Bo, I reviewed Steven Bell’s article earlier: http://freerangelibrarian.com/2007/04/30/rigor-mortis/ . I think he makes some good points… he and I are on the same page on some issues… but it’s not a well-crafted argument. The whole “chilling effect” argument leaves me somewhat cold. I know of people who have complained of chilling effects, but beyond that argument itself — There are chilling effects! No, there are not! — I can’t think of a real-world example. (It could even be argued that the whole “chilling effects” argument is about not being able to accept different points of view.)

It’s true, this was a short, terse blog entry; they can’t all be winners. However, this blog tends to have long — heck, windily prolix — posts featuring reflection. In this case, I went with the information provided, on the assumption that if there were another angle to all this, it would be available online. No?

Bell goes on to say that “on the few occasions when a dissenting comment is attached to a post in the spirit of discourse, the commenter is likely to find him or herself the target of an unpleasant post in which the blogger uses his or her bully pulpit to lash out against someone who’s dared to take an opposing view.” I wrote my blog post in an attempt to provide an opposing view in a way that might encourage a level of discourse I hadn’t seen yet. I think that so far it has.

So thanks for the response, and no, I don’t feel chilled.

I think that once “Letter Z” gets past the initial rhetoric, he makes some useful points. But this is also just the latest incarnation of the “fiction question”, which, as Z points out, has been going on since the middle of the 19th century.

If I knew what was going to be “important literary or cultural material” one hundred years from now, it would be a lot easier for my to manage my collection, I’m sure.