Sunday, April 11, 2004
KING OF THE BLOGS REVIEWS
CHALLENGE QUESTION AND SUBMITTED POSTS
OVERALL NOTE ON RANKING: The new King of the Blogs
scoring system awards points based how an entrant performed relative to
his/her competitors, so what counts is whether someone got first,
second, third, or fourth place. As a courtesy to the contestants, I'm
including the scores I assigned to the individual posts to determine
This week's challenge question is:
Is your blog therapy for you or does it exist as an on-going op-ed piece for you to express your views to the world, and why?
DGCI (3rd place)
GOOD POINTS: Takes the time to explain what blogs are before going into
the various reasons for blogging. Assumes the throne by utilizing the
Royal "we" during most of the discussion.
BAD POINTS: The question was meant to be about the contestant's
feelings & opinions. A chance to open up and share a little bit
about himself. I thought this post could have been less global and more
GOOD POINTS: A firm-handed discussion of why the terrorists themselves,
and not any Presidential administration, were to blame for 9/11. I
thought the police analogy was apt.
BAD POINTS: The discussion of Bush and Kerry felt tacked on and
gratuitous. It seemed especially out of place given that one of the
points of the piece was that the President can't protect you from a
terrorist attack, he can only direct clean-up operations afterward.
While the Bush/Kerry comparison is a valid point and an interesting
topic for discussion, it really belonged in a separate post.
DEBRA GALANT (1st place)
GOOD POINTS: Has the audacity to question the premise of the question
(audacity is a good trait in a blogospheric monarch). She has a good
analogy (a dinner party) and a good answer (fun). The rest of her entry
serves to give support to both, in turns. Well constructed, insightful,
and personally revealing
BAD POINTS: None visible.
GOOD POINTS: Striking imagery, and nice verbal build-up in the caption
BAD POINTS: Who's Noah? Also, am I supposed to be amused, disappointed,
or pleased that he got walked? I think I'm missing the point here.
(challenge)(4-9 CTRL+F "therapy")
GOOD POINTS: Answers the "which is it" portion of the question while
leaving no ambiguity regarding the author's personal politics.
BAD POINTS: Not much into the personal reasons of "why". Jason missed a
good chance to showcase his creativity and settled for a few quick
(submitted)(4-7 CTRL+F "double standard")
GOOD POINTS: Cites sources for all his quotes, which is a good blogging
habit, as it allows the reader to determine for himself the validity of
BAD POINTS: Although the point of Robert Byrd being a racist is
well-received, the post was poorly constructed when it came to making
the analogy. As written, Jason takes Lott saying something vaguely
racist as a compliment to someone who is a racist (Thurmond) - and
compares it to Dodd & Kennedy saying something non-racist as a
compliment to someone who is a racist (Byrd). The sad part is that Dodd
DID say something vaguely racist ("He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this Nation."),
but Jason didn't use that quote. If Jason had stuck to criticism of
Dodd & Kennedy for praising a former Klansman Kleagle, instead of
trying to work the double standard angle, this would have been a better
GOOD POINTS: Almost Pythonesque in it's self-referential, and
self-deprecating humor. It's good to see Bill giving his funny side a
long leash to romp with. Even answers the question, eventually
BAD POINTS: Arrogant, pointless, blowhardian twaddle being shoved down
the throats of innocent readers. Why? Because King Bill is MAD! Mad
with power! Brutally torturing his subjects with an endless meandering
yellow-brick-road-to-hell of a post. There's a human rights violation
in there somewhere.
GOOD POINTS: Nice visual at the end with the hippy/Dr. Scholl's commercial
BAD POINTS: I read this thing about 10 times, trying to figure out why
I couldn't find the point. It finally hit me. The whole section from "While I'm not one…" to "…jobs and all the rest"
belongs at the top of the piece as an introduction. In its current
position, it destroys the conceptual flow and build-up of the post.
This isn't up to Bill's usual high standards. Reading it was like
watching a gold-medal gymnast falling off the balance beam.
posted by Harvey at 11:17:24 AM permalink HOME
© Copyright 2005 Harvey Olson.
Last update: 9/10/2005; 4:34:39 PM.