January 09, 2005

Election

Posted by John Holbo

Hey, I'm nominated for a Koufax for Best Writing! Since I'm competing against, among others, Crooked Timber, this is a little awkward. But keep in mind that when people say Size Matters, what they mostly mean is that Grotesque Length matters. (How much post you've got tucked under the fold. I hope I don't have to draw you a map.) Vote Holbo.

I'm too much like that Chris Klein character to vote for myself, however. I think I'm voting for Yglesias. I think I learn more from him on a regular basis than from any other blogger. Of course, his posts are drafty and full of typos, so it depends what you mean by 'best writing'. I figure James Wolcott is going to trounce us all anyway.

Posted on January 9, 2005 04:21 PM UTC
Comments

Yes, Yglegias should get best thinking, not best writing. Both are rare but good thinking is probably rarer than writing??

Posted by Angry Moderate · January 9, 2005 04:31 PM

I like Yglesias, but I learn far more from Holbo & Co. than I do from him.

Posted by pedro · January 9, 2005 04:43 PM

The thing is that Matt’s writing is unusually well-organized, in an argumentative sense, and quite clear. It’s rough, yes. But there is a sense in which he not only thinks well but presents what he thinks in an especially economic fashion. You read three 500 word posts by Matt and you really get three big ideas. Three diamonds in the rough. Me? A 7000 word post buys you a big idea, five fine distinctions, and a Modok joke. Arguably, Matt is the better deal. Unless you really like Modok jokes.

Posted by jholbo · January 9, 2005 04:45 PM

But thank you for your support, Pedro. Vote Holbo (& co.)!

Posted by jholbo · January 9, 2005 04:48 PM

Unless you really like Modok jokes.

Which some of us do. Yglesias has entirely wrongheaded attitudes toward comics.

Posted by Jacob T. Levy · January 9, 2005 05:15 PM

I find Yglesias plenty funny. He takes opportunities where they come, and doesn’t go out of his way for it. But he’s usually funny when he attempts it.
I don’t think he’s a particularly good writer, he just writes things that are well written. Political blogs are essential run-on oped pieces. He needs to be persuasive or make people feel better about their beliefs. He’s too condescending, classist and lacks the requisite empathy to be very persuasive. At the same time, he’s too wonkish and lacks the moral absolutism required to make people feel better about what they believe.
If he were trying to write summaries of think-tank reports, then he’d be a great writer. He’s a fine journalist. He is not a terribly talented opinion writer.

Posted by Soullite · January 9, 2005 06:39 PM

Vote Young Hegelian!

(Nothing personal, John.)

Posted by Adam Kotsko · January 9, 2005 06:49 PM

Wolcott? What, is the award based on snarkiness and all-around hatefulness?

Posted by Joe M. · January 10, 2005 02:30 AM

By the way, given that James Wolcott admits — apparently in all seriousness — that he actually “roots” for hurricanes to be destructive, it was interesting to see that not only did Wolcott not “root” for the tsunami (not enough Americans killed, perhaps?), but even managed to sneer at President Bush for his press statement on the tsunami.

Posted by Joe M. · January 10, 2005 02:58 AM

How come all these nominations are left wing?

Posted by Giles · January 10, 2005 04:02 AM

jholbo:
No, no, those aren’t typos - if you read enough posts, you’ll see that Matt repeats the same misspelling, thus demonstrating that he actually has the wrong idea about how to spell. This is endearing and quite amusing, because he’s obviously extremely intelligent and (otherwise) very well-educated.

soullite:
If there’s a category for Comment of the Year, then I nominate
“I don’t think he’s a particularly good writer, he just writes things that are well written.”
Ha! YES! You’ve nailed it! Writing things that are well-written has long been the distinguishing feature of the not-particularly good writer, and Matt has never stopped failing to not be one of those. Or something.

Posted by The Navigator · January 10, 2005 04:59 AM

jholbo:
No, no, those aren’t typos - if you read enough posts, you’ll see that Matt repeats the same misspelling, thus demonstrating that he actually has the wrong idea about how to spell. This is endearing and quite amusing, because he’s obviously extremely intelligent and (otherwise) very well-educated.

soullite:
If there’s a category for Comment of the Year, then I nominate
“I don’t think he’s a particularly good writer, he just writes things that are well written.”
Ha! YES! You’ve nailed it! Writing things that are well-written has long been the distinguishing feature of the not-particularly good writer, and Matt has never stopped failing to not be one of those. Or something.

Posted by The Navigator · January 10, 2005 05:00 AM

jholbo:
No, no, those aren’t typos - if you read enough posts, you’ll see that Matt repeats the same misspelling, thus demonstrating that he actually has the wrong idea about how to spell. This is endearing and quite amusing, because he’s obviously extremely intelligent and (otherwise) very well-educated.

soullite:
If there’s a category for Comment of the Year, then I nominate
“I don’t think he’s a particularly good writer, he just writes things that are well written.”
Ha! YES! You’ve nailed it! Writing things that are well-written has long been the distinguishing feature of the not-particularly good writer, and Matt has never stopped failing to not be one of those. Or something.

Posted by The Navigator · January 10, 2005 05:01 AM

All the nominees are lefties because it’s an award for lefty blogs.

As to Wolcott, my prediction that he is going to win was just that - a prediction - not a judgment that he ought to win. He is very funny and writes polished little attack snarks. I can perfectly well see voting him ‘best writer’ on that basis, although I don’t plan to.

Posted by jholbo · January 10, 2005 06:16 AM

How many Holbovian Lengths comprise a Sagan?

Posted by Doug · January 10, 2005 09:26 AM

i had noticed a blogger voting for themselves in this round of koufax and thought it rather immodest. when i called them on it (all in good fun, mind you) they argued it was well within the rules to do so. and while true, it seemed like a weak defense to me. so am i (we) excessively humble or are they (un)exceptionally self aggrandizing?

Posted by turd sandwich · January 10, 2005 02:51 PM

giles — a hint: they’re called the “Koufax awards” for a reason…

Posted by Alex R · January 10, 2005 03:33 PM

I’m sorry John; I wanted to vote for you, I really did. But I had to go with Timothy Burke; I love how high you’re willing to climb and how deep you’re willing to dive, but none of us can touch Tim’s complete control off the springboard, I think. The man is phenomenal.

Not that it matters much; from what I can tell, Wolcott’s fans (I’m not one of them) are out en masse and are going to put him way over the top.

Posted by Russell Arben Fox · January 10, 2005 07:32 PM
Followups

This discussion has been closed. Thanks to everyone who contributed.