Eggers is a pretentious hipster, but who cares? He’s also a fairly nice dude. His first ‘novel’ (or major work, I guess, since you will find it in both fiction and non-fiction sections) was amazing. Everything after that has been utter crap. Not because of his subject matter, or his personality, or what he has or has not done with the money he’s made. But because his prose has gone from being loose and clever to merely sloppy.

Just as too many of his detractors mistake the work for what they don’t like about the man, so too do too many of his fans mistake what they like about the man for the quality of the work.

“This quillblogger does think that criticizing Eggers’ god-awful film Away We Go is totally fair game and should be encouraged.”

Here’s a question for this pretentious-as-frak quill blogger: Do you think it’s possible to write something as simply news instead of inserting pointless and arrogant snark and calling it news? You don’t sound clever or well-informed – you just come across like an ass (and this from someone who is NOT an Eggers fan). Just grow up already.

“Just grow up already” = wow, clever commentary, Andrew. Pretentious = having a strong opinion? Trying to insert some humour into the often earnest territory of book blogs? Blogs are not news. They are meant to be opinion-based and provoke discussion about news. That’s why they’re blogs and not, well, news, like the rest of the magazine. Lighten up, Andrew.

*This quillcommenter does think that criticizing Whittall’s god-awful book Bottle Rocket Hearts is totally fair game and should be encouraged.

Oh Lame, I’m sure your self-published memoir will come across our reviewer desk and we’ll give it just as much thought as you did to your super-smart anonymous blogger name.

You just said I was anonymous, which means you don’t know who I am.

This means you wouldn’t know my “self-published memoir” *shudder* if it came across your desk.

How is anyone supposed to believe that you give anything other than very little thought to reviews you write.

“I also do not write reviews for Quill.”

I’m not the one who brought up “our reviewer desk.” I apologize for interpreting that as pretentious third person self-reference, but now it’s clear you’re speaking on behalf of the other biased reviewers.

I liked Away We Go. Now I am worried there is something wrong with me…

wow. Andrew and Lame it appears that you’ve taken Zoe Whittall’s BLOG to a personal level. I would imagine that it might also be hard for the both of you to read other genius and opinionated literature in whatever form it might come . for example, ‘The Onion’. I suggest, based on your distaste for ‘what other people might think’, that you just stop reading in general. perhaps we can find something a little less harmful…something more satisfying to your egos. maybe some online scrabble? Oh and Zoe, I’m one among many fans of Bottle Rocket Hearts and your new amazing novel, Holding Still for As Long As Possible. And i didn’t have to google that. I have them both on my shelf.

Scout,

You seem to have confused humour and satire with needless snark and cynicism, something that blog culture does to such an extreme that people seem to very easily mistake it for legitimate criticism or worthwhile news and opinion. And yes, while this is a blog, it is also a worthy source of publishing news and events, and tagging the end of a “news” story with something pointless and biting in an attempt to prove just how clever you are just serves to damage the professional face of this cite. Steven Beattie is another Quill blogger that is very prone to this. Again, it does not come across as simply “opinion” when it is posted as a part of a blog that belongs to a professional site. And for the record, I do not hate Zoe’s writing, I just find that there is, especially on Q&Q, such an overabundance of needless and childish snark that it has become hard to respect the opinions of the writers here. It’s the Coupland effect – you bitch and whine about enough things enough times, and soon you’re nothing better than the boy who cried wolf. It invalidates the quality and integrity of the nature of the site. I am all for opinionated “literature”, but the type of snark that is so prevalent on Q&Q is hipster-handjob crap – self pleasuring and mean for the sake of being mean. That, with all due respect, should be relegated to a personal site, and not Q&Q.

Is there a more intellectually bankrupt critical term than “snark”? I remember criticizing Julavits for it the week her essay came out. I hated it then and I hate it even more now.

Who’s to say when a witty put-down is just “being mean for the sake of being mean”? Who’s to say when it’s “unfair”? Who gets to judge when a reviewer or critic is just showboating or drawing attention to herself as opposed to making an honest attempt to do justice to an author’s work? What makes a perfectly valid critical point, acidly expressed, into a “cheap shot”? Nothing but personal preference. If you’re liberal you think The Daily Show has some of the best political satire, not to mention news coverage, on TV. If you’re a conservative you think it’s just being smug and hip and knowing and snarky.

Julavits was attacking people like Dale Peck. I don’t agree with Peck’s point of view very often, but I still like to read him. I also like to read snarky critics like Martin Amis and Gore Vidal and, oh, Samuel Johnson. A bunch of guys who never stop trying to prove how clever they are.

As for the comments made about Ms. Whittall’s piece here: Why is it “pointless” and “needless”? It gave her negative opinion of a film written by Eggers on a blog post about negative attitudes toward Eggers. Is it “biting”? Good. Is it “childish”? How so? Why “self-pleasuring”? And is there anything wrong with that? *Here the author of this comment blushingly closes several windows on his desktop* Clive James has written about how he frequently laughs out loud at his (often) snarky essays. Good for him. What writer hasn’t taken pleasure out of something they’ve written, and said “Yes! That nails it!”

And yes, it’s just a blog post. It wasn’t a movie review.

That last bit does seem like random scattershot, though, ’cause the scribbler wasn’t pleased with a recent movie experience and wanted a little payback. Unnecessary and kind of puerile (I know, I know–not the first time on the Q&Q blog). Also, it ain’t Eggers’s film, although he did write part of it. Many people worked on Away We Go to make it a finished product, so blame the key grip, too. Anyway, moving on . . .

I think Zoe was just adding a punchline to the blog post. I’m pretty sick of all criticism on Quill blog being labelled “snark” and cynicism, specifically Andrew. An appropriate response would have been “Actually, I quite liked that movie, here’s why”, not a personal attack on Quill writers.
Lighten up, folks.
Zoe – don’t take it personally, people have their versions of what Quill should be, the same for CanLit and really won’t let anyone say nay to it. It’s like that Jawbreaker song, Boxcar.

I love it when the Quillbloggers insert little bits of humor and personality into the posts, and Zoe is one who is great with that. They are jokes, not harpoons, and they brighten the day. Let’s all unclench a bit.

Also, “Away We Go” (whether it was Eggers’ fault or not) was truly, truly terrible. I wanted to like it, but there was no hope.