|
November 22, 2003
The Latest Wrong Thing.
Bloggers are either: a) foolish amateurs who abandon their blogs, or b) professsional writers who con the former. So says John Dvorak (link), who, if I remember correctly, once praised blogging as "the next thing." I did remember correctly. (More or less....) Here's the link. Well that was then, and this is now: Writing is tiresome. Why anyone would do it voluntarily on a blog mystifies a lot of professional writers. This is compounded by a lack of feedback, positive or otherwise. Perseus thinks that most blogs have an audience of about 12 readers. Leaflets posted on the corkboard at Albertsons attract a larger readership than many blogs. Some people must feel the futility.OK, folks, which is it? Am I a "professional writer" or am I "being used"? That's a pretty tough question, but I'll do my best to answer it. I am a licensed attorney, but because I dislike litigation and live in a state where I am not licensed, I don't practice much law. I suppose that when I did practice law, because that included lots of writing and because I was paid, I was in that sense a "paid" writer. But I have never been published, and I have never been paid just for writing. I guess that means I am being used by a bunch of sneaky professional writers out there. I'll be ground up and thrown overboard any time now. Meanwhile, the covert professionals will sign deals with (gulp) "Big Media." To them, it's some sort of affirmation. In fact, it's a death sentence. The onerous Big Media incursion marks the beginning of the end for blogging. Can you spell co-opted?Maybe Dvorak means, can I smell it? Sure, I'd be afraid to smell co-opted. That's why I'd be scared to death if someone hired me. I'd be afraid of my fellow bloggers, because I'd like to think they'd call me on it if I "sold out." If they did, and if I were unable to overcome my stench, that would be the "death sentence" of my credibility. But I could still blog. As long as this remains a free country with an intact First Amendment, any asshole can say anything he wants. Including Dvorak, whose sentences are indeed deathening. Dvorak forgets something about this type of writing -- and that something is one of my favorite aspects of blogging. It's called linking. These analysts of the blogosphere think that linking is little more than mutual masturbation -- something along the lines of "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours!" While there is a certain aspect of that, that is only part of linking. For me, linking is the most liberating form of writing I have ever discovered, because it is three dimensional writing. The old flat style -- books, essays, manuscripts -- simply would never allow me to express complex thoughts, thoughts reflecting each other, underlying assumptions, twists on words, historical backgrounds and definitions of concepts in such a precise and exciting manner. In the old days, I would have had to use parentheses, brackets, and footnotes. Today, a link serves all these purposes and more. Let me give an example. I might want to mention Nathan Bedford Forrest. The man was a brilliant general, slave dealer and breeder, founder of the Ku Klux Klan, and genuine political statesman of real courage. I can link to each one of those aspects of the man's personality and accomplishments -- good or bad -- by supplying links to the relevant words, and then leave it up to you readers to decide whether to bother reading about the details. (I could slant my writing accordingly, depending on what links I select.) I can link to whatever aspect of the text happens to strike my fancy, and depending on the knowledge levels or interest of my readers, they can click or not click. Most readers would know, for example, who Nathan Bedford Forrest was, but not as many know about the Ft. Pillow Massacre. Fewer still would know that there are a number of competing historical views of this man. In case any readers were upset by the Ramsey Clark portrayal, read this! Bear in mind that Nathan Bedford Forrest was just an example, plucked at random. (Well, almost at random.) Three dimensional writing is marvelous. There really isn't any other place I can do this. No books can do it, either. Dvorak (whose name has become a noun meaning cyber-bigotry) must live in two dimensions. Why does this remind me of conventional politics? posted by Eric on 11.22.03 at 03:38 PM
Comments
I would leave a comment as feedback but Dvorak tells me this is impossible so I will just vanish in a puff of logic instead. Ghost of a flea · November 23, 2003 03:34 PM Logic? That's no fair! Eric Scheie · November 24, 2003 04:29 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
If nobody reads us but about 12 people or the number of people who read notices at Albertson's, then how are they (who? Andrew Sullivan?) exploiting us? I would think they'd find more profitable people to exploit, those greedy capitalists. Doesn't add up for me, but then, I'm kinda slow.