SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Lee Siegel Goes Vizzini On The Blogosphere

OPEN UNIVERSITY SEPTEMBER 18, 2006

Lee Siegel Goes Vizzini On The Blogosphere

BY TNR STAFF

by Daniel Drezner

On my own blog, I use the phrase "going Vizzini" to describe what happens when when a person repeatedly uses a word or concept differently than everyone else defines it -- in other words, it doesn't mean what they think it means.

Reading through Deborah Solomon's interview with Lee Siegel in yesterday's New York Times Magazine, I can't help but think that Siegel has gone Vizzini on the blogosphere. Some samples:

Anonymity is a universal convention of the blogosphere, and the wicked expedience is that you can speak without consequences....

Everyone seems to be fleeing from the responsibilities that come from being who you are. I think that is why the blogosphere is thriving. It allows people to develop a fantasy self....

Seriously, the blogosphere strips argument of logic and rhetoric down to the naked emotion behind it....

At least for those who practice incessant character assassination, which represents a good portion of the blogosphere, they vent out of the pain of being unacknowledged.

In these comments, Siegel seems to be making an obvious and fundamental error -- he's confusing bloggers with some (though hardly all) of the people who post comments on blogs. Certainly, the bloggers who tangled with Siegel in the past did not hide their identities (as a general rule, it's difficult -- and less rewarding -- for a blogger to maintain anonymity once they acquire any appreciable audience).

What is interesting about the entire episode is that despite Siegel's status as a professional critic, he seemed incapable of tolerating any form of criticism leveled at his writing -- even if the criticism was, in Siegel's eyes, an expression of pure id by anonymous commenters.

This might be a comparative advantage academics bring to the blogosphere -- thicker skins. All academics have had the experience of presenting their work to other scholars, and then have that work analytically sliced and diced by experts who know what they are doing (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Once you have undergone that kind of experience, having a commenter write the equivalent of, "Hey, Drezner, you're a f%$ing @*&hole and your argument sucks!" seems like an amusing trifle.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 17 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

17 comments

I must say that DEBORAH SOLOMON's questions were pretty lame. Lee represents all that is wrong with criticism of "popular culture," a non subject if there ever was one. He is an overeducated snob with a liking for high art (nothing wrong with that, btw) who also preteds to "critique" TV programs as if they were high art. In the process he denigrates the very art he loves and turns television or films, or popular song, which is merely entertainment for the masses (to which we all belong including Siegel) into a failed medium. Films, TV, and the other popular arts like the vaudeville of old or the silent films are best left to those who love it for what it is and don't try to impose alien standards on it. Siegel, Ebert, and their ilk have helped to ruin popular entertainment while at the same time lowering the standards of art to its level. It's not accidental that the best work done in film and on tv was before the advent of "popular culture." Nor is it an accident that contemporary literature, drama, music, etc. is mediocre at best and more than not is indistinguishable from schlock. Over-praised schlock is still schlock.

- jacksondyer

September 18, 2006 at 4:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

subscribe to the NYTimes, I cannot access this link. Too bad. I am interested in reading where Siegel's head is at right now. Jackson, any contrition, regrets, humility on Siegel's part? It is almost like the snarlier has vanished from the planet...

- MrCookie1

September 18, 2006 at 4:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Jackson, any contrition, regrets, humility on Siegel's part? It is almost like the snarlier has vanished from the planet..." It's self congratulations all the way. He pretends that "we all do it" but it was worse for him because he was a "senior editor." Questions were lame and the answers were self serving. btw: you should be able to access the article by clicking on the link. You don't need a sub to the NY Times to read the sunday magazine.

- jacksondyer

September 18, 2006 at 5:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And too bad. I know we disagreed on Siegel - I liked most of his stuff and believe me, I have worked hard in my life to banish Sprezzatura from my being - but I hoped that he would learn something from this trial. Too bad. He, like Charles Foster Kane, may need several Big Jim Geddes shellackings to finally learn some humility.

- MrCookie1

September 18, 2006 at 5:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The most significant--although perhaps the most obvious--is this: "Seriously, the blogosphere strips argument of logic and rhetoric down to the naked emotion behind it." Siegel's sins are to be punished because he was an editor with a serious publication, but are any of the contributors to DailyKos--"Kossacks," as they call themselves--held to the same standards? Quite clearly not. Perhaps Siegel does have some animosity towards bloggers--but is that to be condemned? Despite Mr. Drezner's claims, anonymity is possible for all bloggers, with the exception of the most famous like Kos himself. There are no standards, and no requirements, when it comes to blog posts. A blogger need merely preach to the choir, and he will have readers. [No, I am not Lee Siegel]

- Tjss

September 18, 2006 at 7:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The most significant--although perhaps the most obvious--is this: "Seriously, the blogosphere strips argument of logic and rhetoric down to the naked emotion behind it." " One point, even if true, does not a decent argument make. I don't buy Siegel's self serving point. Firstly there are many blogs in which logic and "rhetoric" (he must mean the development part of a formal argument) are not requirement if you are to be taken seriously. In addition Siegel must have in mind political blogs or people who are obsessed with "current events" which they confuse with politics. I believe that Siegel's distaste for the blogosphere has to do with his own insecurities than with anything being written there.

- jacksondyer

September 18, 2006 at 8:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Also in the interview Siegel's makes unsustainable generalizations about people who use pseudonyms. There is a misconception out there that using an pseudonym gives us the illusion that we can be whoever we want to be. If examined closely one would find that the opposite is the case. All names given or self given place limits on us. Just because I choose to call myself Mr. X means that I am not Mr. Y. Besides as Mr. X I enter into relations with other posters who will get to know me under this sobriquet. Were I to change my appellation I would confuse these folk and would lose all control over my chosen identity. Hence the claim that on the blogosphere we are free to be whoever we wish is exaggerated. We may be free but only once. We may free ourselves from our given name but very soon our chosen one will also become as an identity and a limit as our old one was. Besides, let's not forget that Lee's pseudonym was discovered by other posters. Hence he proves the adage that style is the poster and not his or her chosen and fictitious ID.

- jacksondyer

September 18, 2006 at 8:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jacksondyer- In the Times interview, Siegel says: ". . .there is such a madness to become famous. Obscurity is the new poverty. People don't seem able to bear being unknown." I just had a terrible thought, jackson: do you think it's possible that Siegel went through this whole sprezzatura business on purpose, hoping (at least on some partly conscious level) to get caught? It has certainly made him more famous than he ever was before. In a manner somewhat reminiscent of Glass or Blair. I mean, do you think the NY Times Magazine would have ever done a piece on Siegel if he hadn't transgressed as did? And he does have a new book to promote. . . Maybe this is simply a good (even if only partly conscious) career move. (The partly conscious aspect is suggested by Siegel's somewhat goofy admission that he's been in therapy: "I'm thoroughly analyzed. I can show you the receipts.") I don't know, Jackson, what do you think?

- JosephCuomo

September 19, 2006 at 8:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm not Jackson nor am I a head shrinker but I did follow the posts of Sprezzatura pretty closely. I think that you may be right about on some dark, subterranean level, Siegel may have wanted to get caught but my main impression is that Siegel as Sprezz was insane. Those posts were savage, wild and if you ever noticed, they were fired off faster than a machine gun. He was out of control. Even aside from Sprezz, when Siegel would post as Siegel, he was incredibly thin skinned and lacked any capacity to accept or even elide criticism. He had to engage, get into the sandbox and scratch the eyes out of the other two year old. And this was a 47 year old adult, professional male, senior editor at a nat'lly renown magazine! How Siegel got as far as he did, loosely hinged as he now appears to be is an incredible testament to capacity to hold his quaking sanity together for as long as he could. From what I have read, Siegel who seems viciously smart, is now trying to make lemonade out of lemons and has tried to pivot and make this about bloggers, cultural incivility, anonymity, anything and everything else else for the very real possibility that he is a very very disturbed man. But, yes, on some level, Siegel/Sprezz could have been an elaborate ruse for publicity but i rather doubt it. Siegel appears to be more insane than cunning...

- MrCookie1

September 19, 2006 at 9:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jacksondyer-- "In addition Siegel must have in mind political blogs or people who are obsessed with "current events" which they confuse with politics. I believe that Siegel's distaste for the blogosphere has to do with his own insecurities than with anything being written there." Both points are true. The blogs that Siegel was referring to are the same ones (I believe) that I am referring to. That is, blogs like DailyKos or MyDD. Beyond the front page writing, which is usually, like you said, a collection of current events stories, there is usually an incredible amount of "commentary" in which people rant and rave about this or that. The pitch seems to reach that of a seedy bar near closing time. The sheer absurdity behind many of the statements made is worse because there are no editors or fact checkers who make sure people aren't making asses of themself--something that Siegel was caught doing. As for Siegel's self-serving point, I agree it was. He seems to be rationalizing his own actions. But that doesn't mean he didn't make a good point...

- Tjss

September 19, 2006 at 12:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MrCookie- Thanks, that was very interesting. I didn't get a chance to follow many of sprezzatura's posts (but I've read a number of yours, and enjoyed them), but I remember Siegel as Siegel fuming about James Wood's (very perceptive) piece on Stephen Colbert. Siegel was absolutely livid that posters were applauding Wood, and, if I remember correctly, sounded like a spurned, adolescent lover, right down to the bitter recitation of his own little bona fides. The readers, apparently, were the lover he had lost. And Wood was the rival who had taken that lover away! (If I can find the relevant bit from Siegel's original post, I'll put it up here.) So I think maybe your sandbox analogy is apt, MrCookie. As for Siegel being more insane than cunning, I wasn't suggesting he WAS cunning. I was suggesting that he has a deep-seated and truly desperate need for attention, or, as he put it, "a madness to become famous," and that maybe, just maybe he--again, on only a partly conscious level--set himself up for a fall, which would then shine a spotlight on his own (as he seems to see it) antics. Which would then turn him (and not Colbert or Wood or Jon Stewart) into the subject of the story, and (for at least a while) the center of our attention.

- JosephCuomo

September 19, 2006 at 12:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

since the Sprezz melt down, he has given two interviews to newspapers, he has self righteously declared himself to be a victim of blog induced madness and instead of being an unknown "TV critic" - an oxymoron if there ever was one - he is a minor celebrity. You may be right.

- MrCookie1

September 19, 2006 at 12:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

saw a picture of Siegel. Interesting. I envisioned a wilder, crankier looking personage. He looks normal. Wow, looks can be deceiving.

- MrCookie1

September 19, 2006 at 3:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I just had a terrible thought, jackson: do you think it's possible that Siegel went through this whole sprezzatura business on purpose, hoping (at least on some partly conscious level) to get caught?" I have no idea, Joseph. I don't do psychoanalysis and I really don't care what his unconscious motivation was.

- jacksondyer

September 19, 2006 at 7:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"As for Siegel's self-serving point, I agree it was. He seems to be rationalizing his own actions. But that doesn't mean he didn't make a good point..." Well yes, Mr. Cookie also pointed out that Lee is pretty bright. I agree. HOwever, I wasn't commenting on his IQ. I was commenting on what I take to be the meaning of his work as a "popular cultural critic."

- jacksondyer

September 19, 2006 at 7:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jacksondyer- You're interests, of course, are your own concern, but I wasn't asking you about, as you put it, Siegel's "unconscious motivation." (If you read the above posts, you'll see more than a few references to his "partly conscious" motivation, as well as to what Siegel himself has said.) In any event, MrCookie and I have already discussed all this about as far as I'd like to take it. . . Thanks, anyway.

- JosephCuomo

September 19, 2006 at 7:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gentlemen, It's an amusing post, but I find it hard to buy. Granted, Siegel's porcelain ego couldn't handle the comments, and the circus that followed (in which we all indulged), but do academics really have thicker skins than journalists? Also, didn't Siegel teach college as well? Compared to business, science, politics, the academe is riddled with the most fragile egos, whose pride and stature depend on the stupidest shit. Never forget Kissinger's aphorism that in academia the fights are so bitter because the stakes are so small.

- perseus353

September 21, 2006 at 3:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close