Review of ‘You’re Dripping Egg’ by GOB Rookner

Posted on December 18, 2010


I was recently informed by a few friends that I was one of the select few they wished to invite to post in their blog. There is literally no way I could have been more interested in doing so, so I immediately spranged into action and put on my punctuation and spelling hat on for the kind of insight you can only expect from an unknown blogger juuuuuust before they hit it big.

y-o-u-r-e-(already, I’m thinking people might get confused about the your/you’re/ur debacle)-d-r-i-p–etc….

For realzies? ‘You’re Dripping Egg’ and ‘We review everything.’ That’s it? That’s all I get before I’m expected to exude prose for the benefit of a wider world of web? Not likely! What could ‘review(ing) everything’ possibly involve? Without a template and without a piece for inspiration, it’s clear that the blog has done little so far to inspire intellectual discussion from the crack writing team. Admittedly, the writing team is, by and/or large, in the middle of exams, so all their skills are being eaten up by relatively un-unintelligible blather that may further their educational prospects somewhat. I’m less burdened and as such, am obviously the first to visit the page.

You're Dripping Egg entry page.


Yet still I can almost hear the echo as I click around the page. Subscribing to the RSS feed so far seems like a fairly safe bet and will ensure that I’m able to receive all the literary gold sure to grace these “Inuit Types by BizzArtic.” walls in the near future. It’s almost unfair how easy it has become to dismiss the page itself while still appropriating the content for my own consumer-centric RSS reader. I feel like I’ve done the page a terrible disservice, but in fairness it did it to me first. Little more than a white template and six words does even littler to my literary juices and they’re notoriously pretty easy to arouse.

The very structure of the page is insulting, but so too is the limited information I’ve been given by the editors in order to formulate a post of my own for their purposes. On the top of the page is the promise of a format I’m to maintain with the reviewing and so such, but I fail to see exactly how I will do so. Do I use a star-based rating system? Shall I waffle on about my experience with my review subject for some time to allude to any bias and give context to the post before pointing out a few glaring errors and then writing one paragraph in which I ask questions that are not able to be answered immediately? No. That would be ridiculous, for in a blog you can’t be a pithy newspaper reviewer that gets to meet their deadline with questions and have everyone forget they asked anything before the next deadline. The blog is a dialog (diablog.) and I’m putting myself out there to be critiqued in due course.

Why should I write anything to be critiqued by the armchairs of the world and those than inhabit them when all I’ve been asked to do is essentially that? If people out there are as cruel as I imagine them to be, I’m not inclined to become a part of the content-producing side of the web. We produce content critiquing those that produce other content, starting with nothing more than six words and cruddy template that suggests ease-of-use, but screams overdone. If I am to review anything and everything harshly and with some integrity, why should I do so from a format completely uninspiring and untested by yours truly? Why produce content if it will do little to inspire others other than to create their own content critiquing mine? I don’t deserve criticism for trying to make something in a world of taking and yet I actively critique and place this article to invite a little of it too.

There is little substance to the website itself and while initially promising, it comes with a slew of unanswered ethical questions regarding the legitimacy of participating in the cycle of content in a site that ‘reviews everything’.

I give the site 2 stars.

Posted in: Websites