Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

« Resend email || Back to Blog | I not Robot »

July 21, 2004

Mailer the Blogger

Jay Rosen reminds us of Norman Mailer's pre-New Journalistic coverage of the 1960 Convention. "[T]here is another way of 'covering' a political convention," Jay writes: "Send a writer and let the writer find a language adequate to the event." A snip:

Mailer on Los Angeles, site of the 1960 Democratic convention: "one has the feeling it was built by television sets giving orders to men."

In the comments, Seth Finkelstein writes about the Mailer:

Much shorter version: "Let in a bunch of freelance writers, maybe they'll write something interesting".

Hmm. Let me rephrase that: Let Norman Mailer in and maybe he'll write something interesting.

Posted by D. Weinberger at July 21, 2004 11:24 AM


Comments

How cynical is this view that the challenge of writing about the political process is one of form over substance. It certainly is a narcissistic view that a writer's personal style determines credibility, or maybe we're talking about entertainment value? I think this is why I don't understand Jay. Maybe bloggers have less "obligations" when it comes to straying into the realm of gossip, innuendo and self-puffery. I'll call it tabloidism.

What does Norman Mailer have to do with this election anyway? Enquiring minds want to know.

Just can't wait to be the first to sign up for BloggerCon III. NOT!

Posted by: Rick Hausen | July 21, 2004 04:17 PM


And just as you're not going to go to BloggerConIII, if you think blogs are all just gossip, don't read 'em ... just as (presumably) you don't read the tabloids.

As for Mailer: If you've read his political accounts, you might agree that his insight and style (with great writers the two can't be untied the way you're suggesting) presents a view of conventions (and other political events, such as peace marches) that lesser writers couldn't...and certainly a view that we didn't get from the journalists there.

What does this have to do with covering the convention? Let me spell it out for you: Jay is writing about a non-traditional type of reporting of the convention. 44 years ago, Norman Mailer did some non-traditional, non-journalistic reporting of a convention. Mailer's reporting was (IMO) wonderful. So, maybe there's room for non-traditional, non-journalistic reporting of this convention...not that any of the credentialed bloggers hold a candle to Mailer, IMO.

Posted by: David Weinberger | July 21, 2004 04:35 PM


What does Norman Mailer have to do with this election?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 25, 2004 03:17 AM


Post a comment

Guidelines for Commenting

Basically, you can say what you want. (Click here for the fine print.)

If you haven't left a comment here before, your comment may be put into a queue for me to approve. Sorry for the delay. Blame the damn spammers.