I apologize for being insipid and obnoxious on a holiday

Bob Garfield dropped by to respond to my glib comment regarding his article in Wired and Advertising Age.

Garfield wrote:

I’ve been writing criticism for well over 20 years, so I believe I have pretty good standing on this: what an insipid blog item you’ve written.

If there was something — even everything — you didn’t like about the piece, then say so, and be specific. What you’ve produced here is just vaguely nasty, but otherwise meaningless. Which is to say: obnoxious.

He’s right. The post was obnoxious and insipid and nasty and meaningless. But I disagree with him on one point: it was not vague. I was very precise in what I felt was the problem with his piece: Never has so much been written to say so little. It was for me (and I began with the caveat, “At least for me…”) like he was trying to explain the color blue to someone who has been blind since birth. My blog post — read by a few — was merely commenting on his piece that, I assume, was written for the great un-washed hundreds of thousands of readers of Wired and Advertising Age. I assumed the readers of this post would understand what I meant in the two sentences I wrote — it didn’t need further explanation. Apparently, I was wrong.

That said, I agree with Garfield: Mine was a cheap shot. And, I apologize (I keep forgetting that critics are real people, also.)

  • Bob Garfield

    well, that was classy. and more specific. please know that i can dish it out and i can take it — i just want to know what it is i’m taking.

    — bg