Ed Hawco’s Blork Blog (coolest name ever!) is the subject of this week’s blog profile. I figured it was about time since the interview I had with him via email happened way back in January.
There’s also an article on the same page (B2, no link because apparently nobody uploaded it to their website) about art in the metro from Expo 67. It features a picture of Metrodemontreal.com’s Matthew McLauchlin (and trust me, he looks absolutely adorable in that picture) in front of paintings at Berri-UQAM that were featured at Expo’s opening.
Hmmm.
The “sample post” excerpt falls flat compared with the original entry. Anecdotes need to unfold completely, not fire out of the starting gate and be suspended in mid-air.
I find it hard to grasp what makes Blork unique from this piece. There are many generic details (everyone’s an amateur photographer, you mention that he writes about what he chooses in the opening paragraph and then restate it in the quote; that’s redundant AND generic) and not enough focused reflection on his narrative tone, content, longetivity, place within the MTL blogging community, etc.
But honestly, with that small a word count, it’s amazing they managed to cram the URL in.
How many words is that article, 200? God damn. I could effortlessly write a longer comment with less content. Attention Gazette, Fagstein needs more inches!
Also, they (I’m assuming an editor did this, not you) shouldn’t put “history” in the article’s title… when there is not one frigging mention of history whatsoever in the body text. “Vague” is also ill-chosen. It comes across as a slur, not a synonym for “varied,” which is what I think you meant.
On the whole, better word choices (“new, interesting picture”? Seriously?) could spice up even slimmer content.
I’m sorry. It just didn’t work for me. Unimaginative.
The unemployed professor will shut up now.
So you liked it?
The headline wasn’t mine, but I can’t use that excuse for the rest. Blork is unfortunately hard to explain. It’s Blork. It’s a blog. It’s Blork Blog.
I think what I was trying to say was*, they need to give you more space, but you kinda hafta earn it, too.
Blork is hard to explain, I agree.
*professors often say that; very slowly and earnestly. No one ever asks: “So why didn’t you say it right in the first place?” I feel academia would benefit if that did happen at least once a year.
“Kind of hard to explain.” Maybe that should be my new tag line. ;-)
But it’s true. Six years and 600,000 words later I’m still trying to explain it — even to myself.
Thanks for the profile!
Pingback: blork blog » Blog Archive » Blork is hard to explain