Rick Moody Rips Author Blogs

Rick Moody, author of "The Ice Storm" and other literary works with a strong cult following, claims that old fashioned paper books and the internet "seem inimical to one another." Ironically, the author made the remarks in video clip featured on the website Big Think.

"A lot of writing in blogs is superficial and it's not revised," the author continues. "And so it's got a lot of carelessness about it."

Moody does have a somewhat impudent reputation. Referring to his new novel, "The Four Fingers of Death," The Los Angeles Times wrote, "Moody is cynical, in a cowboy sort of way."

Does this mean that Moody is good enough to ditch the internet all together?

The New York Times does not seem to think so: "It's no fun to read," the paper wrote about his newest novel.

But what do you think? Should authors continue to blog?

WATCH:

Comments

[greenredblack]

11:03 AM on 09/15/2010

it's not ironic that he made these comments online. i can see it being ironic if he had a blog himself. but not simply that he--a writer--made a comment about the relationship of the internet & literature, on the internet.

also, he hardly "rips" blogs. your headline should have been "shiiiiit....authors with blogs got pwnd, bitch!"

[Langston Hughes]

01:33 PM on 08/20/2010

This from the man who wrote a dreadful Twitter short story. Yeah, you're worth listening, Rick Moody!

[moose and squirrel]

03:31 AM on 08/19/2010

Considering sarah palin gets more readership than most very good writers, id have to agree.

[David Keith]

07:16 PM on 08/18/2010

Honestly, I'd much rather read an author's book than his blog.

Most author blogs are pretty dull in that they seem to range from too-much-information (I don't care what football team you're rooting or what you had for breakfast) to standard self-promotion (my new novel's out on Tuesday).

[Alette]

06:14 PM on 08/18/2010

The larger issue is that the internet has made it possible for anyone to consider themselves a writer. Although this sounds wonderfully democratic, the result has been a dumbing down of everyone - writers and readers alike. This phenomenon has infected all of the arts though. The result is an unfortunate rise in writers and artists who excel at marketing, but remain lackluster and empty in terms of talent. Another unfortunate side effect is a public that is overwhelmed by too many options, most of which are not worth our time.

[InfinteShibumi]

06:34 PM on 08/18/2010

Excellent post.

[whispurr]

01:17 AM on 08/19/2010

Worse is that it's primarily the "non" writers who are accepting the two-cents-per-word rates that real writers cannot and will not. People need to keep that in mind when reading on the Internet.

[The Iron Cage]

05:38 PM on 08/18/2010

The only way the internet can be detrimental to writers is if they have a tendency to get distracted while trying to get work done.

[Poncia]

01:24 PM on 08/18/2010

Let's see, using a 500-year-old Gutenberg Bible as proof that the durability and sustainability of the paper-printed word is about the best use of a bible I can think of outside of the historical value it has. Still in all, comparing apples to oranges is something you should write a haiku about Rick.

[Occam123]

12:58 PM on 08/18/2010

Is a lab a detriment to a scientist?

[littlemonster]

11:40 AM on 08/18/2010

non issue. sort of like musicians arguing analog versus digital. certain things are just here, and artists will find a way to make their art better as a result, with a lot of awful misfires along the way.

[Occam123]

01:02 PM on 08/18/2010

"non issue.Sort of like musicians arguing analog versus digital."
I strongly disagree
the argument is a valid one.
Digital and analog synthesis produces vastly different sounds, sound-scapes and often results in very different musical product.

I agree with McLuhan's medium is the message.

[David Keith]

07:11 PM on 08/18/2010

Well said.

[SF TKF]

11:13 AM on 08/18/2010

As an author, blogging is the least of my problems. I like to blog. It’s FaceBook and Twitter that are the bane of my existence. I loathe them both, but most publishers now insist you have a presence. Ugh.

[Lev Raphael]

11:08 AM on 08/18/2010

I came to blogging here on HuffPo from over a decade of writing for a wide array of magazines and newspapers and three decades of book publishing and I am a perpetual reviser. I used to edit every review of mine easily a dozen times, and I would say the same for each blog entry posted so far. Yes, the tone is casual, but that doesn't mean the writing is sloppy or careless. I find blogging and writing for Bibliobuffet terrific because I can edit/or have the text edited after it's up in case I missed something or something new occurs to me.

[KalNJ]

10:43 AM on 08/18/2010

Moody is missing the point of blogs and social media. Authors use those technologies as a way to promote themselves, their books and to connect with their readership without a middleman.

Shameless Self Promotion: http://www.ManOfLaBook.com

[Living Hour]

10:06 AM on 08/18/2010

To a certain degree, Moody is likely just being a contrarian here, so as to make news for himself. On the other hand, his observations are related to a significant point; that is, if authors do blog, they probably should do it with as much care and thought as if they were writing a book for publication. The nice thing about author blogs is that it gives the writer a forum to write about things they might not discuss so much in their novels or non-fiction books, which often (especially these days) must be targeted to s specific niche market.

U. Tapila
http://www.livinghour.org

[Donusko]

09:51 AM on 08/18/2010

Blogging for most authors is little more than light entertainment mixed with a strong dose of marketing, getting the name out there, hoping to sell a few books. It's harmless. It won't interfere with the work of any writer worthy of the name, and might offer bad writers something to do that keeps their bad books from cluttering up bookstores.