I think self-blurbing is the future – think about it: who knows your book better than you? I mean nothing prevents an honest writer to put a humble “This book is okay, but not a must-read, I could have done a better job, but read it anyway, please?”
Or, “It took so long for this book actually to get to press that I only stand by chapters two & four now, which leaves you with a nice, manageable essay.”
It’s hard to find ‘big names’ that are actually communists; social democrats there are aplenty, but someone willing to denounce parliamentary democracy? That’s why he and Slavoj were the only ones who could blurb it in good faith.
I’m disappointed my publisher didn’t offer me the same option — perhaps on the model of newspaper/magazine reviews that are often quoted by the publication instead of the author, so it could be “An und für sich (blog)” instead of “Adam Kotsko.”
Anthony,
I was about to concede your point, but I thought I’d run through the always-enjoyable process of replying with cliches.
disclaimer: “well, y’know I was sort of joking, and it was an off-the-cuff remark anyway, intended to be light-hearted, &c”
partial admission of guilt: “I mean, what does he mean by Communism anyway?? I should know, but I haven’t read the book…. ”
standard qualification: “By ‘denounce’ I didn’t just mean criticise, but to actually call into question the appropriateness of parliamentary democracy for any and all societies engaged in political organisation of themselves….”
change the goalposts: “…and by parliamentary, I really mean representative democracy of any kind, and by that, I really mean democracy of any kind…”
attempt to employ a disconfirming example: “Because, I mean, Vattimo was at that conference, and he only ascribes to a ‘weak communism’ which is really just a fancy version of social democracy, because, I mean, would Vattimo say that he didn’t want the People determining themselves??”
make fallacious argument: “and, of course, Vattimo himself was a member of the European parliament, therefore he can’t be against parliamentary democracy…”
imply that we both really agree, it was just a difference in how we defined our terms: “so yeah, I take your point, but I basically think we agree, we just had different ostensible meanings for the central concepts…”
end with an attempt to establish rapport: “… so, yeah… how bout them Yankees?”
And now I'm back to hating everyone on the entire internet. 1 hour ago
The consequences of bankruptcy couldn't possibly be worse for Detroit than what's happening now. 1 hour ago
In any case, The Girlfriend has declared that we're having homemade pizza twice this weekend, so this is basically the best week of my life. 1 hour ago
What if urban planning was focused more on encouraging people to *live* in the city than to *visit* it? 16 hours ago
Alone among all garments, cargo shorts cannot be worn ironically. 1 day ago
I get email! "That said, I easily get caught up in the fantasy of seeing every film worth seeing--which surely can't be such a high number." 2 days ago
I don't care if those two songs Kanye did on SNL were incompatible w/ everything I'm supposed to know about him: I loved them. 3 days ago
Monday, September 27, 2010 at 10:48 pm
I think self-blurbing is the future – think about it: who knows your book better than you? I mean nothing prevents an honest writer to put a humble “This book is okay, but not a must-read, I could have done a better job, but read it anyway, please?”
Monday, September 27, 2010 at 10:53 pm
Or, “It took so long for this book actually to get to press that I only stand by chapters two & four now, which leaves you with a nice, manageable essay.”
Tuesday, September 28, 2010 at 12:16 am
I own a book that has the exact blurbs from the author’s other book on the back, perhaps this indicates the author himself doesn’t stand by his work.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010 at 2:18 am
It’s hard to find ‘big names’ that are actually communists; social democrats there are aplenty, but someone willing to denounce parliamentary democracy? That’s why he and Slavoj were the only ones who could blurb it in good faith.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010 at 9:23 am
Any of the other speakers at the Idea of Communism conference, most of them big names, are willing to denounce parliamentary democracy. So…
Tuesday, September 28, 2010 at 9:58 am
In the interests of full-disclosure: the book is really quite good & worth your time.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010 at 10:19 am
I’m disappointed my publisher didn’t offer me the same option — perhaps on the model of newspaper/magazine reviews that are often quoted by the publication instead of the author, so it could be “An und für sich (blog)” instead of “Adam Kotsko.”
Tuesday, September 28, 2010 at 10:57 am
Is it really a blurb? And not just the earlier statement of the hypothesis? Am I killing the joke?
Wednesday, September 29, 2010 at 3:10 am
Anthony,
I was about to concede your point, but I thought I’d run through the always-enjoyable process of replying with cliches.
disclaimer: “well, y’know I was sort of joking, and it was an off-the-cuff remark anyway, intended to be light-hearted, &c”
partial admission of guilt: “I mean, what does he mean by Communism anyway?? I should know, but I haven’t read the book…. ”
standard qualification: “By ‘denounce’ I didn’t just mean criticise, but to actually call into question the appropriateness of parliamentary democracy for any and all societies engaged in political organisation of themselves….”
change the goalposts: “…and by parliamentary, I really mean representative democracy of any kind, and by that, I really mean democracy of any kind…”
attempt to employ a disconfirming example: “Because, I mean, Vattimo was at that conference, and he only ascribes to a ‘weak communism’ which is really just a fancy version of social democracy, because, I mean, would Vattimo say that he didn’t want the People determining themselves??”
make fallacious argument: “and, of course, Vattimo himself was a member of the European parliament, therefore he can’t be against parliamentary democracy…”
imply that we both really agree, it was just a difference in how we defined our terms: “so yeah, I take your point, but I basically think we agree, we just had different ostensible meanings for the central concepts…”
end with an attempt to establish rapport: “… so, yeah… how bout them Yankees?”
Wednesday, September 29, 2010 at 3:32 am
I can’t say self-blurbing is working for me.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010 at 8:24 am
Ha! Did you see Vattimo? It was so awful. Like someone gave crazy rambling grandpa a microphone.