Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Question Time: Above the Law

huh asks:
What do you think of the "Above the Law" blog? Frankly, I think the guy is losing it. In addition to seeming to be a shrine to its creator's self-aggrandizement, it has lost all semblance of credibility with most of its content. I thought I would enjoy it, since I enjoyed UTR, but I just find it so immature and stupid. What do you think?
I think it's more challenging to amuse readers with self-aggrandizing posts when your identity is known. A3G was not a humble persona either, as I recall, except as pertained to her failure to secure a Supreme Court clerkship. But now that we know the writer's looks, resume qualifications, etc. with precision, we can make more pointed comparisons between the author and his targets. Audience reactions may also be different now that the writer is known to be (like the majority of readers) male. Interpersonal comparisons within a gender are probably easier to make, and readers can therefore measure their own traits against the writer's and judge any braggadocio accordingly.

Additionally, Above the Law has much more frequent posts, as is required by a blog of its type. UTR, being a labor of love, had new material on a fairly intermittent basis, and no need for filler posts on slow news days. I don't particularly care for the posts about lawyerly lifestyles (the houses and such). But I don't think that ATL is much worse than UTR; I think any perceived change is an inevitable result of the shift to a new blogging paradigm.

The comment about credibility puzzles me; does huh mean that the frivolity and personal references undermine the ability of ATL to recite truthful anecdotes? I don't see how this can be so. And how could credibility have been greater under a pseudonymous regime? Meh.
blog comments powered by Disqus