I've been debating whether or not to post a link the Ann Althouse meltdown... but now that Garance herself has commented, I might as well, since I like any excuse to link to her (GFR, you're just so cool... sigh)... even though I think these Bloggingheads TV exchanges are more than a little silly (though as a fan of Garance, I did love every hair-tossing moment she was on).
I've mentioned Althouse, briefly, in posts last year. She's a University of Wisconsin law professor, and her somewhat idiosyncratic blogging has given her something of a unique niche, combining deep understanding of the law and centrist, if slightly left politics. She's also more than a little thin-skinned and resistant to criticism and questioning (which, my impression, is true of many longtime University types, especially in law).
So perhaps it's no surprise that Althouse got all prickly in this exchange, when Garance referenced a long simmering feud between Althouse and Jessica Valenti at Feministing, involving a photograph with Bill Clinton and a discussion of prominent breast display that was, I thought then and still do, rather silly all the way around. Still, her over-the-top reaction is the kind of meltdown one rarely sees in public; which may be why Garance seems so flustered by the exchange. That, and I think the mistake here is taking oneself way too seriously.
But more than that, I think this is about the rage discussion I mentioned a short time back - you keep carrying that anger, it will eat you up inside. I think it's very easy for a writer - especially in this blog era - to wrap who they are and what they write very tightly up in one package and see one as the other. And they're not; I think to be a really good writer is to not be married to every word you write (if nothing else, to understand how revision fits into the writing process), and not to take every question or criticism personally. My brief foray in gay journalism, just out of college, taught me volumes about writing on deadline, and adjusting to being edited. And yes, I'm still proud of what I write, but I also accept that feedback will help me to improve it.
Along the same lines, I think L'Affaire Althouse harks back to the Marcotte/McEwan fiasco at the start of the year - people being called to account for things they said in a way that makes them uncomfortable. In that sense, the Feministing/Valenti's Breasts episode should be a dead issue - but Althouse, still, won't acknowledge even the possibility that she went too far. And just to thread in Michelle Malkin's latest take on threats and ugly e-mails from those who disagree, I think it's a given that the web has unleashed some incredible ugliness from firebrands who disagree and who take advantage of anonymity to say the most horrendous, awful things, and make unconscionable threats on others. But I continue to maintain, you get back what you give; if Althouse wants people who disagree to be nicer, she could start by doing it herself. And if Malkin wants an uplifted dialogue, she could raise the level of rhetoric she spews at things she dislikes. With blogging, as with life, there's not much use to giving in to anger and fear. Let go, and move on.
Comments