Earlier this week I suggested that while the Nadel/Hodler tcj.com has many virtues, it continues to suffer from cliquishness. Sean Collins tweeted a reply:
The Hooded Utilitarian accusing Nadel/Hodler of cliquishness is always, and will always be, absolutely hilarious.
A couple of people asked Sean for clarification politely, and I asked for clarification less politely, because I was pissed off (Sean annoys me like few people on the internet, as I’m sure he’ll be pleased to hear.)
However, he declined to expound…so that leaves it up to HU readers, I suppose. How are we cliquish — or, less invidiously, what should we be covering that we aren’t? What aren’t we doing that we should? Or what are we doing that we shouldn’t? Let me know below…and if no one comments, I guess I’ll just assume I’m perfect!
Hooded Utilitarian is the polar opposite of a clique. What kind of clique welcomes all comers, has an open submission policy and invites descent?
Sean had his moments but this was not one of them.
I’m terribly sorry to be mean about typos, but “invites descent” might be the best Freudian slip ever. Noah, new slogan?
I think that the discussions on HU can be exclusionary when they traffic in a lot of theory. Of course, all discussion is exclusionary on some level (I think most non-comics readers would feel totally excluded by “The Beat,” for example, simply because the writers there assume you know who Howard Chaykin is, or Dan Didio). But theory can seem needlessly obscure, and sometimes it is. In fact, one of the big arguments that gets trotted out about theory is that it is needlessly exclusionary, inasmuch as it takes simple ideas and makes them obscure in order to: (1) make them seem complex and (2) exclude everyone without a liberal arts degree.
(It’s probably worth pointing out that some of the regular commenters here have expressed this very opinion, and yet they’re still commenting, so there’s an argument against cliquishness).
Anyhow, it’s possible that people see a reference to Lacan or read the word discursive and assume they’re being shut out of a conversation about Wonder Woman or Love and Rockets. I don’t think this is the intention, and I also think that most of the writers on the site try to explain theory as they deploy it. That said, I can see how someone skimming an article would read it as an effort to corner the couch at the coffee shop.
Jason, I like to think that we’re dragging people down the evolutionary ladder as well…
I bet the use of theory may well be what Sean’s referring to. The thing for me is, comics is often so antagonistic to the academy and theory…it actually seems like a way to make comics relevant to other conversations and arts (or one way, anyway.) And of course a lot of people who write here aren’t especially interested in theory, which is cool….
The dis on the site used to be that I was a dilettante who didn’t know what I was talking about…so basically the opposite of cliquish (outside the knowledgeable circle, rather than drawing the knowledgeable circle.) Though I guess both things could be true (both ignorant and cliquish.)
Just wanted to say I’ve been following the Hooded Utilitarian for a while, although I’ve never actually commented. I really, really like this blog as it is. The posts and the posters seem to cover a wide range of material as well. It’s one of the few blogs I’ve read where posts are discussed intelligently and the posters are actually open to critique. Not to mention the variety of material and references to interesting theory.
Seriously, I’ve discovered a fair amount of old and new comics thanks to some of the articles on here. Even the analysis and discussion of stuff I’ve read or seen before often makes me see it in a new light.
I suppose the fact that this site often has intelligent discussions and lengthy articles which may make it seem cliquey to those that dislike lengthy articles and this particular type of discussion, but I don’t think it uses theoretical jargon to the point being exclusive.
The articles on here may refer to Lacan or Hegel etc when analysing comics and this does require a bit of education for the reader (or at least a glance at wikipedia) but not to the point of requiring a masters degree to understand. I see the theoretical discussion, the open-mindedness and willingness to discuss opinions as the primary selling point of the material on this blog. A lot of comics discussion on the internet does not do this.
So to all the writers and commenters at HU: please keep it up!
Twitter is cliquish to me. I see a link to some discussion on there, but can never get to it other than the one linked comment. It’s like some secret society, rumored to exist.
Talking about ‘exclusion’: It would have been much better to write your comment on TCJ´s ‘Garo’ piece where it would´ve belonged: in their comment section. But showing critical selfawareness by bringing this topic to Hooded U works out well as a compensation and doesn´t define the term ‘cliquishness’at all.
Everything else was just answered satisfingly by Nate.
Oliver…I could have written it in their comment section and here, maybe. It seemed a little long for a comment though…but maybe that’s what I should do next time.
Charles, twitter is a horrible place to have conversations. I agree with that.
And Nathan, bless your heart. Thanks.
Alas, everyone turning up to say we’re not cliquish is not uncliquish I guess…but I guess I can still hold out hope that Sean or someone like him will show up to lambast me….
I, too, chuckled/rolled my eyes when you accused Nadler of cliquishness. I wasn’t thinking about Theory, but the clubbish atmosphere of the comments here, especially when it gets to a back-and-forth about topics not even tangentially related to the post, e.g. when Russ makes some right-ish comment and everyone else piles on, or when Domingos does his cavalier dismissal thing, or…
But it seems inevitable that this kind of club will coalesce for a multi-author site, and it doesn’t seem objectionable anyway. So maybe Sean was thinking of something else?
(Incidentally, Noah, what’s your beef with Sean? He seems like one of the best catholic comics bloggers, and a smart and reasonable guy)
All this said, not to piss in his pocket, but I’ve always found Noah to be unfailingly gracious as an editor, and eager to promote alternative viewpoints on the site.
It’s not so much the clubbish atmosphere of the comments as the overwhelming maleness of them that seems cliquish to me. I have to admit, I’m not sure what if anything to do about that.
Re: Sean — I don’t have any real criticism of his writing. As you say, he’s smart and thoughtful and often writes about interesting things. I thought his take on Nadel’s essay was a little wishy-washy, but altogether quite balanced considering his close ties to those folks.
He’s just good at pushing my buttons, basically — which as I said, I’d presume he’d take as a compliment.
The one interaction I have that really sticks out in my mind as about the most angry I’ve ever been on the internets is this thing.
And also…”piss in his pocket”? Is this some sort of colorful Australian slang? I checked google, but it doesn’t seem to be sure what it means either….
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=piss+in+pocket
Well, thanks a lot, Noah. I could’ve lived without knowing that Melinda is talking trash about me behind my back. Not surprising, though, I guess…
No, HU is not cliquish. I put forth my own contributions to the site, each of which I strove to present in an intelligent and accessible style.
” I could’ve lived without knowing that Melinda is talking trash about me behind my back.”
Huh?
Melinda, I linked to the thread about tcj’s lack of female contributors from over a year ago; that’s what Alex is referring to.
Ah, I see. I’m unclear on how I trashed Alex there, outside of mentioning that we’d had a conflict. But I’ll apologize anyway. I’m sorry, Alex, if that was out of line.
No problem, Melinda. Let’s be friends all around.
And adults– except when we can be youthful and naughty!
BTW, when I look over my personal contributions to Hu: I cover Tintin, 1950s war comics, children’s books, newspaper comic strips, architecture in comics…how esoteric are these subjects? KMA, Sean.
————————-
Nate says:
….(It’s probably worth pointing out that some of the regular commenters here have expressed this very opinion, and yet they’re still commenting, so there’s an argument against cliquishness).
————————–
Indeed so! Even though, Heaven knows, I disagree heartily and at length with at least 80% of what Noah (whose attitudes are shared by many here) says, still he’s never made me feel unwelcome here, or that my arguments were the equivalent of Persona Non Grata.
————————–
clique
a small, exclusive group of people; coterie; set.
—————————
“Small” is a relative term, “exclusive” less so:
—————————
ex·clu·sive
1. not admitting of something else; incompatible: mutually exclusive plans of action.
2. omitting from consideration or account (often followed by of ): a profit of ten percent, exclusive of taxes.
3. limited to the object or objects designated: exclusive attention to business.
4. shutting out all others from a part or share: an exclusive right to film the novel.
5. fashionable; stylish: to patronize only the most exclusive designers.
—————————-
Sorry, but I’m guessing most here are hardly “fashionable; stylish”; however, there’s no “not admitting of something else, shutting out all others,” or even focused attention in discussions “limited to the object or objects designated.” (The latter to the dismay of some, who watch arguments careening wildly out of control.)
—————————-
cli·quish
1. associating exclusively with the members of one’s own clique; clannish.
2. tending to divide into cliques: a cliquish neighborhood.
3. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a clique: narrow, cliquish notions about art.
—————————-
Dunno the habits of others, but I hardly associate exclusively with HU-ites, and I get the impression others are likewise not so focused in their associations.
Since, admittedly within a certain range (no one commenting here feels that blacks and women are subhumans deserving to be trampled underfoot, for instance), there is a significant divergence of opinions on various cherished subjects, likewise attitudes are hardly narrowed to fit the accepted requirements.
Oh, but wait: as has been argued here by (*ahem!*) another, dictionary definitions are nonsense! So, “Never mind…”; Hooded Utilitarian is hopelessly cliqueish!
—————————
Noah Berlatsky says:
It’s not so much the clubbish atmosphere of the comments as the overwhelming maleness of them that seems cliquish to me. I have to admit, I’m not sure what if anything to do about that.
—————————-
Well, are women (or blacks, for that matter; I get the impression this is an awfully pallid lot) deliberately being excluded here? Harassed when they show up? Why, even in the supposedly oh-so-atrociously ill-behaved atmosphere of the TCJ message board, the few members of the distaff side who occasionally showed up were treated with exceeding courtesy.
As you noted at http://mangabookshelf.com/blog/2011/03/07/new-tjc-where-are-the-women/#comment-42666 , you’ve put a great deal of effort into trying to get female writers to contribute at HU…
Mike, it’s not that I”ve tried to exclude women or others of course…but it’s pretty obvious that many more men than women are interested in commenting. It’s also obvious that that isn’t the case at many other sites (Melinda’s comments section is at least evenly balanced, as far as I can tell.) So…obviously that has something to do with the content here, or the attitude here, or something.
Race is harder to figure since you can’t necessarily tell from names. Though I have no doubt the site could do better there as well.
Well, all the accusations of cliquishness (hope that’s a real word) seem to focus on the comments rather than on the posts.
Isn’t that a classic case of the tail wagging the dog?
And, as has been remarked on before, HU is remarkably open to new writers; indeed, I have the feeling that encountering new minds, new approaches, is one reason Noah bothers to put in so many hours a week into this blog.
The very opposite of cliquishness, in other words.
Whew, I guess commenting this often indicates a specific touchiness. Methinks the fanboy doth protest too much, indeed.
I guess Sean Collins’ dishonest use of HU as a straw-man dishonors me as much as any other HU contributor in men’s eyes.
Bad form, old chap. Locked room, bottle of whiskey, and revolver with one bullet: that’s for you, Collins, old bean.
(Mind you, I would be more than happy if a certain Portuguese pedant followed the above script.If wishes were horses…)
Yeah…I really think it’s mostly aimed at me and not at other writers for the site. Sean doesn’t really read HU anyway, I don’t think.
I don’t think he was being dishonest. As I said, since it’s on twitter and he didn’t elaborate, it’s hard to figure out what exactly he was referring to (whether use of theory, or the comments, or me just being a jerk in general, or what have you.)
Actually, there’s another guy who keeps slamming HU, and that’s Tucker Stone.
But my guess, Noah, is that he doesn’t rile you that much because he’s,basically,just a licensed jester– TCJ’s tummeler — working his schtick.
(Also he’s often funny. Go figure.)
I didn’t see Tucker ribbing HU…but if he did, I’m sure it was done with love. He’s a good friend.
Alex, I don’t think you’re making the site look good by wishing people dead over internet comments that you didn’t like. I’m reminded of your behavior on Peter David’s site: http://www.peterdavid.net/2010/11/05/what-peter-wrote-about-what-he-didnt-write/. It’s creepy.
Oh man…I didn’t even see that. Alex, please don’t do that. As Jack said, it’s creepy and really completely unnecessary.
…and I think this thread has probably run it’s course. It quite possibly was a bad idea to begin with, but too late now, I guess. Thanks to all who commented.