Nasty Tweets, Blog Cliques, and Q-list bloggers like me.

I'm kind of horrified by some things that got flung around Twitter this weekend.

A successful (aka "A-lister") Mommy Blogger (whose name I'd never heard before, incidentally, so we'll just refer to her as Twitterer) apparently found a blog yesterday that she felt had some similarities to other blogs. For example, the name. There's apparently a successful blog called Fussy, and this blog that Twitterer objected to was called Fussypants. This Fussypants blog did an advice column, and another big Mommy blog already did an advice column. The Fussypants blog posted pictures that had been photoshopped, and another blog already posted pictures that had been photoshopped. (By the way, I wasn't familiar with Fussy or Fussypants either, for the record.)

Twitterer didn't like this and got right indignant, bye. Indeed, this got her knickers in a knot and caused her to broadcast to her followers (of which she has 700+, while she only follows less than 100.. more on that in a moment) a very public accusation of "copying", a mocking insult post and a hurled accusation of being "parasitic".

Well, if Fussypants is parasitic, then so is every other blog on the planet. Including yours, Twitterer.

None of us are original. It's a vanity to think we are. Even if there's a fab, unique idea such as Passive Aggressive Notes that hits the blogwaves, it's a fact that the author used the same tactics as everyone else did to build her traffic. Of course she did. It's how you build an audience. But Twitterer doesn't see things the same way. Apparently if anyone writes about the same things as anyone else in the blogosphere does; if anyone else does anything else that's already been done on another blog, they're "copying" (and why do I feel like I'm 8 when I hear that word? "Teacherrrr! She's Copyingggggggggg!")

A blog posts photoshopped pictures, and someone already does that. You're right, Twitterer. Shut down FARK, too, while you're at it, because they post photoshopped pictures all the time. And the advice column? Before getting on Fussypants' pants, perhaps you should talk to Sars at Tomato Nation, who's been running the Vine since blog time began. Really, the only similarity worth concern that I can see is the name, but let's be honest: "Fussy" isn't exactly a unique word. To use an example that's already been seen, it isn't even like she called her burger chain McDonald's in a different font. She called her burger joint Burgerilla, when there's already a "Burgers". She called it "Yumminess" when there's already a "Yummy". This isn't even worth a huff. And it certainly wasn't worth nastiness from someone who isn't even the original "Fussy" blogger.

Blogs are by their very nature similar. We're all posting about things we want to write about. For a lot of women, that's their family. Tell me, is every Mommy Blogger who writes about her children a parasite? Unless she's copying posts verbatim, where's the problem?

These ridiculous, nasty accusations are one thing, indeed. But what really bothered me about this is that it cements my knowledge - not just belief, but knowledge - that blog cliques exist. Yes, I used the word. Live with it. There's a very small and very ugly percentage of bloggers that let this whole thing go to their heads. That create the insiders' club, they put up the walls and crack their champagne bottles inside, and nobody else is welcome.

99% of bloggers are not like this. 1% of them are. They've done their audience building. They get their clicks and their traffic and their nominations and invitations to speak. They have long left behind starting out with their blogs, trying to build their spaces, build their audiences. They don't need to reach out anymore. So they don't. They don't read new blogs. They don't expand. They don't find new blog friends. Look at the twitter followers vs. the twitter followed, in the case above: 7 people follow her to every 1 she follows. Only the opinions of a select few are heard; the rest are ignored.

And it's this, more than anything, erodes the trust within the community. It's when people hear these great things about how the Blogosphere is wonderful, welcoming, supportive, then see the reality in these few nasty incidents, these few people that shun them or worse, mock them, that make people go, you know what? I need to watch my back around here.

And yet whenever I've had a conversation with anyone about it, they deny that the clique exists.

It does exist. It's small and it's elite, and it's an inner circle that prefers to only interact with others who are successful. This is why it's dangerous, because while 99% of successful bloggers don't participate in this kind of bullshit, they do consider the 1% their friends. Of course they do, because the 1% is kind and welcoming.. to them. Just not to anyone else. The 99% aren't part of the clique through participation, but the 1% do enough damage for the rest of them.

By denying it exists, by not talking about it, it actually allows it to continue. So, here's my appeal to the rest of the blogosphere: Acknowledge it. Realize that it's there, acknowledge the behaviour, the insularity of it, and call it like it is. And when you see bullshit, call that too - whether they're your friend, or not. Or perhaps, especially if they're your friend. Because isn't calling each other out on your bullshit, kind of what friends are for?

Update: Fussypants and Sweetney have sorted this out together and all is good. Which I think is completely awesome. Hooray!