Bryan Appleyard’s Notorious Nobodies
British art and culture critic Bryan Appleyard is trying to say something about fame and the internet and “Web 2.0″, but since he gets nearly all of the technical details wrong, it’s hard to tell what point he’s making, other than that he doesn’t like a lot of what he sees on the online.
Of course no curmudgeonly rant about the vapidity of the internet would be complete without a mention of sex and porn. So who’s Bryan’s target? Violet Blue! Writes Bryan:
“In Web 1.0, human nature expressed itself primarily through lust and greed. Everybody was trying – and failing – to find new ways of making money, and delivering pornography was the main purpose of the web. Both are still present in Web 2.0, but they have changed. Making money, through online gambling and advertising focused on individual users, for example, exploits the new levels of interactivity. Pornography is now delivered with streaming video and, frequently, high levels of interactivity. In addition, there are now porn social-networking sites. You can post your home-made porn on one site and join in the fun as a voyeur on another. And there are endless sites offering the full 2.0 sex experience. Violet Blue calls herself a “pro-blogger, podcaster, vlogger and femmebot”. She’s written “ultimate guides” to cunnilingus and fellatio and, of course, The Smart Girl’s Guide to the G-Spot. Her site is a sex shop and supermarket of self-promotion – lust and recognition all in one super-refined techno-package. As one leading British thinker put it, “How come the highest technology is always used for the lowest purposes?” (Emphasis mine.)
I can’t tell you who Bryan’s “leading British thinker” is. The quote only returns Bryan’s diatribe on Google, and it’s not in any of the quotation books I have either. Pity, because I’d like to see the context of the quote, and make my own judgement as to whether this “leading British thinker” believes the enjoyment of sex is “the lowest purpose.” Obviously Bryan does, which I suppose explains why he is so sardonic about his advancing age.
None of us are as young as we used to be, Bryan.
Unlike Bryan’s blog, Violet’s doesn’t even allow user comments, which are the sin non qua for Web 2.0. Nor is there any other aspect of user-interactivity on Tinynibbles.com, and there’s even less adverting than on TinyNibbles.com than there is on Bryan’s site.
Bryan, why such a hard-on for Ms. Blue?
July 30th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Yeah, what you said!! I am not unknown for a curmudgeonly rant or two (and applaud them in all their incarnations), but Appleyard couldn’t even be bothered to understand WTF he was talking about before he started writing about it.
This is a classic case of a non-story, written by someone who knows that there’s no story here, because he/she hasn’t bothered to find it and already knows what he/she thinks. This seems to be a common technique in the mainstream media in covering 1) “Web 2.0″, and of course 2) anything about sexual variation, porn included.
It’s bad enough when someone exposes his idiocy on a blog, but as a professional writer, when mainstream media companies spend actual money on acquiring content like this, it drives me even crazier.
July 30th, 2007 at 11:34 am
The Times didn’t buy Bryan’s essay so much as they bought his name; and I suppose after several decades of writing and teaching and criticizing, Bryan’s entitled to cash in on whatever credibility he’s earned with the occasional ill-informed rant. Think of it as a low-rent version of Nicolas Cage in THE ROCK.
In any case, Bryan’s version of intelligentsia – folks who are (by and large) intimidated by both the quadratic equation and HTML, yet have no qualms about making (errant) references to relativity and quantum mechanics – is going the way of the dodo. More likely that’s the source of Bryan’s meanness than any titillation he was caused by Violet’s panties, or wound he suffered because she didn’t write him back.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
I also have to ask what “leading British thinker” would begin a question with “How come?” Everyone knows that all the big boys–and girls–ask “Why?”
kissykiss,
chelsea g
July 30th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
I supposed “how come” is meant to convey a sort of long suffering exasperation. Ennui and world-weariness sometimes pass for sophistication…
July 30th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
You Tube didn’t exist two years ago. In October 2006 Google paid $US1.65 billion for it. Ruperts Murdoch’s News Corp then acquired MySpace for $US580 million. Fabulous or not - the “nobodies” appear to have value of the monetary kind.
It maybe the terribly low brow, self promoting circles in which I circulate but I will admit to having heard about the “Will It Blend” site before I knew who Bryan was.
My nine year old doesn’t get away with “How come?”