The joys and pitfalls of blogging

Blogging has its joys, one of which is to share my love for Jack Kerouac with others and make connections with fellow Kerouacians. It also has its downsides such as negative responses. I don't get a lot of replies, but when I do -- unless they are ad hominem attacks -- I typically publish them (they don't post automatically so that when I am called abusive names it spares you from reading such things -- you wouldn't believe what I've been called).

On my return from Europe I had a couple of replies that were definitely unpleasant for me to read, but they didn't rise to the level of ad hominem attacks so I have posted them.

One was by "Joe Zaloom" here: John Fante.

The other by "Anonymous" here: Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace Part 2.

I don't know who either person is, and for all I know it's the same person, but in any case I ruffled some feathers (the former may or may not be an actor with Die Hard With a Vengeance and other notable movies to his credit). I didn't mean to offend, and I will look for constructive criticism in the replies.

Yes, I could have read some Fante before blogging about him, but in my defense I did say in my post that it was something I probably needed to do. And yes, my review of Infinite Jest was admittedly a personal reaction and not a scholarly analysis, and on re-reading it I guess it does come off pretty self-centered. Blogging takes some degree of ego, right? That is, a blogger presumes that she or he has something of interest to say.

But . . . and this is important . . . it's my blog and I get to determine what I blog about, not you, Joe, and not you, Anonymous. You have the right to weigh in, of course, as you have done.

And so it goes . . . .

P.S. If anyone wants to reply to Joe or Anonymous, feel free. But leave out the ad hominems or your reply won't get posted.