Last week, I blogged about a short review of Spike Lee’s Kobe Bryant documentary, labeling the blog entry “Tillet on Spike on Kobe.”

One of the readers, Just Asking, wrote the following response:

Why does Jackson on Tillet on Lee on Kobe feel so removed from anything that really matters, even in popular culture? (Tillet needs a c.v. line for the tenure hearing?) Jackson should write about Kobe directly. Or Jackson should write about Lee’s movies directly. What is this, homeopathic academics?

Got to run. There’s a piece I want to read by a Prof. Smith, about what Prof. Davis thinks about William C. Rhoden’s opinion of SportsCenter’s coverage of what the tabs are saying about Michael Vick.

This isn’t the first time I received such a criticism. In April, I blogged about a Chronicle piece on “the gender of tenure” and received an arguably related (though not identical) response from a “James”:

Professor Jackson: I have just read your blog today and I have noticed a distinct improvement in your writing. Very good.

Point of information to Chronicle: This periodical is not cheap and I do not see your audience continuing to subscribe to a periodical that publishes two versions of the same piece on consecutive days.

Others agreed with James, though Rusty reminded everyone that all Brainstorm readers don’t have access to the rest of The Chronicle. Brainstorm blogs are open to the public, but the original essay was only accessible via subscription. Even still, I think James and Just Asking make similar points.

I didn’t reply to James. Just Asking got this query from me:

Your inclination to respond to my response to Tillet’s response to Lee’s response to the Kobe Phenomenon probably provides the seeds to your own answer to that question you offer up, no?

Just Asking defended himself/herself, which I appreciate:

Yes, except: a) I’m an unpaid content provider on “Brainstorm,” so less is expected of me; b) I’m not just giving you a little public pat on the back by quoting your piece admiringly and then riffing on it — I’m criticizing your piece; c) #7 is a sophistry, albeit a clever one (nobody can ever criticize a piece of writing for being three or four satellite orbits removed from the subject planet because the criticism will be yet another satellite orbit, even farther removed — automatic immunity!); d) #7 begs the question of, if you’ve got something to say worth reading about Kobe Bryant (and I don’t doubt that you have), why not just write it, instead of a blurb for somebody else’s piece?

I was going to respond in comment-form, but I decided to make it its own post. I’m sure that a few other readers will be drawn to one side or another of this ongoing debate.

Dear Just Asking,

Clearly, every piece of writing doesn’t have to serve the same function. Some attempt to be critical, as is your wont. Others are more informative and merely gesture towards interesting news/facts, which was the aim of this piece you’ve been criticizing. The point was to make sure that interested Chronicle readers got a chance to see the Tillet essay. I enjoyed reading it, so I was passing the link along. Every writing doesn’t serve that function, but should none? Is that really your position?

And I wasn’t looking for “automatic immunity” (with my “sophist” rejoinder), just pointing out an irony that I thought spoke directly to your initial question.

Also, why is “riffing on” the Tillet piece not enough? These blog entries aren’t freestanding essays. They’re just attempts to put an idiosyncratic spin (my take) on some stories I find intriguing. The spin I offered up in this piece had to do with our collective demand for backstage access to people’s real lives. I believe that such an impulse is part of a growing cultural logic of vicarious intrusiveness that demands critique. It might be, I’d argue, connected to the very same engine that drives the blog/Twitter craze and its one-way dynamic of disclosure.

Lastly, you are unpaid and anonymous, Just Asking. How, if at all, does the latter fact fit into your four-pronged defense?

J(ust Answering).