from someone with the exquisite good taste to fashion herself "The Lady of Shalott?" This comes from
a very amusing and interesting post at her site. Most particularly, please note the following:
I've always circulated freely among the right and the left, and except for a few unhappy months in a wretched Catholic homeschooling group that was as rigid as a Stalinist reading group, never received any flack from anyone about any of my "contradictory" activities.
Mr. Claybourn, in a comment on the previous post, quite rightly points out that I have misread him. I apologize as the intent was not to set up a straw man, and I certainly did not mean to impugn Mr. Claybourn's taste. I think it is simply the innate streak in me that I must work to conquer. I have the "If it's popular, it is suspect" elitist bug that I would do well once and for all to exorcise. Mr. Claybourn's actual statement was that "most readers are interested in what is most popular," which, of course, in no way implies that everyone wants to rush over and read it. However, he does say the "if everyone is reading a certain blog, it probably has something worth reading." This statement sets off the "Lemming " alert in my brain--again a congenital defect I must confess. The contention is not necessarily true and this is bourne out by a hideously long list of best-sellers starting with Grace Metalious and progressing through Harold Robbins, Jacqueline Susann, and Sidney Sheldon. If everyone is reading it, it may simply be popular. While that is really quite all right, it doesn't necessarily make it worth reading.
I belabor the point.
The main thrust of this is that I must apologize for misrepresenting Mr. Claybourn's thought and intent and can only plead that it was perhaps with work-weary eyes and brain that I managed to misconstrue what is actually written. My apologies. However, I do contend that all examples were my own and not designed to reflect Mr. Claybourn's thought at all. If these examples represent what is "popular" then the point stands; however, attribute all statements to my own thought, not to Mr. Claybourn. And moreover, I thank him for taking the time to visit and discover. Thank you, I appreciate the time you took to come here and comment!
Mr. Claybourn intimates--no, in fact he says outright--that readers wish to read the most popular blogs. While that may be true for many, I think many blog readers are rather selective in what they wish to read and it may have little to do with how popular the blog is. For example, I like intelligent commentary about literature, art, and religion. When I find a site that has such things I am likely to follow the links on that site to find others in a similar vein. While that may cause me to cruise by some fairly well-traveled sites, it also sends me to outposts along the way that are less populated, but nonetheless interesting. Popularity, in fact, is more likely to be a detriment than an attraction, if, in fact there is merely an endless rehash and commentary on "news of the day," which, we must remind ourselves, is not the Good News. Smart commentators can always bring something out of the endless drivel that the media wish us to believe is important.
I guess I would contend that there are some subjects that are more likely to attract a large population than others, but popularity does not speak of the quality of such sites. However, I have visited some sites that may be rarely seen by much of the blogging world, but the quality of the insight, thought, and writing is ultimately the persuasive factor in returning to those sites. So I find myself in respectful disagreement with Mr. Claybourn. When I am reading I don't want the most popular, I want the best!
