Vonnegut’s Asshole
Eric Spitznagel has writing/editing credits from Playboy, Esquire, Spy, Harper's, Blender, McSweeney's, and many other publications. He’s written (and published) six books. He even had a brief career as an adult film screenwriter.
These days, he’s a contributing editor for Believer Magazine, Web site editor for Monkeybicycle, and the world’s foremost authority of Vonnegut’s Asshole.
The blog, that is.
Most of our reviewers loved Vonnegut’s Asshole, placing it near the top of the blogs we’ve reviewed.
CONTENT – 8.8
“Totally brilliant in most every way: A humor blog that is actually laugh-out-loud funny.”
“Laugh-out-loud funny in places. His mind works like mine does, and that's almost frightening. Cigarette Penis Envy and Hot Lesbian Muppet Love made me cover the laughing with fake coughs since I was wasting time at work, reading.”
“Very entertaining. The posts are generally pretty long, but I wrestled my short attention span into submission because I really enjoyed reading them. I don't know if this blog would appeal to everyone, but if not it is a reflection on the blogging community and not the blog because his writing is wry and clever.”
“This stuff is original, funny, and so well written. One of the best I've reviewed so far!”
“Good use of kitsch.”
“In today's blogosphere, it's awfully hard to find a subject that hasn't yet been covered by thousands of others. The author gets a lot of credit from me for being able to find fresh topics for almost every post. Of course, some are boring as hell to me, thus the few points I've taken of.”
“I'm ashamed to admit I enjoyed the whole huge thing about cereal mascots.”
“The Pete Best of cereal, good one!”
“With a name like Vonnegut's Asshole, it has to be good! I'm not sure if the world is ready for two long-winded posts about breakfast cereal mascots, but I found Eric's essay on Dig 'Em particularly moving. And I was truly impressed with his Nov. 2nd post, which includes a picture of a Scottish guy with an enormous uncircumcised wang. Pure genius!”
DESIGN – 7.4
“The monkey was funny but hate the 'grandma's wallpaper' background.”
“Sadly, as brilliant as this blog is, it really suffers in the design department. Desperately needs a re-design to match the quality of the writing, which is excellent.”
“It's a plain jane blogger template, and I don't care much for the way he plops his pictures into his posts in such a manner that some of the words are crammed to the left or right of the picture, but that is such a minor quibble that I am embarrassed to even bring it up.”
“Nice, easy on the eyes, low on redundant paraphernalia like ads. I liked it.”
“Standard Blogger template.”
“It’s an altered, standard template but I love the monkey. A re-design would make all the difference in the world.”
“Its uncluttered and neat but at the same time, boring. The brown/tan color scheme doesn't do much for me. I guess I'm impossible to please. “
“The template isn't earth shattering, but at least it's clean and easy to read.”
QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 9.6
“I really like his writing style.”
“Impeccable. The guy is a professional writer, and a very good one at that.”
“I've got no complaints. The guy knows his stuff, not surprising given that he is a published author, I suppose.”
“Conversational and easy to read.”
“Has a handle on rudimentary grammar and spelling.”
“Generally done well but I have to point out that something with stripes is 'striped,' not 'stripped' (not necessarily, anyway).” [See Snap Crackle & Pop post.]
“The man writes for a living; his writing has to be good.”
“Not every professional writer I read is this good. It’s an honor he bangs this stuff out for us. Very good.”
INTANGIBLES – 6.6
“Whenever I see anti-aliased type I go into spasm, and his header text brought on a full seizure from which I am still recovering. Extra points for having full entries in the RSS feed.”
“Loved that he used illustrations, old ads and video clips of the different cereals.”
“I have no beefs. He doesn't post every day, but his posts are very full and robust, they last you a couple of days.”
“I hate to even mention the long posts, but they really bother me. Part of being a good writer is knowing when to quit.”
“I'm not a big fan of long posts, but they are well written.”
“Don't really love the interview transcripts. They're the equivalent of memes and Quizilla – sins that I am equally guilty of committing. People that write in glass blogs shouldn't throw stones, but I still don't love them.”
“I don’t get the name.”
“I had to skip through the majority of his posts, because, had I attempted to read them to the end, I'd still be at it when I retired. The posts are painfully long, and the author takes forever to get to the point. On the other hand, if you stay with a post, it proves to be worth the read. Loved the Chicago post, for example!”
“At first I didn't understand why the author only posted twice a week, but after seeing the length of his posts, it seems fair.”
“Eric, you just sold another book.”
FREQUENCY – 4.0
“Eric Spitznagel writes a new post every Monday and Thursday … because he loves us.”
WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 64% Yes
“Yes indeed. I am putting it in my Bloglines as soon as I finish this review.”
“Maybe. I'll try a few more posts and see if he keeps my interest.”
“Sure, why not?”
“Doubtful. Not sure if it was the kitsch or the template, but it just didn't pop at me, and the posts were too long to grab the attention.”
“Maybe once a week is good.”
“I liked Eric's blog and I will be coming back, though I don't promise to read all his posts in their entirety.”
“I would read this blog regularly.”
“I added it to my Bloglines about a month ago but I didn’t realize this was the same blog. Honestly, the long posts probably kept me from thinking of it as one of my favorites. Thanks for forcing me to dig into the archives.”
“No.”
“While I enjoyed what I saw, I'm not sure it did it for me well enough to go back regularly.”
“Already do, and recommend it highly. Why this blog isn't immensely more popular than it is boggles my mind.”
OVERALL – 91.8
These days, he’s a contributing editor for Believer Magazine, Web site editor for Monkeybicycle, and the world’s foremost authority of Vonnegut’s Asshole.
The blog, that is.
Most of our reviewers loved Vonnegut’s Asshole, placing it near the top of the blogs we’ve reviewed.
CONTENT – 8.8
“Totally brilliant in most every way: A humor blog that is actually laugh-out-loud funny.”
“Laugh-out-loud funny in places. His mind works like mine does, and that's almost frightening. Cigarette Penis Envy and Hot Lesbian Muppet Love made me cover the laughing with fake coughs since I was wasting time at work, reading.”
“Very entertaining. The posts are generally pretty long, but I wrestled my short attention span into submission because I really enjoyed reading them. I don't know if this blog would appeal to everyone, but if not it is a reflection on the blogging community and not the blog because his writing is wry and clever.”
“This stuff is original, funny, and so well written. One of the best I've reviewed so far!”
“Good use of kitsch.”
“In today's blogosphere, it's awfully hard to find a subject that hasn't yet been covered by thousands of others. The author gets a lot of credit from me for being able to find fresh topics for almost every post. Of course, some are boring as hell to me, thus the few points I've taken of.”
“I'm ashamed to admit I enjoyed the whole huge thing about cereal mascots.”
“The Pete Best of cereal, good one!”
“With a name like Vonnegut's Asshole, it has to be good! I'm not sure if the world is ready for two long-winded posts about breakfast cereal mascots, but I found Eric's essay on Dig 'Em particularly moving. And I was truly impressed with his Nov. 2nd post, which includes a picture of a Scottish guy with an enormous uncircumcised wang. Pure genius!”
DESIGN – 7.4
“The monkey was funny but hate the 'grandma's wallpaper' background.”
“Sadly, as brilliant as this blog is, it really suffers in the design department. Desperately needs a re-design to match the quality of the writing, which is excellent.”
“It's a plain jane blogger template, and I don't care much for the way he plops his pictures into his posts in such a manner that some of the words are crammed to the left or right of the picture, but that is such a minor quibble that I am embarrassed to even bring it up.”
“Nice, easy on the eyes, low on redundant paraphernalia like ads. I liked it.”
“Standard Blogger template.”
“It’s an altered, standard template but I love the monkey. A re-design would make all the difference in the world.”
“Its uncluttered and neat but at the same time, boring. The brown/tan color scheme doesn't do much for me. I guess I'm impossible to please. “
“The template isn't earth shattering, but at least it's clean and easy to read.”
QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 9.6
“I really like his writing style.”
“Impeccable. The guy is a professional writer, and a very good one at that.”
“I've got no complaints. The guy knows his stuff, not surprising given that he is a published author, I suppose.”
“Conversational and easy to read.”
“Has a handle on rudimentary grammar and spelling.”
“Generally done well but I have to point out that something with stripes is 'striped,' not 'stripped' (not necessarily, anyway).” [See Snap Crackle & Pop post.]
“The man writes for a living; his writing has to be good.”
“Not every professional writer I read is this good. It’s an honor he bangs this stuff out for us. Very good.”
INTANGIBLES – 6.6
“Whenever I see anti-aliased type I go into spasm, and his header text brought on a full seizure from which I am still recovering. Extra points for having full entries in the RSS feed.”
“Loved that he used illustrations, old ads and video clips of the different cereals.”
“I have no beefs. He doesn't post every day, but his posts are very full and robust, they last you a couple of days.”
“I hate to even mention the long posts, but they really bother me. Part of being a good writer is knowing when to quit.”
“I'm not a big fan of long posts, but they are well written.”
“Don't really love the interview transcripts. They're the equivalent of memes and Quizilla – sins that I am equally guilty of committing. People that write in glass blogs shouldn't throw stones, but I still don't love them.”
“I don’t get the name.”
“I had to skip through the majority of his posts, because, had I attempted to read them to the end, I'd still be at it when I retired. The posts are painfully long, and the author takes forever to get to the point. On the other hand, if you stay with a post, it proves to be worth the read. Loved the Chicago post, for example!”
“At first I didn't understand why the author only posted twice a week, but after seeing the length of his posts, it seems fair.”
“Eric, you just sold another book.”
FREQUENCY – 4.0
“Eric Spitznagel writes a new post every Monday and Thursday … because he loves us.”
WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 64% Yes
“Yes indeed. I am putting it in my Bloglines as soon as I finish this review.”
“Maybe. I'll try a few more posts and see if he keeps my interest.”
“Sure, why not?”
“Doubtful. Not sure if it was the kitsch or the template, but it just didn't pop at me, and the posts were too long to grab the attention.”
“Maybe once a week is good.”
“I liked Eric's blog and I will be coming back, though I don't promise to read all his posts in their entirety.”
“I would read this blog regularly.”
“I added it to my Bloglines about a month ago but I didn’t realize this was the same blog. Honestly, the long posts probably kept me from thinking of it as one of my favorites. Thanks for forcing me to dig into the archives.”
“No.”
“While I enjoyed what I saw, I'm not sure it did it for me well enough to go back regularly.”
“Already do, and recommend it highly. Why this blog isn't immensely more popular than it is boggles my mind.”
OVERALL – 91.8
posted by BlogLaughs at
Monday, November 20, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home