The later part, against don’t-worry-be-happy, was merely a pre-emptive reply to, ahem, one particular thread-path the above observations tend to create (i.e., trying to cut it short so it doesn’t unfold into very well-worn channels, given that there’s also some context there …)

[Walt, free free to delete this comment when the version with links is approved out of the moderation queue - the links to your own site were sending it to limbo ]

The later part, against don’t-worry-be-happy, was merely a pre-emptive reply to, ahem, one particular thread-path the above observations tend to create (i.e., trying to cut it short so it doesn’t unfold into very well-worn channels, given that there’s also some context there …)

Jill: In the July 2002 Cites & Insights I commented on Janet Swan Hill’s American Libraries article, quite favorably. It continues to be the best set of guidelines for care & handling of an invited conference speaker that I’ve seen. (Now, how an ALCTS president and widely-published author gets to call herself a “lesser light” among librarians is another question…)

Authority control: I had the devil’s own time tracking down my commentary, and for that matter the article itself, because her name appeared as “Janet Swan Hill” in the article, no hyphen–thus in the H’s, not the S’s.

My point, in the context of previous Cites & Insights discussions, was to note a real-time example for Walt, where the library world does have “its influential leaders, who can often (not always, but often) make an issue prominent or marginalize it.” We can see it right now, that Jenny Levine’s prominence, and how she writes on the issues, has an enormous effect on how the issue is perceived (quote: “This only underscores the disconnect between the conversation happening out there and the conversation happening in here”).

That you are happy yourself doesn’t contradict this point in any way. Nor, more importantly, should it be taken as a rebuff that I should be happy myself.

If we’re going to go down this path, note I’ve gone through the argument an exhausting number of times. It runs like this:

[Please excuse a little exaggeration for effect. I'm trying to avoid strawmen, but also to clearly outline certain parts of the argument with bitter humor.]

Resolved: Blogging (in terms of influences) is hierarchical and full of cronyism, where on a given topic, a very few “gatekeepers” wield enormous power over who is widely heard. If you’re not part of the club, you might as well talk to the wall for all you’ll be heard overall.

Critic: I’m happy writing my diary, or chatting with my friends, or with whatever audience I have. I am content with my station in life. Aren’t you?

Me: That’s nice. No. I’m not happy writing a diary, or chatting. I’m doing this to have an impact, and it’s not working.

Critic: You’re saying diary/chat is bad! And since I enjoy diary/chat, you’re saying I’m a bad person!

Me: No. I think diary/chat is fine, if that’s what you want. But it’s not what I want.

Critic: Then you’re a bad person! And it’s not working because you’re thinking bad thoughts. You should never, ever, talk about how blogging isn’t the bestest most emergent revolutionary New Era Media. You deserve your lowly status, because you aren’t worthy, as shown by your disbelief in Blog Our Saviour.

Me: That sounds like a classic catch-22, that nobody poor can ever write about inequality of wealth, or that psychic powers don’t work because of bad faith.

[I could go on, but I already got carried away]

Again, if you’re happy with your status, great. But, in general, I think it’s a reasonable feeling for others to be unhappy with their statuses. And more importantly, I believe the large structural factors of exponential distribution of influence in discussion, deserve far more recognition and incorporation into people’s understanding of the bogosphere.

“In any case, you have to remember that a speaker is doing you and the organization a favor, whether s/he belongs to the host organization or not. So if there are some things within your power to do to make the speaker feel valued and appreciated, or to uncomplicate her/his life, then do it. ”

I truly like this sentiment. I have spoken at conferences and meeting in the information industry and for other groups, and have been amazed at how this topic is handled. I wish that more organizations realized that the speakers — invited/asked speakers — are doing them a favor, and sometimes the speaker shells out a lot of money to do that favor.

Of course, it’s not my state association (which I don’t belong to, where I have spoken, and where I did get a token payment to cover direct expenses as well as one-day registration).

Sigh. I just renewed ALA and LITA membership online. Nothing to do with this post, but I thought long and hard about LITA…and, frankly, if ALA does increase its dues substantially, I’ll have to think even longer and harder. But that’s a different set of issues, one I raise once in a while at LITA-L.

One little addition: Reading the council thread, I now have one clue as to why I’m not part of Information Today Inc’s traveling circus, er, series of conferences, even though I write two columns for their publications. I always figured it was because I didn’t have anything to say that they wanted to hear–but I now see that it may be partly for other pecuniary reasons. Good enough.

“Sure, this may be a flash in the
biblioblogosphere, but Jenny’s blog is one of the most widely-read blogs,
not just in our profession, but Web-wide. (A famous journalist was
introduced to me earlier this year and–being a man of no internal
filter–he said, “It’s nice to meet you, but I’d really rather meet Jenny
Levine!”) This only underscores the disconnect between the conversation
happening out there and the conversation happening in here…”

(excerpt from one posting)