Leah McLaren Strikes Back!

The Globe columnist-turned-novelist defamed the so-called blogosphere on the weekend in her Saturday allotment. She intimated that bloggers are bitter, bad writers without editors to clean them up or publishers to keep them locked up. Funny, because I often wonder about her editors…Actually, she has a point. For the most part, blogging is done to hear the sound of one’s own keyboard clicking away, seemingly indicating productivity. (I realise the terrible irony of what I have just written, but let’s just skip that step for the moment.)

I wonder if she was pissed because she found so many people don’t really like her, or at least her writing (and probably aren’t smart enough to distinguish between the two). Hey, I can sympathize with these people—the first blog I did was an effort to chronicle just how bad McLaren’s Saturday columns were. Yes, very immature, I know. To be fair to the bloggers/ haters, though, writing does often betray a good chuck of the writer’s actual personality. The problem with Leah McLaren is not that she is annoying—or, I guess to be more accurate, and somewhat charitable, the writing persona she has created for a very specific demographic (single, hipster, Toronto girls who take themselves way too seriously) is annoying—the problem is that she didn’t write very well either.

But these things take time. Her article on Special K Pilates balls was actually kind of funny—mostly because it was true, but also because it seemed like McLaren finally got that it was funny. She lost a bit of her obliviousness, or perhaps gained a little bit of tongue-in-cheek (maybe she finally got some).

A couple weekends ago, I was very surprised to read her column and find it tightly written, funny, and almost self-aware. I only noticed after I had read it that it was an excerpt from her novel. That explained the solid editing, but it also provided a reason for her recent transformation: in writing this novel about a woman in her 30s searching for man to have a baby with, she must have realised the folly of her situation, and a little bit the impetus behind why these women act this way.

Why are so many young, professional women obsessed with their image and social status (not to say that there aren’t as many men who are, but for the moment, let’s focus on the ladies)? It is a deep, instinctual drive to find a mate. That, friends, is the driving force behind why we do anything, really. So it is important for Leah McLaren (and her audience) to have the right pumps, and a mini-cooper, and a farm because all of these things put them in the category of “successful woman” that has been created, rightly or wrongly, by our society (blame it on the media, whatever, it is all built by humans and we all have the same drives). And what else does a “successful woman” have? Babies of course. So all these things make them attractive to guys. Guys, of course, well, we play our own games, but to the same effect. Bigger, stronger, flashier. Treat ‘em mean, keep ‘em keen. Whatever works.

Leah McLaren, I believe, in writing her novel, as achieved self-awareness. I can’t say whether or not that will help her writing. There seems to be a bit of an edge to it that was lacking before the novel. Maybe it is the confidence of having the novel come out that has got her going. I can’t get inside her head. It’s just what I see from over here.

In any case, the reason, now, that Leah McLaren has chosen to rise above the bloggers may be that she has that self-awareness they don’t have. I’m trying to make this blog as self-aware as possible. It’s a hard thing to do because there are always forces driving us the power of which we don’t understand. But knowing that is at least a step in the right direction.

Still, there is an irony to her aloofness—and I’m not the one she cares about, I’m certain of that. Only recently was she engaged in a massive bitch-fest with another writer, Ryan Bigge. The deal is that a few years ago, McLaren panned Bigge’s book. This month, Bigge panned her book. Boohoo: if you can’t take the heat, get out of the way of all the authors talking. Maybe her recent column is another slag at Bigge, or a shot at all the bloggers who agree with him. Maybe she isn’t so self-aware after all, just cranking up the bitch-mill. At least now she’s somewhat entertaining to read, kind of like watching a hockey fight—you enjoy it with guilty pleasure—whereas before it was like passing a jack-knifed tractor-trailer on the 401—you're disgusted, but you can't look away.

Olympic Break!

I'm going to take a little break from this blog during the Olympics. I have been "recruited" by Maisonneuve to help out this crazy old guy who is doing blogging for them during the Games. He's not so much up on the technology, and I'm the resident sports guy, so, yeah, I'll be on that train every day for the next 16.

He's already got two posts. Check 'em out: On the Rings' Edge.

Go Team Canada! Go Heather Moyse!

So, what happens if you’re a Danish Muslim cartoonist?

I’m honestly quite surprised and confused at all the firebombs and protests in response the printing of cartoons of the prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper. What disturbs me most is not the cartoons themselves (I’ve heard some pretty good Jesus jokes—there’s nothing mutually exclusive between religious belief and a sense of humour), or even that they have sparked controversy, but the direction of the reaction.

It’s pretty clear that there are some countries, some of them located in the Middle East, that aren’t big on freedom of the press. State-controlled media and propaganda is nothing new in countries run by religious leaders (one might even put our southern neighbours in that category). So it is understandable that they might be shocked that a newspaper could be so controversial with its opinions. The irony is that the cartoons were drawn to accompany an article about free speech.

What confuses me is the demand by protesters from these countries that the Danish (and European) governments take responsibility for what has occurred. Can you imagine if Stephen Harper had to make a formal apology on behalf of the Toronto Star? It just seems unfathomable. Burning the embassies of European countries is a frightening response because it shows that those doing the burning can’t seem to understand that the opinions of one editorial cartoonist (with the approval of the paper’s editors and publishers) does not necessarily stand for those of an entire nation (or continent)!

Of course, one wouldn’t expect people who are extreme in their beliefs to be able to differentiate between the actions of one individual and the collective attitude of a nation. This is how wars start: when a group of people all get painted with the same brush. While it is important to respect the beliefs of others, and in this case the newspaper should be quite conciliatory towards its offended Muslim readers (a newspaper can only be responsible to its readers—the assumption is that all of a sudden the paper is being read by all those angry, fire-bombing protesters), the governments that have now been forced to be involved must be strong in their support for freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

I guess it is too much to ask for a calm, rational, sit-down conversation, but someone needs to say to whoever is in charge in the countries where these protests are taking place that in Europe, at least, it is not required that all people hold the same beliefs. Those Middle Eastern governments (Lebanon, Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, India, Indonesia, Israel and New Zealand—more on that in a minute) need to tell their people to calm the fuck down. Newspapers enjoy an autonomy necessary to preserve the freedom of the press, but governments must be responsible for the actions of their people, especially when it comes to destroying embassies on their soil.

I suppose the argument could be made that the cartoons constituted a similar tearing down of a symbol of a people, but have we not yet gone beyond all that “eye for an eye” stuff? I guess not.

And New Zealand? The Dominion Post and The Press of Christchurch published the offending cartoons in the name of freedom of the press. That sparked protests from NZ’s Muslim population. Muslim leaders are urging calm. Well, good, I guess. I'm a little surprised, though. Will Canada be next? The National Post, quick to be extreme, has printed a bunch of anti-Semetic cartoons originally published in Arabic papers, just to prove a point. Is it ok to disseminate that sort of thing, just to prove a point?

Is it Islamophobic of me to say that these people are being sensitive? I mean, just because I don’t believe so strongly in Jesus as to go burn buildings in his name (do I believe in anything strongly enough to burn a building?), doesn’t mean others might not be. But who blinks first? When does tolerance betray your own beliefs? Can someone’s beliefs be just plain wrong?

When these sorts of religious fracas occur, I can only think: what would Jesus do? Seriously. What I mean is, all this violence is in the name of gods or prophets who supposedly preach love and peace; the killing is in the name of belief systems that are supposed to bring us to a better place, later, where we all get along, where there is no sadness, fighting, war. How can so many people be missing the point?

Peace and Love, man, Peace and Love.