Two weeks ago, I received a message that a reporter from the New York Times wanted to speak to me about my blog.
Was he interested in my fine, sensitive poems? Or perhaps my incisive political commentary?
No.
He was interested in Friday Cat Blogging.
The article is here. Yes, it requires registration -- but you can always make something up, and besides, it's cats.
I think the reporter, Daniel Terdiman (who also writes for Wired News) did a good job (though I have been blogging for ten months, not three) stressing what is most important to me about Friday Cat Blogging: that it brings together folks from all around the web who otherwise would not connect. And, of course, it offers a little relief from what has lately been a heavy dose of seriousness.
I hope those of you who are visiting from the Times will take a minute to visit my main page. There is much more than cats on offer here, including poems, politics, and other minor matters. If you came just for the cats, you will find many cat links here.
[Crossposted to Big Sky Blog]
I come here for the poetry.
Well, that and the cats.
Posted by: Laurence Simon | 27 October 2004 at 08:32 PM
CONGRATULATIONS! Pretty cool to read about a fellow blogger in the New York Times! I loved it!
Posted by: Monkey | 27 October 2004 at 09:04 PM
hey that's cool
Posted by: Jilly | 27 October 2004 at 09:54 PM
You never know what's going to catch the attention of the New York Times, do you? Well, good on you -- I hope people come for the cats and stay for the poetry and the commentary.
Posted by: John | 27 October 2004 at 11:55 PM
Yes, I thought I was in a bit of a time warp when I read "three months." Ah, your blog is so enjoyable, three months felt like over half a year...If I could only find a way to really stretch time that way.
Posted by: Caitlin | 28 October 2004 at 09:11 AM
Wow, I'm impressed! Congrats.
I may have to get with the program and begin Friday cat-blogging again.
Posted by: Patia | 28 October 2004 at 11:40 AM
Nice article, but it continues to irritate me how the mainstream media, once having framed blogs and bloggers as primarily political, seems unable to perceive the true diversity of the blogosphere. I hope that folks clicking in from the NY Times will take this opportunity to find out what a good literary/personal/smorgasborg blog looks like!
Posted by: Dave | 28 October 2004 at 02:50 PM
Sharon, that's amazing. Congratulations.
Posted by: Neha | 29 October 2004 at 08:30 AM
Hi, this is Daniel Terdiman, the author of the Times story on catblogging.
I'd like to apologize to Sharon for the error on how long she'd been blogging. I had misunderstood something Sharon said, and wrote down three months in my nostes.If the story was in Wired News, we could just fix it. The Times, of course, is a different matter, since we're talking about a newspaper that happens to have an online component.
To Dave, however, I'd like to point out that the story, while it did put a good deal of focus on political blogs, also cited NASA's blog, Spocko's Brain, this one, and Dr. Shalizi's scientific blog, not to mention Carnival of the Cats. The focus on politics had more to do with Kevin Drum's great quote about Atrios and Instapundit being a terrific way to frame the way catblogging is a great way to relieve stress from heavy blogging.
Posted by: Daniel Terdiman | 29 October 2004 at 08:39 AM
As long as the URLs are right, I figure the rest works out in the end. ;)
Posted by: Laurence Simon | 29 October 2004 at 01:23 PM
Hi everyone,
This has all been very exciting, and tiring. I have a backlog of email to respond to, as well as all these kind comments, and mentions in other blogs.
Perhaps we might persuade Daniel to do an article on po-blogs? The poetry world, after all, can be just as vitriolic as the political world . . .
I wish visitors from the Times were exploring a bit, but a look at my stats tells me that few are. Still, as Daniel says in his blog "I've been in Time many times, but I've only been in the Times one time."
Posted by: SB | 29 October 2004 at 01:39 PM
A little late to the party as usual, but congrats! :D
Posted by: Kim | 29 October 2004 at 02:28 PM
I hope you won't take this the wrong way but...I thought the article was the lightest piece of puffery I've read in a newspaper in a long time. Friday Cat Blogging is a social phenomenon worthy of inclusion in the pages of the NYT?? Don't get me wrong, I like cats, I like pets, I'm glad y'all are featuring your cats in your blogs. But why does that deserve notice in the national newspaper of record?
There are so many important aspects to the blog phenomenon which I wish the Times WOULD cover. COvering this seems a waste of space (God am I going to get clobbered for this!).
Posted by: Richard Silverstein | 30 October 2004 at 06:17 PM
(God am I going to get clobbered for this!)
Not by me, you're not. I do cat-blogging because it IS fluff (and of course, I like cats) -- not because I expected this kind of attention. I would much prefer attention for my poems, and I agree that there are many more important aspects of blogging that could be written about.
I'm hoping they will be. I'm hoping I won't be left out when they are, because I've now been identified as a "Cat Blogger" -- the worst kind there is, in some views.
Posted by: SB | 30 October 2004 at 06:37 PM
Congratulations ~smile~ Along with everyone else, of course I agree that it would have been wonderful if the attention had been on your poetry. But sadly lightweight and emphemeral is the flavour of modern communication. Personally, I am not convinced that this is a 'public choice', but more likely a result of 'public education' by the media. My own poetry and art gets very few visitors, although maybe it doesn't deserve more. The nice thing is that when someone does take a look and perhaps even leaves a comment on my work, I get a real buzz and sense of excitement.
Yours is one of my most favourite blogs. Poetry and cats. Fluff and seriousness. Just like life ~smile~
Posted by: Francesca | 31 October 2004 at 02:08 AM
I may be late to the party on this news Sharon, but I think it's great that you got noticed for the cat blogging. Maybe it's fluff, but at least it's positive; not everything we read in the Times has to be about death, destruction or political partisanship, does it?
Besides, it's bound to bring in more people who will appreciate the various aspects of your online offerings. Congrats!
Posted by: h2 | 31 October 2004 at 02:32 AM
Friday Catblogging, eh? New to me, proof that clearly I haven't been paying enough attention to the part of the blogosphere that *isn't* talking about religion. *g*
Now if only I could get my hands on a digital camera; clearly my fuzzball is destined for bloggy stardom... :-)
Posted by: Rachel | 01 November 2004 at 01:12 PM