The Mallet of Loving Correction Part 4

Me: There is a writer whom I wish to destroy. Join me in my quest to smoosh his career like a grape caught under a high school cafeteria table wheel.

Other writers: Send us an e-mail about that (make mental notes to avoid me in the future, because I am clearly a mean drunk).

STEROID SCALZI MEETS WITH A REVIEWER:.

Me: If you do not give this writer whom I despise a soul-shriveling review, then never again will I have my publicist send you advance copies of my work. EVER.

Reviewer: I'll remember that (crosses me off the list of people he reviews, reviews someone who is not a d.i.c.k instead).

STEROID SCALZI COMMUNICATES WITH THE INTERNET:.

Me: ARRRGH MINIONS MUST SMASH p.o.o.pY WRITER WHO p.o.o.pS DO MY BIDDING YOU DARK LOVELIES Internet: Dude, you're kind of a p.r.i.c.k.

And so on. Look, when you're an a.s.shole to people, then other people know it. And while people generally will not stop you from being an a.s.shole, if such is your joy, they're also not going to go out of their way to help you. Humans see a.s.sholes as damage and route around them. So much for mafias and cabals.

One final thing to remember is every presumed cabal member is someone who was outside looking in, and probably not as far back as you think. I do like reminding people that my first novel was published in 2005, which was six years ago. Six years is not a lot of time to go from schmooging one's face against the gla.s.s of the cabal HQ to being well into the cabal itself. Perhaps it's more accurate to note instead that the idea of a cabal or a mafia is a little silly, and in fact there are just writers. Some of them are nice, some of them are neurotic jacka.s.ses, and in all cases the influence they can have on one's career is exponentially smaller than the influence one has on one's own.

DeKloutifying Nov

14.

2011.

I got a Klout account a few months ago when it did that promotion of allowing its members to get an early view of the US version of Spotify, and that was reason enough to give it a spin. Well, I still have my Spotify account, but this morning I deleted my Klout account. Part of that was due to the various kvetches I've seen regarding Klout's rather lackadaisical approach to privacy, noted by everyone from Charlie Stross to the New York Times, but really, at the end of the day (or the beginning of it, as I deleted the account this morning), I left Klout because I suspect the service is in fact a little bit socially evil.

Klout, for those of you unaware of its existence, purports to provide some general ranking of one's influence on the Internet, across the various social media. The service apparently sucks in data from all the other social media services you belong to which it tracks, throws that into an algorithmic pot, and renders it down to a number between one and one hundred. Then you can look at your score relative to other people's and see where you fit in the grand scheme of influence, at least according to Klout.

Wherein lies a problem: Who made Klout the arbiter of online influence, aside from Klout itself? I could rank your influence online, if you like: I'll add your number of Twitter followers to your number of Facebook friends, subtract the number of Mys.p.a.ce friends, laugh and point if you're still on Friendster, take the square root, round up to the nearest integer and add six. That's your Scalzi Number (mine is 172). You're welcome.

Is this number any less indicative of your actual online popularity than Klout's score? As far as you know, no. I'm sure Klout has what it considers an excellent rationale for whatever stew of algorithms it uses to a.s.sign you a number, but neither you nor I know what it is, or (more importantly) why it's valid as an accurate determiner of your online influence and popularity. As far as any of us know, one's Klout number is determined by college interns, each feverishly rolling a pair of ten-sided dice, and then that number is allowed to oscillate within a random but bounded range every day to give the appearance that something's going on.

However, even if we did know the process Klout uses to determine one's influence, there comes the question of what purpose it serves. It serves Klout's purposes, it seems, in that they have a nice little business quantifying its members' desirability to companies who offer stuff to the members with the implicit agreement that they then talk about it on their social media sites. Good for Klout, and, in the interest of accuracy, I did get early access to Spotify out of them, and did write about it, so there you are.

But what purpose does it serve for Klout's members? Aside from the occasional quid pro quo freebie, it seems that what Klout exists to do is create status anxiety-to saddle you with a popularity ranking, and then make you feel insecure about it and whether you'll lose that ranking unless you engage in certain activities that aren't necessarily in your interest, but are in Klout's. In other words Klout exists to turn the entire Internet into a high school cafeteria, in which everyone is defined by the table at which they sit. And there you are, standing in the middle of the room with your lunch tray, looking for a seat, hoping to ingratiate yourself with the cool kids, trying desperately not to get funneled to the table in the corner where the kids with scoliosis braces and D&D manuals sit.

This is sad, and possibly evil. It's especially sad and possibly evil because as far as I can see, Klout's business model is to some greater or lesser extent predicated on exploiting that status anxiety. I clicked over to Klout's "perks" section not long ago-"perks" being the freebie things the service wants you to market for them-and rather than being presented with a selection of perks available to me, I was presented a list of perks I wasn't qualified for, because apparently I wasn't smart and pretty and popular enough for them, although Klout seemed to suggest that maybe if I did my hair a little differently, or wore some nicer shoes (or dragged more people into their service, making myself more influential in the process) maybe one day I could get the cool perks. At which point I decided that Klout was actually being run by d.i.c.ks, and getting let into Spotify a week early-or whatever-wasn't worth being seen with d.i.c.ks, or supporting that particular business model.

So now I'm out. It was interesting for a while, but ultimately I don't care how influential Klout thinks I am, and I get enough perks in life without Klout's queen bee corporate marketing style. And even if I didn't, I'm more comfortable with who I am and my place in the world (online or otherwise) than Klout needs me to be in order for me to be a useful member for it.

All of which is to say: Bye, Klout. It's not you, it's me. Well, actually, it is you. I'm pretty sure I'm too good for you. But, hey: Thanks for the Spotify.

Dude, I Totally Unmarried You Just Now Jun

20.

2008.

In his Chicago Tribune column yesterday, Eric Zorn notes this interesting bit of "logic" from the same-s.e.x-marriage haters, explaining why all those thousands of same-s.e.x couples who have gotten married in California over the last week aren't really married: The Illinois Family Inst.i.tute's blog refers to the legalization of same-s.e.x nuptials this week in the Golden State as "the California marriage disaster." Such recognitions "do not and cannot exist, no matter what legal doc.u.ment the state issues h.o.m.os.e.xual couples," writes inst.i.tute blogger Laurie Higgins. "There is an existential, ontological reality that supersedes the ill-begotten works of man."

Translation: "They're legally married but I'm in denial, so I'm just going to pretend it didn't happen, like that season on Dallas. La la la la la la, I can't see you married h.o.m.os."

Well, fine. Since apparently it's the fashion to deny marriage status to people who are legally married, simply because we don't like them and their marriages make us twitchy, by the power vested in me by whichever existential and ontological reality conveniently lets me get away with it, I hereby declare that marriages which include any of the following never ever existed: 1.People who pretend same-s.e.x marriages don't exist.

2.People who drive 55 miles an hour in the far-left lane of the freeway.

3.People who prefer Pepsi to c.o.ke.

4.The craven, toadying yes-men who told George Lucas that, no, really, the fans are gonna love Jar-Jar Binks.

5.Anyone ever involved in the production, distribution or sale of acid-washed jeans.

6.Anyone who thinks Dane Cook is funny.

7.Anyone who ever bought a Limp Bizkit alb.u.m.

8.Anyone who voted for Nader in 2000.

9.Or 2004. Honestly, you people just suck.

10.That guy who pushed me down once in 7th grade. Yeah, f.u.c.k you, Andy Grabowski! All your kids are b.a.s.t.a.r.ds now!

Do these people's marriages really not exist because I just now wished them away? Yes, exactly to the extent that the marriages of same-s.e.x couples who got married in California no longer exist simply because a bunch of bigots prefer to pretend they don't. Which is to say: No. Because, you see, real, legal, actual marriages don't stop existing just because some malign jacka.s.s doesn't want to have accept that those marriages are real, and legal, and actual.

However, unlike any marriages on my list, the real, legal and actual same-s.e.x marriages in California are in danger of being destroyed by people who aren't actually in them. There is no initiative on the California November ballot to "protect" marriage from already-married Creed fans or Pepsi drinkers. There will be one to "protect" marriage from already-married same-s.e.x couples.

Which is to say: Isn't it funny how some people are going so far out of their way to destroy marriages they say they don't believe actually exist.

Election List I: People/Things I Would Vote For President Before I Would Vote For John McCain Oct

31.

2008.

You know, for the last two weeks I've been trying to write a long, cogent piece about who I'm voting for and why, but every time I try I am filled with inchoate rage and just want to kick a puppy or someone who voted for Nader in 2000. So instead I'm going to write a series of short, punchy election lists, which will probably be more amusing and will at the very least keep me from beating on something with a hammer.

And so, to begin: Election List I: People/Things I Would Vote For President Before I Would Vote For John McCain 1.Barack Obama 2.Bob Barr 3.A large, flat, warm rock 4.Hermann von Googlefleugel, the garden gnome under which I keep my spare house key 5.Arnold Schwarzenegger 6.A kitchen sponge 7.Zamfir, Master of the Pan Flute 8.Chewed gum you find under a desk at the DMV while you take the written part of your driving test 9.Toast!

10.A teratoma that vaguely resembles a pony 11.An incontinent monkey or lemur 12.A large order of McDonald's fries, lightly salted 13.The reanimated corpse of Millard Fillmore 14.A mat of algae 15.A black velvet painting of Wesley Crusher 16.H.R. Pufnstuf 17.A glazed donut 18.That guy on the A train who shouts loudly about his p.e.n.i.s from 23rd to Cathedral Parkway 19.A Lite-Brite 20.f.u.c.king Ralph f.u.c.king Nader, that G.o.dd.a.m.ned f.u.c.king f.u.c.k Election List II: The Verified Miracles of St. Obama Oct

31.

2008.

Because he's not just a presidential candidate!

Election List II: The Verified Miracles of St. Obama 1.Restored Joe Biden's hairline 2.Not only heals the sick but springs for their co-pay 3.Loaves and fishes for every family making less than $200,000 4.Smells intensely and deliciously of b.u.t.terscotch 5.Offers hope, and also, Amway 6.That mole on the side of his nose? Made of concentrated awesome 7.Every child he hugs on the campaign trail becomes 10% smarter 8.Made Hillary Clinton stump for him 9.Every time he shoots one into the hoop from downtown, an angel gets his wings 10.Is the front-runner for president while being a black man named Barack Obama Election List III: Things Sarah Palin Has Shot Or Would Shoot From a Helicopter Oct

31.

2008.

It's quite a list.

Election List III: Things Sarah Palin Has Shot Or Would Shoot From a Helicopter 1.Wolves 2.Coyotes 3.Arctic foxes 4.Deer 5.Giraffes 6.Tortoises 7.Dolphins 8.Salmon 9.Katie Couric 10.That son of a b.i.t.c.h that divorced her sister 11.Kittens 12.Whoever made that Photoshopped picture of her in a bikini, holding a rifle 13.Owls 14.Baby seals 15.Tina Fey 16.Andrew Sullivan 17.Levi (note to self: Only wound) 18.Donkeys 19.Elephants 20.John McCain Election List IV: The Things I Think About As I Stare At A Picture of Joe Biden Oct

31.

2008.

Because I guess I have to write something about him, too.

Election List IV: The Things I Think About As I Stare At A Picture of Joe Biden 1.It looks like doll hair.

2.Men shouldn't botox.

3.I bet Hillary's still really p.i.s.sed.

4.I think I drove through Delaware once.

5.Yeah, I did. They have a toll road that's, like, a mile long.

6.Seriously, a mile-long toll road? That totally sucks.

7.All my credit card companies are incorporated in Delaware.

8.No, wait, that's South Dakota. Delaware is where all the really big companies incorporate.

9.Like how all those cruise ships are registered in Liberia. Which makes Delaware the Liberia of the US.

10.It still looks like doll hair.

Election List V: The Contents of the Democratic Poll-Watching Kit Oct

31.

2008.

For when the Democrats freak out as the polls inevitably tighten.

Election List V: The Contents of the Democratic Poll-Watching Kit 1.Mr. Snuggles, the cuddly Democrat plush bear 2.A dime bag of skunkweed 3.An iPod Nano preloaded with Coltrane, James Taylor and Will.i.am's "Yes We Can" video; also, Peggle 4.John McCain and/or Sarah Palin stress reliever whose eyes pop comically as you squeeze it and shout "you lost Florida!"

5.A special, personalized "don't panic" note from Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight 6.Tollhouse cookies like the kind the TV you watched during your latchkey kid days told you were like mom used to make 7.Ritalin 8.An autographed photo of Rachel Maddow 9.A game card for the play-at-home version of Congressional Takeover Bingo 10.Suicide Hotline number (in case McCain wins Pennsylvania) Election List VI: The Contents of the Republican Poll-Watching Kit Oct

31.

2008.

It's more compact than the Democrat one.

Election List VI: The Contents of the Republican Poll-Watching Kit 1.A fifth of gin 2.Ambien 3.Sleep mask Election List VII: Bombsh.e.l.ls the McCain Campaign Has Yet to Drop About Barack Obama Oct