Two things I learned today
November 13, 2008 by William K. Wolfrum
Here are the two things I learned today:
1. Being mentioned by one of the biggest newspapers on the planet is cool.
2. Having one of biggest newspapers on the planet insinuate that you’re a hoax – not so much.
Update: From Jerry Ludwig in comments: “I believe in you! Seriously, I think the tongue in cheek in the Times would only confuse the people who voted for McCain. Oh no!, that’s 46% of the country.”
Well, that’s somewhat better I suppose. However, if this is true, now my Dad believes I’m a hoax.
Update 2: From loyal reader Hugh in comments: “You’re not a hoax if *you* really believe you’re real.”
I believe, brother, I believe.
–WKW
Bill:
In times of crisis, I always find it best to turn to the guidance of the great George Costanza.
In this case, I believe it best to paraphrase GC’s observation that it’s not a lie if *you* really believe it.
To wit: You’re not a hoax if *you* really believe you’re real.
Existentially yours,
Hugh
Bill is real. And Bill keeps it real.
Nice work.
I’ve been following your work since you first started on Shakesville, and although I found it a bit obsessive to track down someone you didn’t think existed, I was impressed by your ability to find that, indeed, he doesn’t exist. And that picture of the guy–the one who exists, but created the guy who doesn’t exist–in the messy office with ratty clothes that looks like Joe Scarborough’s description of the quintessential blogger “in his mother’s basement eating Cheetos” is priceless.
I’m much more aware of the “sock puppet” technique now that you’ve introduced it to me. My sister works in ad design, so I read a lot of design blogs so that I can actually relate to whatever the hell she’s talking about, and I find it quite a bit there as well. In an effort to promote someone’s trite work, they’ll copy/paste the same comment with the same links that all lead back to some hack’s blog displaying a mediocre (at best) attempt at design, attempting to draw enough attention so as to become a “name” in the hopes that the “name” will grant them the career their work so obviously doesn’t merit.
I say all that to say this: thank you for reminding me that sometimes people lie to advance their careers (a lesson I’ve found difficult to remember on a consistent basis, as I don’t lie well, so I try to rest more on my abilities than the image of my abilities). I’ve lost jobs because of liars before, and I still forget to remember that sometimes people lie.
Thanks Michael. I know there were some that wondered why I was on Eisenstadt’s case so much at the time. 1) it was a pleasant diversion for me, and 2) I knew they weren’t going to be stopping.
And, you know, I’m playing it the same way you are. I’m trying to succeed, but I’m going to do it based on talent rather than trying to work shortcuts.