and what is up with this royal we business?

The Modern Age links to an article in the Guardian Unlimited about the esoteric drivel of music bloggers. The article (which manages to include a lovely picture of M.I.A., but what picture of M.I.A. isn't lovely?) cites Sasha Frere-Jones as a prime example of such impenetrable navel-gazing, although the writer of this article is not as mean-spirited about this affliction as I. But it is not just music bloggers who deal in head-scratching asides and nonsensical adjectives, as one brave attempt to tread through Pitchfork Media can readily attest. Do people actually read the reviews at Pitchfork? Do the writers at Pitchfork even listen to music? The "reviews" seem like mere vanity pieces for the writers. The concept of reviewing music is, like, this totally inconvenient way to prove to Gawker (hopefully, at some point) and other assorted appropriate entities how snarky and witty and cool they can be (read: publishing deal). The "reviews" at Pitchfork just reek of gimmickry; all those "clever" and "new" ways to write about music just come off as a trust fund baby's desperate attempt to prove how cool he is. And, really, what's up with the Lacan and Derrida references? They don't even analyze the music in any postmodern or deconstructionist way, they just namedrop Lacan and Derrida! And blogs are worse. It's been stated in the aforementioned links, but bloggers do trade in jargon and in-jokes, which is funny because these are the same bloggers who chastise artists for being too "artsy" and "pretentious" (read: "I don't understand this music, it isn't poppy enough, it isn't accessible enough," etc.). I guess being inaccessible and weird is okay only if you're a blogger. All I'm asking for is a little consistency. If you're going to couch your writing in pretentious bullshit, don't criticize an artist for doing the same. If you demand that music be poppy, entertaining, fun, and immediate, shouldn't your writing be the same?

But it isn't just music "criticism" that suffers from this. Literary bloggers fall into the same trap. Fuck, even pop culture blogs, like The Minor Fall, The Major Lift send me scrambling for a decoder ring. I mean, seriously, what the fuck is that guy talking about?

Coming back to the title of this post, this royal we shit must stop. If referring to your lonesome self as "we" isn't the height of pretentious bullshit, Christopher Hitchens is a humble lad with malleable opinions and meek delivery. And if you don't agree, check out what the wikipedia has to say about the royal we:

Pluralis majestatis ("majestic plural") is the plural pronoun where it is used to refer to one person alone. This is also known as the "royal we" or the "Victorian we" because it has usually been restricted to august personages such as monarchs, bishops, Popes, and university rectors. The reason behind the pluralis majestatis is the idea that a monarch or other high official always speaks for his or her people.

[emphasis mine]

By the way, hi, my name is Aaron.