1. It was a joke. “Or are us drudges disposable?” Note the “us drudges.” The comment as a whole was unfortunate and incorrect, because I confused two circles: the small circle of, well, let’s call them shameless self-promoters, those out to make a name for themselves more than they’re publicizing good works, and the large and mostly non-overlapping circle of movers and shakers (either the LJ anointed or lower-case m&s).

2a-c. The serious point, which I won’t back away from, is that it’s easy to overlook the people who complete projects, keep them running, and generally are essential to any operational technology, in favor of the Stars. And that it’s as important to keep the Implementers as it is to keep the Stars (another overlapping pair of circles, to be sure). So yes, I’m agreeing with 2b. 2a and c are more complicated (heros and stars aren’t necessarily the same…)

3. I’ve explained this too many times now: I meant self-promotion for the sake of self promotion–what Steven Bell has called “shameless self-promotion.” And my original comment was, for what I hope is the last time, too quick and too sloppy.

As for Friday: I like to think there’s room for a little levity on Fridays. And I’m beginning to think some of these discussions need a little more levity.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Reviewing and taking stock occasionally is a good thing. Just a couple of other thoughts.

1) Did you really call all non-limelighted heroes, ‘drudges’? On reading your initial statement, I got the impression that you were taking a shot at the notion of celebrating only those on ‘the list’, which you pointed out categorized the non-listed as menial. Drudges. I never saw where you referred to anyone or their work as ‘drudge’, only the role so many had been cast in.

2) The tougher issue — are the M & S getting too much attention? Two thoughts here.

2-a) you cannot have a hero without a disaster. Someone provided a disaster for every hero, only we don’t always track down the disaster provider. Especially when the disaster arises from doing ‘business as usual’.

2-b) Too much attention? I think rather that too many people aren’t getting enough attention. Spread the wealth and attention around, and perhaps some goal might be achieved. Something like, happier people, more work getting done.

2-c) On the other hand, we gather and promote our heroes to emphasise what we call success, and to highlight how the heroes achieved that success. Whether at a county fair in the vegetables building, or pinning medals on the battlefield, the award ceremony is nearly random but serves a purpose to the awarding organization: shows defeat of obstacles, and shifts attention from the disasters and obstacles to ways of overcoming those disasters and obstacles.

3) I recall ‘Parkinson’s law’, (People in a hierarchy tend to rise to their level of incompetence). In ‘Peter’s Prescription’ one way to survive is to generate a document on a regular basis. Paraphrasing, ‘if you don’t generate documents regularly, the organization doesn’t know you exists’ (Does this mean we should be submitting a weekly synopsis, an ‘executive summary’, of our blogs, if our supervisor doesn’t check our blog regularly?). So in one sense, blogging is survival, not self-promotion. An academic cannot ‘publish or perish’ without self-promoting. Generally I see acceptance of much scholarly publication, without serious charges of self-promotion. And how do you participate in the blogosphere without promoting something, including yourself? Perhaps Jenny is simply using one tactic for self-promotion.

When you label a store, a blog, a product, a book with your name, you share an identity, yourself with your labor. You both self-promote (see my name on this blog? If you trust me, you can trust much of what I put in the blog), and you ‘brand’ the labor (See how good this blog is? The other works with my name are also good, when you find them.) Self-promotion, quality control, ‘good will’, they all seem to be true. I have received a few ‘marketing’ emails that shamelessly self-promote, that use their name to lure you from one commitment of time and money to the next.

Please don’t dwell on the fact that today is Friday, although many around me seem to think that being Friday is significant for some reason. Remember, Monday is only a couple of days away!

Enjoy!

Thanks for the note. Points all well taken. It’s worth noting that I said “drudges like me” or something of that sort (probably not those exact words); it was shorthand for “people other than the Stars.” Dorothea Salo picked up exactly that meaning, and offered “peasant” as a synonym.

Now that Bloglines has restored “Walt at Random” there’s little (read no, unless natural/personal disaster intervenes) chance of my hanging it up.

I’ve received a few private communications on the cluster of issues here. They’re troublesome, not for me (they’re all quite positive in that regard) but for the ongoing openness of blog conversations. Maybe more on that later, maybe not: It’s a tougher issue than this post dealt with, I think, but it’s one that only indirectly involves me.

Those who promote themselves, how wonderful they are, what great work they do seldom produce anything of substance. As for reading their writings, in my half decade tenure in these professions I have read many things, but I only regularly return to those of substance. I have found that those of librarians turned speakers or some such shift are not useful and indeed their writings are self promoting. This contrasts with your writings including Cites & Insights Walt at Random, which are useful, topical and their author didn’t leave librarianship for a self promoting speaking tour.

I think it comes down to a sense of authority, C&I has authority because of many things: Its author, its regularity, its history, its point of view. The M&S writings, be they on their blogs, in the journals, or on websites don’t, to me, have the same authority -perhaps because they don’t fill a need I have but are little more than digital noise.

I’m not sure I would want to be a Mover & Shaker, I would just want to be a good librarian (or whatever I metamorphose into) noted for my substantive work and not my self-aggrandizement.

I sincerely hope you get your sunny days as not only do I enjoy C&I, it fills a need as well.

Angel: Based on responses so far, I’m not inclined to abandon ship. I think I seriously need a break soon, but that’s different, and “a break” would be just that, possibly almost invisible to you. (Well, actually, I have a pretty good idea what’s likely, and it involves not having any “real” issue during the core summer period, when there seem to be fewer readers anyway. More on that as I’m clearer about intentions. However, barring a sudden late rush of people saying “Yep, Walt, C&I is just egregious self-promotion,” a few sunny days here might be enough to resolve the current situation.)

As always, best and keep on blogging.

P.S. While I think C&I qualifies as a service to the library community (and I am sure other communities as well), if you were to decide to take it offline, it would be missed. Heck, keep making it and send me a copy as a zine or whatever. I’d even pay for the postage.

Now, let me be clear about one thing. My comments above are meant to shed light on the responses you received in Jenny’s comment thread. I’d never even seen the comment thread until your post yesterday. That’s because I didn’t perceive a change in the rhetoric by her use of “movers and shakers” and didn’t think there was much of interest to be said about the original post.

But when I went back and read those comments, prompted by your post, I was very much struck by what I perceived as a very uncalled-for condemnation of the LJ Movers and Shakers. It didn’t take any special bias of interpretation to see that, Walt.

I, much like Bill Drew (who, like you, is a mover and shaker in my book), had no problem seeing the drudges comment as your usual endearing snarkiness, but you’d already laid down some pretty strong words. Words that you’ve already apologized for using.

Look, I respect both you and Jenny. I read everything either of you writes. I’m going to agree with your notion that people read other people with different filters. If that wasn’t the case, why bother listening to different voices? But I’m going to disagree with this positive/negative dichotomy you’ve set up and argue that I read everyone differently. With Jenny, I expect a certain evangelical tone. With you, I am always on the lookout quick wit and sarcasm, as well as your thoughtfulness. In this isolated case, I think your quickness got the better of your thoughtfulness, that’s all. You’ve already made the appropriate amends for that.

I, for one, am glad you’re still having fun.