How to be a Popular Blogger

Michelle Catalano explains how to become a popular blogger (Hat Tip - Evangelcal Outpost) (and oh by the way - she is being satirical here - and be forewarned - she uses some very salty language and I don't mean salty in the biblical sense):

Sometimes people ask me, how do you become a popular blogger? How do you make a name for yourself and get readers? I'll tell you. Controversy. Raging anger. Venom and spitfire. That's what sells, for the most part. If you aren't a forerunner in the specific area of blogging you want to get into (those guys have it good, they can just be themselves), you have to carve a niche and more likely than not, that niche needs to be carved with a serrated knife coated in lemon juice and salt. Leave some scars and some pain. That will bring them running.

Controversy, people. That's where it's at. Be a controversial vigilante.

Boy that triggers a lot of thoughts.  Keep reading for a meandering mishmash of some of those thoughts.    

The bottom line of Michelle's words here is that, in the blogging world, nice guys finish last.  For many bloggers that is no big deal because they really aren't out to get famous through blogging.  And those who do think they are going to get famous through blogging just need to get a clue.  Glen Reynolds did it and you and I probably won't.

There is an interesting aspect to this related to Christian bloggers.  Many Christian bloggers got into it through the exhortations of Hugh Hewitt, who thinks Christians need to expand their influence in this world and who thinks that blogging is one way to do that.  It is true that blogging can expand one's influence.  There are probably about 10-15 times the number of people who read my blog on a weekly basis as hear me preach on a weekly basis.  But, lest I get the big head about this whole thing I need to remember (and we all need to remember) that the number of people reading my blog is still very small comparitively.  Couple that with the fact that over 50% of those readers are hits from search engines where people probably spent one minute on a good day, and its easy to see that my vast influence isn't all that vast. 

But hey, I'll admit, I'd still love to get more readers and I think most honest bloggers would like to get more readers also.  So, how about Michelle's advice that to be popular you have to be a controversialist?  Can a Christian follow her advice to keep a knife and some lemon juice and salt by the keyboard?  Should a Christian inflict pain for the sake of popularity.

We all have role models, and many have role models for communication and like Cicero, Churchhill and others of similar standing.  Not me - Rodney King is my rhetoric master and idol.  I'm one of those wimps who has lots of strong opinions but who doesn't like confrontation, so I'm always doing my best to help us all just get along.   Even when I'm pushed to the wall and can't find common ground with someone who disagrees with me, I still feel bad about it.

It's kind of assumed that Christians should always play nice.  And, for the most part that is true.  Sometimes we think people are offended at the gospel when in fact they are offended at our obnoxiousness.  Some people, Christians included, are jerks and they just can't help themselves.  They think they are standing for righteousness, but they are really turning people away from the truth.

But the fact that some Christians are jerks who overdo it on strong language and controversy doesn't mean that there isn't a place for strong language and controversy.  There is plenty of strong language in the Bible.  In fact, the Bible has many examples of in your face insults.   The heading in my Bible for Matthew 23 is not "Seven Points of Discussion for My Theological Colleagues with Cautions about Potential Errors."  It is "seven woes," and is directed at the Pharisees who are variously called hypocrites, blind guides, blind fools, whitewashed tombs, full of dead men's bones and uncleanness, full of wickedness, snakes, brood of vipers and other fond terms of endearment.  I don't think that Jesus would be invited into a postmodern "conversation" if He chose to use that kind of language.

And what are we to make of the apostle Paul in Galatians 5:12.  He missed a perfect opportunity here to extend an olive branch and attempt to find common ground with his opponents.  He could have wished for them to go back and re-think their positions, read some literature from the Banner of Truth and then come back for more dialogue.  Instead he told them to, . . . well you'll have to read the text to see what he told them to do. 

The Sacred Sandwich has a wonderful list of letters to the editor from people who would have objected to Paul's letter to the Galatians had it been in Christianity Today in these modern/postmodern times.  The Galatians 5:12 incident is referenced in this letter:

To the Editors:

Paul Apostle says that he hopes the Galatian teachers will cut off their own privates?   What kind of Christian attitude is this? Shame on him!

Martha Bobbitt; Boulder, CO

And of course, the precedent for insult, invective, controversy, serration and general social questionability has long been established in the church.  There are many we could look at, but Martin Luther just seems to have surpassed nearly all who came before him and after him in his ability to insult and use colorful language, and all in the name of Christ.  Here are a few snippets.

Erasmus of Rotterdam is the vilest miscreant that ever disgraced the earth.

Erasmus is very pitiful with his prefaces, . . . Shame upon thee, accursed wretch! `Tis a mere Momus, making his mows and mocks at everything and everybody, at God and man, at papist and protestant, but all the while using such shuffling and double-meaning terms, that no one can lay hold of him to any effectual purpose. Whenever I pray, I pray for a curse upon Erasmus.

I never work better than when I am inspired by anger; for when I am angry, I can write, pray, and preach well, for then my whole temperament is quickened,my understanding sharpened, and all mundane vexations and temptations depart.

Almost every night when I wake up the devil is there and wants to dispute with me. I have come to this conclusion: When the argument that the Christian is without the law and above the law doesn't help, I instantly chase him away with a fart.

In our day, Doug Wilson has written a book called A Serrated Edge, wherein he says:

But if a Christian employs satire today, he is almost immediately called to account for his “unbiblical” behavior. Yet Scripture shows that the central point of some religious controversies is to give offense. When Christ was confronted with ecclesiastical obstinacy and other forms of arrogance, he showed us a godly pattern for giving offense. In every controversy, godliness and wisdom (or the lack of them) are to be determined by careful appeal to the Scriptures and not to the fact of someone having taken offense. Perhaps they ought to have taken offense, and perhaps someone ought to have endeavored to give it.

So, we have Biblical examples of satire, insult and invective, we have historical examples from heroes of the faith and we have mini-theologies/apologies for the use of a serrated edge.  Bringing this back to the blog world, blogs thrive on this stuff.  Michelle Catalano says this:

It reminds me of the days back before there was war blogging, before there was such a plethora of news blogs. There was this sudden phase where bloggers just started throwing rocks at each other. Who was saying what about who, who was being attacked in the comments, lots of he said/she said and a general eruption of bad blood. A lot of people stopped reading blogs or blogging all together at that point. And that's where I'm at now. It's ugly out there. And if there's one thing I learned from being stuffed in the cocoon of Internet politics for too long (most leading up to the election) is that it's never as bad on the outside as it seems in the vacuum of the blog world. It's like a tornado in here.

La Shawn Barber is a big enough blogger that trolls and people with too many opinions in their heads and too much time on their hands seem to flock to her.  She quotes Pat Sajak, yes that Pat Sajak:

It seems there is something about anonymity which brings out the worst in us.

Then she goes on:

Anonymous online communication can be very liberating. While some people have legitimate reasons for using a pseudonym, the cowardly can hide behind fake names and say the kind of things they wouldn’t say to someone’s face. I often wonder what my obsessed trolls look and sound like.

I can’t imagine that they’re tall, handsome and successful. They’re probably overweight or short or meek. In my mind they are effete, ineffectual and unmanly losers. Leaving a comment on this blog is probably the most exciting part of their day. Sajak imagines them this way:

Ignored by his co-workers or neighbors, stuck in a job he hates (if he has one at all), he sits and seethes in front of a computer screen, where he is finally able to get some attention. People respond to him and talk to him and about him. His outbursts can change the course of any discussion on any topic. Finally, people actually care about what he says. He is somebody.

 

So, to add this all up we have Biblical and historical example, and theological justification for all of this strong language, plus blogs create an environment where anonymous "obsessed trolls" can become big bad wolves through controversialism, and we have a top tier blogger satirically reminding us that this stuff sells.  It would be easy to jump on the bandwagon and start letting the flames fly.  But before we do we need to consider a few more things.

Satire, controversy, invective and the like are almost an art form which, when done properly, can make a good point.  But when it comes to this stuff some got it and some ain't got it.  Some who try to blog this way will be like me going to a junior high dance back in the 70's.  I came to puberty around the time John Travolta came to fame with Saturday Night Fever.  So, when it came time for junior high dances I donned my silk shirts, unbuttoned down to here, and went to the dance trying to look cool.  I didn't walk into the room I strutted into the room, quite sure that everyone was impressed with my John Travolta.  In truth, I just looked goofy.  And some will try to imitate Luther's tough-talk or Mark Twain's wit and will end up looking more like a bad imitation of Don Rickles.

Also, this stuff is not for the bitter at heart.  The best satirists and controversialists are usually good humored folks.  G. K. Chesterton comes to mind.  No one could skewer an opponent quite like him, yet he maintained a jolly attitude about the whole thing.  Blogs can offer bitter little toads the opportunity to pose as mighty dragons, but its hard to hide their toadiness for long.

Finally, satire, controversy, and all of this stuff is best used in service to make a point, not to create an affect.  Sometimes there is a point to be made that can best be made by some type of invective.  If something is ridiculous in and of itself then it helps to treat it as the ridiculous thing it is.  Taking the ridiculous seriously adds weight to the ridiculous thing that it ought not to bear.  In that regard, there is an appropriate use of ridicule.  But to ridicule something just to gain a hearing, or to get more readers, well such a thing is ridiculous.  You might as well make it your habit to dance through malls in your silk shirt unbuttoned down to here while singing "staying alive" at the top of your lungs.  You'll get attention, but for all the wrong reasons.

Comments

[rebecca]

"There are probably about 10-15 times the number of people who read my blog on a weekly basis as hear me preach on a weekly basis." 

Just though I'd let you know I come out ahead of you on THAT ratio.

[Rey]

Ouch. Lots of language in that post. Faint-sighted, beware. On the opposite end, to make sure that you have very few read your blog--consistantly reflect on the Majesty of Christ alone. Now THAT's sad.

[Mike]

While I am a very recent entrant into the realm of blogging, I've been an active "opinionist" since the early 80's when we ran BBS systems.

In my 24 years of writing in the public forum, I find daily that I still have a lot to learn. These are good words and true words.

More, if you are a Christian Blogger as am I, you will trust in the Lord to use or not use your blog for his purposes - sure, know the ropes and this post is a good start, but don't be too much like the rest of the world.

It's not our calling.

That's just my two cents.

More of it here> http://www.mikes2cents.com

-Mike

[Catez]

Lol Rebecca - you are funny. But I have a problem with the maths. If 0 people per week hear me preach then how can I have x times more than that? e.g. 10-15 times 0 = 0. Woe!
Anyway - why are Christians complaining about minors not getting the death penalty when gun control is more important and is gay marriage wrong when children need two parents and was it appropriate to sing a hymn to Mary at Pope John Paul's funeral mass? (Is that the sort of stuff will make me popular?)

[David Wayne]

Rey - thanks for pointing that out - I'm going to add a little disclaimer about the language to the original post. What did you mean by the last sentence? Is it that there is very little appetite for Christ-exalting blogging?

[Rey]

Yes Brother David, I find that Christians in general tend to focus on peripherals rather than Christ. Do a series on Colossians 1 for seven Sundays or a series of Angels and Demons for the same period of time and note how many people a) come and b) stay awake. I find that Godbloggers don't look at the wonder of Christ but rather using what He said as support for positional statements. I'm just as guilty of this.

I know, that Blogs are often just an expression of thought to digital paper, but I wonder if the Majesty and multifaceted Greatness of Christ shouldn't be more on our thoughts and being transcribed to digital paper. Afterwards, I wonder how many believers will revel in that.

[Paula]

It may seem like a fine line between these two terms, but I have come to eschew the term 'Christian bloggers' for the (longer, but) more desired term 'bloggers who are Christians.' It's sort of like the difference between Christian books and books written by Christians. Not every book that I've read that was written by a Christian seemed 'Christian,' where 'Christian' becomes an adjective. I read the blogs I like on a regular basis, reading between the lines all the time. I keep looking for Christ in the 'Christian blog.' I hope I can realize this standard myself. (Please, someone, keep me honest.) Not sure this comment is relevant to the topic, but it was what jumped into my head/heart.

[Teem]

I am very capable of sarcasm and invective. I enjoy word play and can say some perhaps unfortunate things in the process.
All those things may make for interesting blogging, but I'm not sure I want to go there.
In fact I've deleted some posts that I thought were too sarcastic. I wasn't comfortable with having them out there for the record--even if nobody that matters to me would ever see it.
I also wonder if all the controversy and uninhibited, even nasty debate in the blogosphere qualifies as "whatever is edifying."
I'm not sure.
Just wondering about this stuff.
I want readers, but I also want to be genuinely edifying.
The balance can be difficult.

[Amy's Humble Musings]

One time I made a passing comment about grits, and boy, that sent everyone talking. I don't even know what my post was about...

[rev-ed]

Isn't this the principle of the Shock Jock from radio. People tune in to hear what will happen next. The more outrageous the better. Cross that line. Push that envelope.

It seems to me as a "blogger who is a Christian" that we are to be calling attention to our Savior and not ourselves.

[pgepps]

Good thoughts. I'd point out that Luther's invective might be as good an example of rage-aholism (addiction to rage-ahol, see The Simpsons episode "Incredible Hulk Homer") as we may hope we'll ever see--reminds me of C.S. Lewis commenting on his addiction to cigarettes in one of his letters.

However, the real point of this comment was to note the delightfully hashed metaphor in one of your quotes from Catalano. She says it is "like a tornado in here." Where is in here? The "vacuum" of the political blogosphere.

The "tornado in a vacuum" description may well rank up with Shakespeare's "take arms against a sea of troubles" in my mind. :-)

Cheers!
PGE

[pgepps]

On another minor note (sorry, afterthought): When I teach composition, I remind my students that an important consideration for the use of sarcasm is that it is *heavily* dependent on tone of voice, and is very unlikely to work in print.

Humorous (Horatian) satire, or even Juvenalian (vicious--see Jonathan Swift, who went from Dean in the Anglican church to inmate at Bedlam on the stuff) satire, is quite another thing--as you say, an art form--than merely transcribing sarcastic verbal stylings to the written word.

Cheers,
PGE

[Catez]

Re: my trackback. have done a little editing - I think it continues the discussion well now.

[Jason Dollar]

This is really a helpful blog. Really, you remind me of what it is all about. A good overriding principle would be the question, "Who am I bloggin for?" If we are blogging for the glory of God, then there are certain restraints that He places on us - namely the fruit of the spirit. But, of course, we must speak the truth, for we are His ambassadors. Truth can sometimes seem brutal and yet we know it leads to freedom. Grace!

[Oengus Moonbones]

quote: “Controversy. Raging anger. Venom and spitfire. That's what sells…”

Well, if that’s all that’s needed, then be sure to stop by and read “Lunar Skeletons” and see if it has enough controversy, raging anger, venom, spit, and fire.