I read this column by Kathleen Parker in the Chicago Tribune this morning, which beseeches readers to "beware and resist the ego-gratifying pack that contributes only snark, sass and destruction." Well, I'm a blogger. But show me any writer who isn't ego-gratifying (show me any human that isn't.) And I might snark and sass sometimes, but the only person I'm going to destroy here is myself, through bad grammar and poor link usage. So, I wrote Ms. Parker the following letter:

Dear Ms. Parker:

I read your column "All about bloggers" with interest. I'm a 26-year-old writer and blogger in Chicago. One of the items that's perpetually on my 'to do list' is to try to put together an article differentiating the various types of blogs. For instance, one of my blogs, MBToolBox.com, serves to provide advice to freelance writers. My other blog, Zulkey.com, usually (tries) to provide literary humor and interviews to its readers. There are blogs that provide book reviews, pictures of cute animals, personal journals, gossip about baseball players and links of interest to graphic designers. Of course on top of this are the gossip and politico-gossip blogs. I have a feeling that the last two were probably what you had in mind when you were writing the column, but I think it would have been interesting and helpful to call out which blogs in particular were on your list, as opposed to blogs in general. Obviously, you are thinking of a particular person and blog when you say " When someone trips, whether Dan Rather or Eason Jordan or Judith Miller, bloggers are the bloodthirsty masses slavering for a public flogging. Incivility is their weapon and humanity their victim." But for those still unfamiliar with blogs, when their 12-year-old granddaughter tells them she's writing a blog for her English class, this frightening vision might be what springs to mind.

I agree with you that bloggers overall are held to a lower standard of journalistic integrity than newspaper writers: that's why it's so much easier for me to put a post on my blog than to get a piece into the Chicago Tribune. However, I'd say that overall they are less influential and less mean-spirited than you paint them as a whole. Meanwhile, most blog fans know that the information they receive from Gawker.com is probably not as rock solid as what they get in the New York Times, or even CNN.com.

Meanwhile, for those who are dedicated, blogging can be a great outlet for good writers. While I am also a freelance journalist who has contributed to the Chicago Tribune and who has been nominated for a Pushcart Prize, it was my blog that has gotten me exposure on NPR and in the New Yorker. For someone who has put in 5 days of free work for over three years, that is a good reward. You never know: today's blogger could be tomorrow's newspaper columnist, given the proper chance.

Hopefully if I get around to differentiating the blogs (perhaps the 'arts' blogs from the 'silly' blogs from the 'gossip' blogs, etc), their critics can be more specific. But to generalize about blogs in general does a disservice to a medium that is exciting and valuable as it is immature and sloppy.

Thanks for your time,

Claire Zulkey

I'm not posting this to get my blogging brethren to rise up and defend ourselves. We are too lazy for that. I'm asking my blogging and writing brethren though to send me any feedback you do have on how to officially differentiate the different blogs. What kind of category does MBToolBox fit into? What about Coudal? TVNewser? Bookslut? FishbowlNY? Cute Overload? These are all very different types of blogs, or so it would seem, so shouldn't we be able to sort them out more effectively? If you have any thoughts on classifications, drop me a line. Or else I will destroy you.