The strange behaviour of my blog trolls

My friend George told me about trolls. George works in Beijing, and is an expert on communications. As you would expect, then, he knows rather more than me about the internet. He swims at his ease in its heaving waters while I splash about with a rubber ring. And he had been picking up some of the stuff I have been writing here, and told me some of the comments that had been affixed. "My God, the trolls were out," he said.

Er, trolls? And he explained. You, dear reader, no doubt infinitely more assured and knowledgable about the internet than I am, will doubtless already be aware of the term for those people who specialise in posting mocking, sneering, cynical and hideously negative remarks.

It's an aspect of the medium, I suppose, though not the most useful. But it's one of the facts of life: if you write for your living, you are going to find yourself coming up against sneerers and mockers every now and then.

Now I am lucky in that plenty of people have said nice things about my stuff from time to time: thanks to all who have, because it's mightily cheering.

But I have also attracted a fair number of mockers and sneerers of a curiously relentless kind. And frankly, between you and me, I find it rather tedious. Naturally, every one is entitled to disagree with me. Any one is free to dislike what I write. But the act of sneering is another thing altogether.

I confess I find it rather disturbing: that people turn destructive energy in my direction. (Proper famous people obviously get this a million times worse.) In my case, I suppose the problem is that some people can't come to terms with the idea that intelligent people like sport, and might want to read someone who tries to write about sport in an intelligent way. My attempts to do so have met with a bewildering hostility in some quarters. 

Different writers have different ways of dealing with the inevitability of mockery. Mine is to shut my eyes and my mind to it all and pretend that the sneerers don't exist. That way I can get on the job of writing the way I see it. Sneering letters get torn in half at the first sneer, sneering magazines go unread, and as for trolls: how blessed I am never to have heard of them.

It really has to be that way. Because if you ever let sneerers set the agenda, you're cooked. No matter what you do.

Readers are invited to leave as many messages of lavish praise as they wish. Or, I suppose, a rational expression of divergent views, if you must.

Trolls are invited to go back to wherever trolls come from and sneer their lives away.

Comments

[kate corwyn]

So Simon thinks he gets an unusual number of people "turning destructive energy" in his direction. Perhaps he should consider the possibility that he deserves everything he gets.

[T Underbridge]

I would explain about how hurling random nihilistic abuse at total strangers on the Internet demonstrates how much more important I am than they are, but Mum says that my SATs were so bad that I'm banned from using the internet for a while.

[Iain]

Simon,

Why not speak to your friend George about designing a piece of software that examines incoming mail and depending on the frequency and type of words used, highlights posts which are abusive, negative or downright troll-like. That way, those of us who value debate can ignore such drivel and read the good stuff.

[Scott]

Kate C: did you share a messy divorce with Mr Barnes? We deserve to know.

[Lucy Watson]

Simon,
Please ignore the mockers - after every significant sporting event, the first thing I do the next Morning is look to read what you said about it - you have brought to life so many sporting spectacles that I haven't been able to witness, and created characters of the sportsmen I'll never meet to allow me to feel as if I have. Sport is everything, and I glad such a great writer realises this!

[Saurabh]

T Underbridge,
And yet, you are posting on Finklestein's blog using the Internet, despite your mum's admonition. Tut, tut!

Simon,
You have worsened your position by responding in the manner you have.

[billy]

I like your articles Simon, but normally only read them if they are about the Arsenal :0)

[hurley]

My theory is that a lot of trolls are in fact drunks. They may even have tried this sort of thing in a bar once, and after the hideous consequences, have retired alone to their keyboard where it's safe.

[Alex C]

The only articles with uniformly complementary comments that I have seen have been criticising local councils or John Prescott. The problem with your articles is that you make people think and some people just don't like thinking.

Kate, you really have to explain, or people will think you're slightly unhinged.

[Anita]

"In my case, I suppose the problem is that some people can't come to terms with the idea that intelligent people like sport, and might want to read someone who tries to write about sport in an intelligent way."

Ah, yes. "They hate me because I'm brilliant."

True trolls are a pest, but after reading your swimming piece, you might consider that some of us are unhappy for other reasons. I admit, your insight into how small breasts strips a woman of her femininity was breathtaking, as was your assertion that this femininity could be regained by wiggling out of the suit after the match. Of course, by breathtaking, I mean "incredibly boorish and offensive, both to athletes and readers."

[Dan]

An interesting article on a very modern subject.

I spend a bit of time in the blogosphere, partly for research for academic work, partly for my own interests.

Perhaps trolling is destined to become one of those human habits we deplore in others but fail to recognise in ourselves.

Online, I try to behave with courtesy towards others but I reserve the right to strongly disagree with some political opinions. In the eyes of some might this qualify me as a troll?

I was once denounced as an Islamophobe on a Guardian blog for objecting to Iran's execution of women and gay men. I responded by suggesting that my detractor was a neo-McCarthytite. Who is the troll in such an exchange? Both of us? Neither?

...of course - HE'S the troll, isn't he? My e-conduct is beyond reproach....

[A Moore]

Er. That's not my understanding of the term 'troll'. A troll is someone who posts an incendiary comment - probably not reflecting their actual opinions - with the sole intent of stirring up dissent. Poking the hornets nest.

As for intelligent writing about sport... why? I don't know a single person whose intellect I respect and who really gives a stuff about OTHER PEOPLE doing sport.

[A Moore]

By the way, Barnes, the word you are groping for is "flamer".

Having read a couple of your articles now, I still hold to the question... why?

Oh, and another one... intelligent?

[aaron]

simon - can i suggest that if you dont want abuse you perhaps refine from writing vom-inducing drivel like this on Lampard...truly the worst piece of "sports" writing i have ever come accross...
have you ever actually played sport?
You long for a chance to set the wrongs of the world to right, at least in some symbolic form. You long for a victory, not over Liverpool, but over death. And that's how that penalty felt: as a tearful, sad, joyous expression of the ultimate truth, simultaneously profound and banal, that life is there to be lived, that it can bear any amount of sadness, and that, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, in the eyes of a man in the grip of grief, it goes on.

[starling]

Just because someone doesn't praise you to high heaven doesn't mean they're a "troll". Trolls deliberately start arguments, often not even about the topic in question, or they put in random messages. I'm afraid someone who says your pieces are drivel is not a troll, just a person who doesn't like you very much, Simon.

[E]

First it was Pseud's corner, now it's the Trolls, poor Simon.

[Phil]

I posted a semi-troll comment on an article on The Times website about the new swim suits used at the olympics - I followed this up with another that was constructive and to the point and it wasn't posted on the website. Perhaps the media perfers these 'troll' comments as it generates more interest.

[aaron]

"In my case, I suppose the problem is that some people can't come to terms with the idea that intelligent people like sport, and might want to read someone who tries to write about sport in an intelligent way"....
Simon - read this again and tell why i shouldn't hate you?

[rob]

To A Moore:

I don't know a single person whose intellect I respect and who really gives a stuff about OTHER PEOPLE doing sport.

This is genuinely laughable. Whose intellect, exactly, do you respect? And if this is true, why do you bother reading these articles? Why comment here?

Simon Barnes is the greatest sports writer of his generation, that's my view, and what he writes about sport has taught me not just about sport, but about life.

[GA]

Simon,
I'm an Aussie who, several years after spending a wonderful stint in London, still logs on every week to read what you have to say. You are the best and most provoking sports journalist I have read. One of a bare handful of journos, in both Aus and the UK, who actually writes about sport, rather than catering to petty, nationalistic whims. I'm surprised you'd even acknowledge the idiots, mate.
Keep up the fantastic work.
GA, Hong Kong

[Patronised Troll]

Staggering. Truly staggering. In your mind, Simon, the only reason that people criticise you is that you are intelligent and they are stupid? Fantastic - can never lose an arguement in your life then can you?

You give yourself away with this article. You really do. You claim to ignore these people - some of whom no doubt are drunk, or stupid or looking to have a go for their own pleasure rather than in a constructive way and should rightly be dimissed, but not all of them - but this piece is entirely about them.

What have I learnt about the glorious spectacle of sport that is going on in Beijing right now by reading it? Nothing. All I have learnt is that the people you claim to have no time for occupy your thoughts to such an extent that you have used your position as a writer on a major newspaper to attack them. As intelligent as so rightly say you are, I'm sure you are familiar with the definition of irony.

The major problem I have - there are plenty, me being a troll and all, but my knuckles hurt if I type for too long - is this idea of intelligent sports writing you claim to champion so well. I am all for it. Someone who elevates the form above the petty partisan sensationalist nature of much of British sports writing is worth their weight in gold and is to be treasured. But you do this a disservice. Becuase your work is so pompus and self indulgent, it gives idiots a poster boy for the kind pretensious flowery writing that turns so many people off proper, thoughtful writing on the subject, and as such holds others back.

I suggest you put down which ever 16th century piece of Russia literature you are currently reading, no doubt to be included in an article about Kenyan runners at some point in the future, a flexing of your own intelligence that both is vulgar and self important, and get hold of 'Footballers don't cry' by Brian Glanville. There are a pair of articles in it called 'looking for an idiom' and 'still looking for an idiom' in which he wonders why British sports writting is polarised between the gutter press which looks down with contempt on its readers and serves up dross for the masses and the other extreme of sports writing that is almost deliberately inaccessible to the common man. Why can something not be at once populist AND high minded and thoughtful? It is a conundrum you have consistently failed to fathom, despite the awards that have been lavished on you.

Anyone who thinks otherwise, as some of the posts here prove there is and all power to it for the sake of healthy debate, should hunt out Barnes' piece on Frank Lampard's penalty in the Champions League shortly after the sad passing of his mother. A victory over death itself, apparently. Gushing and over blown to exactly the same degree as the Mirror's back page splash headed 'The bravest penalty ever.'

Staggering. Truly staggering.

[bil bailey]

Simon,

Would you be hugely miffed if I were to quote parts of your 'webtrolls' item within comments on other forum-sites - with attribution, of course - and the occasional appropriate URL-link to the article?

Enjoy the Beijing cuisine, and the flight back.

BB

[A Moore]

@Rob,

I think everyone else got the joke. You've been well and truly Trolled.

Fancy a flame war?

[PM]

You need to google Flame Warriors to find out who you're up against. It's good for a larf. But if you really want to see trolls in action, read the comments in any Times article that deals with China, Russia, religion, evolution/creationism and anything else that has opposing hordes of cavalry chomping at the bit ready to wreak havoc on informed debate. I think the Times limits intelligent comments as a matter of policy.

[Lonnie]

Well on one hand, you've at least excited people into action. Its not much action apparently, but it is a response. Art should do that on some level. Don't be so sensitive, and especially about something so cosmically unimportant as sports. Those who are fountains of negativity will eventually flow into stagnant pools and evaporate into nothing. I can't place anyone in history that just sat around being a whining ill mannered bore.