I'm sure I'm not alone in finding pleasure in Steve Almond's piece calling

blogger Mark Sarvas, aka The Elegant Variation, to account for his needless critical

cruelty.

My writing was on the receiving end of some of Sarvas' disdain and I had the

sense to call him out on the attack. In an email that he shot back to me he used

less elegant terms than seen on his blog to communicate his feelings for my

work, making sure I understood my persona non grata status in the world of

writing and literature.

So, from my point of view Almond's smackdown of Sarvas was well-earned and very

satifying to witness. Let Sarvas agonize over and rebut Almond's version of

events. The blogger's shoot first and ask questions later attitude is clear and

I'll believe the version presented by someone who makes a living personally

creating literature first-hand.

Most litblogging is second hand at best. Many bloggers have set themselves up as

authorities with no real bona fides, but rather buy their positions by renting

some cyber real estate and giving their sites literary and writerly names and scavenging

media online and off for news they can post after appending "clever" headlines and comments to,

all in the name of contributing to the literary "conversation."

Bloggers have argued that their personal opinions are only that and disagreeing readers should

not confront them, but just go somewhere else. I understand the

point of view of an established writer not confronting a legitimate mainstream

media critic; say, Maslin of the NY Times. Traditional -- though perhaps

unwritten -- rules about this have always existed. But a blogger having the same

legitimacy or authority as a MSM reporter/writer is usually not the case. The

validity of any critiques they offer amidst the linkage and gossip of their blog

should be questioned, both directly and in essays like Almond's.

It makes me think of the inner city person who decides to be the neighborhood

doctor and proceeds to treat people without a degree or license. Sooner or later

they will hurt someone as they practice without the necessary skills and

education.

Those who take a blogger's opinions as authoritative and so are influenced to avoid

a writer's work are accessories to the crime of preventing a writer from making

a living.

Thoughtful readers should remember that for all the blustering about higher literary

pursuit that comes out of the litblogosphere, when you read a blog you are

usually reading a gossip column, written by one of the cult of literati.

Almond's essay shed light on a real problem, to the benefit of real writers

fighting a daily uphill battle to survive. And I think he deserves our thanks.

I haven't read much from either of these guys, nor do I care about the petty squabbling. But I have to say that it was a very interesting and worthwhile piece to read. Not because Almond is able to overcome the shackles of his artistic and commercial success to "forgive" Sarvas, but because it's a great portrayal of the world of blogging.

The irony is that Almond as a writer has the maturity to express his own puerility. Sarvas is below him, a self-inflated poser who pathetically thinks that it is quaint to use the "royal we". Yet Almond still feels the need to reduce himself to ad hominem attacks in the face of Sarvas' criticism.

I don't think Sarvas could write a piece that would so eloquently reveal his own faults as well as Almond has revealed his.

This type of story is straight out of something like "This American Life", and I love it. It fits well with Salon's blog theme. Don't change a thing.