Chowhound wasn't a success because it was useful, or heartfelt, or presented a fresh perspective. It wasn't a success because I'd herded a huge crowd of savvy iconoclasts who instinctively resist being herded. It wasn't a success because I set a tone people found irresistible, or because the moderators and I worked overtime expunging marketers, vandals, and psychos.
None of these attributes hurt. But it was mostly a success because it was a web site in 1997, and, in 1997, web sites were cool.
I keep meeting Slog readers, or occasional Slog browsers, who ask whether I'm writing anything these days.
Like, real writing. Sure, I have my [little] blog where I indulge myself. Nice job, little buddy. But why'd I drop out of writing?
Blogs aren't cool or sexy. Not even in 2008 when I launched this one. We know what blogs are. Yawn.
So, sure, this can be a challenging read. And people prefer to have their biases confirmed, not their fallacies debunked. And though I’m thought of as a food writer, there's not much food porn. None of these attributes helped. But it was mostly a failure because it's been a blog in the 2000s, and, in the 2000s, blogs were uncool.
It's all about the form of the thing. This is yet another instance where Seeming supercedes Being.
You need a double negative in your first sentence.
ReplyDeleteNo, I don’t.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you think chowhound wasn’t useful, etc. In that case, you’d need a double negative.