to hear it, Dallas. I wish more people would do that.
And thanks, Jennifer. It's good to have you as a reader.
By Julie, at
5/10/06 17:55
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
