The Further Adventures of Jim Horne

Interview With a Blogger

I rarely grant interviews, but how could I say no to a student researching blogs and blogging, especially when the student is Shay Troy. It turns out that after blogging regularly for three years now, I do have some thoughts on the subject. Here are Shay’s questions and my answers:

 

Q. Why does the New York Times crossword need a blog?

A. It’s interesting that you asked, not why does the NYT need a crossword blog, but why does the NYT crossword need a blog. A strength of blogs is their ability to create and nurture community, and that’s just what the Times wanted. Solving crosswords is usually something you do by yourself. A blog provides a way for anyone who loves crosswords to share their passion with likeminded solvers. If blogs help reach out to younger people as well, that’s a bonus.

 

Q. What do you personally bring to the blog?

A. I’m neither a crossword constructor nor a great solver, so that’s a good question. I suppose one answer could be that I bring the perspective of someone who’s neither a constructor nor a fast solver – which describes most people who do the puzzles every day. I happen to be curious about a lot of topics and every crossword is crammed full of a such a wide range of subject matter that there’s always something I’m interested in commenting on.

Truthfully, though, my main job is to spark discussion and to provide a place for others who enjoy crosswords to participate. That happens almost no matter what I happen to talk about each day. So that’s what I personally bring. I’m there, saying something.

 

Q. How do you think blogging is affecting the world today?

A. Blogs, like most other inventions, are both good and bad. We used to get all our political news, for example, from newspapers, but newspapers have their own prejudices and agendas. Now, bloggers often break political stories, without the filter of the established press. That sounds good, and it is, but the price is that bloggers can also be undisciplined in ways that newspapers cannot. They might publish rumors as fact, they might purposefully distort information, they might just make things up. That might happen in the press too but in their case, there are consequences. They lose their reputation, they get sued, and so on. The professional editorial voice of the mainstream press does provide value. So do blogs.

I think of it this way. In the same sense that the press provides checks on those who wield political power, blogs, at their best, can provide checks on the press. At their worst, blogs can fan the flames of ignorance or even, say, recklessly incite violence.

Most personal blogs aren’t involved in anything so dramatic, of course. These blogs change the personal world of the bloggers and their friends in smaller ways. If you have a hobby or special interest, a blog is a great way to have a virtual community based around that interest. Again, that could be good or bad. The interest might be knitting or crosswords or skinhead racism.

 

Q. So, anyone can create a blog, does that mean they should?

A. The easy answer to that question is “no” and the deeper answer is also “no” but it’s a different kind of no. There are lots of ways to benefit from blogging and whether your blog is a “success” or not depends on what you’re trying to accomplish.

Commercial success is rare. Most readers are loathe to pay to read a blog since most of the Internet is available for free. Some blogs run ads but unless you get something like 20,000 readers a day -- extremely rare -- it’s pretty hard to make a living at it. (One easy way to support your favorite blog is to click on ads that appear there.)

Maybe your goal is to change the world by influencing public opinion. Since most blogs (although not this one based on TypePad) are free, it seems like the easiest and cheapest way to do that, but again, attracting an audience in a world with millions of other blogs is tough.

Lots of other goals are easily achievable, though. Maybe you want to keep your friends up to date with your current thinking on important topics. A blog is much more organized for that than something like Facebook. Maybe it’s more like a diary where you’re sharing deep thoughts and it’s just a bonus if others happen to read it too. Maybe you want to practice the discipline of writing every day. All those are possible with blogs.

 

Q. What makes a strong blogger?

A. You probably think the answer is something about strong writing skills or an engaging style or a fascinating range of topics. All that is important, of course, but the most critical attribute of any successful blogger is simply persistence. Writing every day is hard but it’s also what makes you better and what keeps readers coming back.

To persistence, add opinions. You have to have something to say about a topic people care about. Many of the most popular blogs are characterized by very strong, even outrageous opinions. Reasoned discourse is fine and might make you respected in your community of friends, but rabid polemics draw the big crowds – both those who agree with your extreme views and those who want to call you an idiot. Not everyone can do this. I can’t – I don’t have it in me. But think about who the most popular radio talk show hosts are. Those same qualities exist in many of the most popular blogs.

 

Q, How do you feel about large companies like The New York Times taking part in the blogging world?

A. A blog at the Times is much different than a personal blog. On Wordplay, I operate under various restrictions. I can have whatever opinion I want – the NYT was very clear when they hired me that they didn’t want to influence my thinking – but I have to write in a way that is consistent with the Times. They have a style guide that I must follow. They have a reputation to uphold so I can’t just make up facts, for example.

There are legal restrictions too that apply to all blogs but personal bloggers never have to worry about because they’re much less likely to be sued. I can’t libel people by calling someone a criminal who has never been convicted, say. I can’t just steal photos from random websites; I need to make sure we have the legal rights to any photos I use, and so on.

That said, big corporate blogs like those at the Times allow companies to communicate with their customers in more informal ways that are more appropriate in blogs than in standard newspaper articles or other formal corporate communications. That can help soften the image of the company.

Finally, blogs are a great way for large companies to get lots of unfiltered feedback directly from customers. This kind of data is gold for any corporation.

 

Q. Any thought on where blogs will go, or how they could possibly evolve?

A. Blogs have already evolved considerably since they started just a few years ago. They’ve had to evolve because of one fatal flaw – they’re too much work for most people. The dream was that anyone in the world could bypass the complicated and expensive machinery of the publishing industry and publish their thoughts directly to their audience around the world. That’s true but, as I said, it’s also hard. In fact, you have to do two hard things: writing about something is difficult but coming up with something to write about is just as hard for many. (This is the beauty of blogging about crosswords – the topics get handed to me each day in the newspaper!)

Consider how two spin-offs, Twitter and Facebook, have taken the basic idea of blogging and made it easier. You might think that by restricting Twitter “micro-blogs” to 140 characters, that would make the whole idea less attractive, but that constraint turned out to be a huge advantage. You don’t have to think about writing an essay or even a paragraph. You might not have enough space for a whole sentence. Art thrives within constraints, and so does personal communication, apparently.

Facebook took a different approach. Rather than restricting by length, they focus on friends and relationships, something everyone cares about. You’re not blogging to the world, you’re chatting with your peeps, mostly about each other.

Where blogs go from here is anyone’s guess but it seems likely that the next steps will be attempts to continue to make blogging even easier. Tumblr has a focus on sharing media so maybe that’s the future but I expect that’s too much work too. The ideal blogging environment might be one where you never have to think about blogging at all. You just live your life and your activities and even your thoughts get automatically posted.

Another sure bet is that there will be ongoing arguments about ease of use vs. privacy. We’re just beginning to figure out what’s appropriate to share electronically. The blogging system that really nails that tradeoff, might just be the next big thing.

 

Q. Any other thoughts on blogging?

A. If you’re curious about blogging, try it. There are lots of free options. It’s a real kick when you get your first comment, start your first on-line argument, or get quoted on another blog.

The New Ring Cycle at the Metropolitan Opera

A Personal Review of Das Rheingold – I’m Not Completely Impressed

In the world of opera, no event is more anticipated than a new Ring production. The Met has been planning their new cycle for years and Part One, Das Rheingold, has already opened. The rest will unfold over the next couple of years before we’ll be able to see all four operas as Wagner intended – within a single week.

The Ring is so massive and, let’s face it, so important, and Wagner’s vision was so sweeping and so completely impossible that any production, anytime, anywhere, will ultimately fail to meet expectations, but that’s part of the fun. Even so, this new Das Rheingold fails on a number of levels, most importantly in its most touted feature, the production design by Robert Lepage.

First, I owe you a confession. Unlike the previous Met production which was the first of many I’ve seen live, I caught this one on an HD broadcast at a local movie house. That’s not the right way to see any opera but for those of us far from Manhattan, I live near Seattle, it’s a wonderful service. Last year’s Doctor Atomic is an opera I may never get to see live so HD is the next best thing. Opera is designed to be seen on a stage and, while the close ups and odd camera angles are interesting and necessary to compensate for the elements that are missing in the personal in-house experience, they make the art form seem even more artificial. We’re not meant to see the globs of stage makeup or the visible set rigging. We want to believe that Rheinmaidens can swim but seeing the terror in their eyes as they get hoisted skyward dampens the effect.

The HD production has logistical problems for the audience as well. Any Wagner opera, and the Ring in particular, requires careful bladder management. Rheingold is two and a half hours long without an intermission. (It gets tougher. That’s just the first act of Götterdämmerung.) The HD experience increases the degree of difficulty. Before the opera starts, there is a half-hour behind-the-scenes presentation that, unfortunately, gives away far too many moments that would have been nice surprises, without contributing anything useful. So, show up a half-hour late, right? Sorry, no. Even with ticket in hand, these events are so popular that you need to arrive at least a half hour before that so you’re not stuck in the front row, an hour if you want a decent seat. Don’t drink even a drop of water for at least 72 hours before curtain time. That’s the only possible strategy.

Finally, the lights dim and Maestro Levine sneaks onto the podium. There’s a downbeat, and that famous low E-flat rises out of the darkness. Unlike in the previous production that began at such a lethargic tempo (I liked it, actually) this Rhine music bubbles right along, and we’re off. And then we see it. The set. Oooh. Ahhh.

Huh?

I can imagine exactly what happened. It started in the first production meeting. The creative team is sitting around a table tossing around suggestions. “There are no bad ideas in brainstorming,” someone cheerfully says. Sometimes there are. “Imagine a stage full of silver plank thingies that undulate up and down to make waves or assemble themselves into mountaintops or twist and turn to become underground caverns. Wouldn't that be cool?” It would, if the laws of physics didn’t intercede. In order to carry the weight of all that scenery, not to mention singers, the planks became huge and the effect is more like a giant Dr. Seuss piano keyboard or a bad science-fiction starship than any sort of magical transformation. The result is that every set looks approximately the same and no single set looks remotely right. It’s beautiful, in a weird Metropolis kind of way, but it makes no sense.

Back to that fateful meeting. Here’s the next great notion: “You know, out in Seattle, the Rheinmaidens fly around the stage while they sing and, I don’t know how they do it, but they really look like they’re swimming. Let’s show them how we do things here in New York. Everyone will fly!” (A round of cheers.) “And if not fly, then they can walk up walls like Spiderman!” Yes, they walk up walls. As Anna Russell famously said, “I’m not making this up.”

This one magic trick is cute in the opening scene, but turning Loge into a Marvel superhero is painful to watch. Richard Croft spends so much time wall walking that he has to play the whole opera in what looks like a giant iron diaper. The costume designers do their best to disguise it by making all the Houdini-like straps appear to be decorative, but if you’re hoping for a mischievous Loge leaping around flame-like, you’re out of luck. He sure does walk up and down walls, though. Very. Very. Slowly. I don’t blame him. I wouldn’t trust that apparatus either. Here he is standing behind Gerhard Siegel who is absolutely delightful as Mime. They look equally uncomfortable, and one is a miserable slave while the other is a semi-god, supposedly with a sense of humor.

None of this is important for Wagner purists, though. Only three questions matter: How is the singing? Is the orchestra any good?  And is the dragon scary?

The good news is that the Metropolitan Orchestra is magnificent and the singing is splendid. I never thought I’d see a Wotan who could compare with James Morris. Bryn Terfel is rougher, far less regal, but with a powerful, compelling voice that still make his foibles believable. Here’s another example where the HD experience detracts, though. Rather than wearing a patch over his missing eye, a lock of curly black hair seems plastered to one side of his face. It seems wrong to me and, up close, it’s very distracting.

Anyway, he seems promising. Much of the success of the story will hinge on whether we believe the complex relationship between Mr.Terfel’s Wotan and Deborah Voigt's Brünnhilde, but we have to wait for Die Walküre to know how well that works.

The other voices are fine as well. Eric Owens makes a creepy Alberich, although I wonder if the fact that he’s called Black Alberich at times in the libretto affected the casting choice. Stephanie Blythe is imposing as Mrs. Fricka Wotan – clearly not a force to be taken lightly. (The big question next opera might well by why it takes Wotan so long to accede to her demands.) The gods are godly and the giants are giant.

Speaking of the giants, they and Freia are involved in the loveliest moment of the production, and the goofiest. Wendy Bryn Harmer is perfect as the Girl of the Golden Apples who gets traded to the Giants to pay for the construction of Valhalla. Fafner and Fasolt are kin but they don’t see eye to eye on the value of the pretty blonde. For Fafner, she’s the key to robbing power from the gods, but Fasolt is a gentler soul. When it looks like he might be losing Freia, Fasolt sings of his rough giant love for this girl who is, let’s face it, way out of his league. In a beautiful piece of stage direction, Freia, who has probably never heard such a pure declaration of love, turns to him and, for just a brief moment, sympathizes. More than that, she’s visibly affected by this show of affection, and even takes a step towards him. It choked me up.

All that is forgotten during the piling-up-the-gold scene, though. This is always problematic in any production. The treasure has to be piled high enough to cover Freia’s beauty. Her hair is visible over the top so the magic helmet must be tossed into the bargain. Finally, only her eye is still visible to love-struck Fasolt through a small chink in the heap, and the Ring is pried from Wotan’s finger to fill that final gap. It’s a nice metaphor but staging is a nightmare. The Metropolitan solution is to throw Freia into a hammock and pile gold on top of her. It looks ridiculous.

Finally, what about the monster? Is it a realio-trulio dragon? Wagner’s stage direction calls it only a serpent so many productions simply give us a big snake, saving the real fire-breathing dragon for Siegfried to battle later on in the cycle.

This one is somewhere in between. It has a big dragon head but it’s more stylized (like the set) than realistic (like the costumes.) In fact, it looks more like a float on Chinese New Year. It wraps around the back of the stage, supposedly, which is a nice touch, but it’s not remotely frightening. They should just show us the machinery that operates the set. That’s got to be terrorizing.

So, that’s it. I’m not completely impressed but, I hope I’m making this clear; I loved every moment of it. I can’t wait for the sequel, and I’ll be there, standing in line with my print-at-home Fandango ticket. I hope I can see the production live before it shuts down. The previous one lasted 20 years, so perhaps I have a little time.