THE FINE LINE
different but same?
In the hierarchy of "writing" (assuming there is one) - where does blogging fit?
This has been a question I've struggled with for a long time and once again, it's cropped up in my previous post re: the Cook/Frere-Jones/Hopper debate. The main issue there is whether or not one's musical tastes has anything to do with politics and to be honest, right now, I'm not all that interested in that part of the debate. I'm already well familiar with it, especially in how elusive a consensus conclusion is. Moreover, others are doing a better job of delving in, including a recent Jeff Chang post on the tension between rockism and popism.
Instead, I'm more interested in asking: how do we fairly and reasonably evaluate something written on a blog vs. through a more "professional" outlet?
CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING...
My issue with Cook's essay could be boiled down to this: whether I agree with the merits of his argument or not, I just didn't think it was the kind of story that belonged in Slate...or any similar publication since Cook was exclusively responding to comments made by Sasha and Jessica on their blogs. If Cook wanted to respond to them, I feel like it would have been more "appropriate" to do so on his own blog, or on ILM, or some place other than a professional publication.[1]
By saying all this, I know it sounds like I'm trying to dictate a set of rules for a rather rule-less medium and thereby, opening myself up for all kinds of challenges. John Cook himself already served up one in the comments section, writing:
- "If he [Sasha] or Hopper didn't want their ideas to be consumed, and potentially challenged, by other people, they shouldn't have communicated those ideas on the internet. It's not a private sandbox. Their blogs may have a lower readership than Slate, and vastly fewer resources, but they all have precisely the same distribution."[2]
- "By the way: I don't get all the blogger complaints that they can't understand why Slate picked this up. It sounds like a bunch of writers -- all of whom I think are "journalists" who write for papers and mags and do radio etc as well as blog -- professing to be shrinking ultraviolets who can't take it when their ideas get picked up and appraised by the em ess em [aka MSM aka "mainstream media"]. Does this mean they'll stop complaining about the MSM not listening to blogs the rest of the long day?"[3]
First of all, I am not advocating that critics should not be subject to criticism themselves. I think it's perfectly valid - even healthy - for writers/journalists/critics to have their ideas openly debated, confronted, etc.[4]
This said, does blogging = all other kinds of writing? Are people really suggesting that what appears on a blog should be treated on the same level of intellectual discourse as something that appears in the pages of The New Yorker (or any other prominent, respected publication of the literati?) Or, as another friend put it to me in an IM convo earlier, (I'm paraphrasing here): "can we assume that a blog post even counts as "discourse?"
I don't want to turn this into a debate around semantics so let me simplify a bit and ask: isn't one of the important qualities of blogs the fact that they are unregulated, uncontrolled, unedited spaces for one to air out thoughts, grievances, ideas, etc. without the need for refinement, revision, or even good sense? In other words - and this repeats something I wrote in my last post - is blogging meant to mean anything more than a personal, self-published space in which to say stupid s--- because it's nice to have a personal, self-published space in which to say stupid s---?[5]
By saying that, I'm not suggesting that blogging = a Get Out of Accountability Free Card. Yes, you are absolutely allowed to write in and say, "hey dude, that was some stupid s--- you wrote today." No doubt, someone is already flexing their fingers to write this in my comments box below.
But do readers actually think a magazine essay and a blog entry are on the "same level"? Just because a piece of writing appears in any public space, does that mean that the spirit in which something was written suddenly becomes immaterial to how that piece of writing should be treated or responded to?
To put it even simpler, as my friend (who asked whether the average blog post even qualifies as discourse) pointed out, "it's a f----ng blog!" which I think sums up, quite nicely, the sentiments that many people - including people who actually blog - share about blogging: it's a fun activity, it allows us to express things or address topics we may not get to do elsewhere in our lives but, at the end of the day, it's a f----ing blog.
Call me crazy, but to me, blogging is a lot closer to an argument you get into with friends at a bar than it is a debate hosted by the Commonwealth Club of California. Just because both are technically "public" doesn't mean they should be treated the same.
Take this entry itself: it's long, it's rambling, it's probably not as well thought out as it could be vs. if I had been asked by Wired to opine on the subject for an op-ed piece. But I can do this because it's a blog and this, to me, is the nature of the medium. I'm not required or obligated to be concise, insightful or even, you know, intelligible. But wouldn't it seem rather ridiculous for another writer to read this post, then write an essay around it for, say, Wired and point out that my ideas are rambling and unintelligible? Seems like a waste to drop a publication's mountain of resources on top of, uh, my molehill.
My last point: the reason why any of this matters to me is because I don't want blogging to turn into formal debates hosted by the Commonwealth Club. I want to hear the bar argument - I want to hear otherwise deliberate and calculated thinkers come off the cuff with some outrageous bulls--- because if I wanted to know what they thought in a more studied light, I can always read their professional opinions elsewhere.
Personally? Some days, I'd just rather read what they have to say on their f---ing blog.
[1] Just to note, certainly there are exceptions to this rule. It's perfectly valid for a publication to report on a phenomenon that is principally generated through blogs. Publications do this sort of thing, all the time (hello "Lazy Sunday"). However, in the case of Cook's essay, I don't think he ever adequately supports the claim that what Jessica and Sasha wrote constituted a "campaign of sorts" nor do their respective posts even really qualify as a "meme" unless a "meme" = "more than one blogger writing about something."
In this case, Cook wasn't going after a wide-spread meme where Merritt was being labeled a racist by dozens, let alone hundreds of netizens. If there were a 400 post thread on ILM or Okaplayer.com about Merritt's potential racism, I dare doubt the Slate article would exist. More to the point, I really doubt Cook could have sold Slate on the story without Sasha's NYer position in particular and I think you can infer from Cook's own comments in his story that this was indeed the case.
[2] If means of distribution level the playing field between blogging and Slate, I know a lot of bloggers - not getting .75/word - who might want to chime in about that.
[3] I'm not sure if these two groups of writers are the same. In any case, taking blogging seriously is not the same as taking the writing on blogging as seriously as it would if it appeared in, say, Los Angeles Magazine. If we're actually at that level, does that mean I can submit blog entries to the magazine? ;)
[4] Unless it's by overly sensitive indie rappers.
[5] I realize that for many people, blogging is their sole outlet for the public sharing of thoughts, ideas, rants, raves, etc. and therefore, many of them refine their writing for blogs with the same kind of intensity that others of us might do for more formal publications. It's still a blog though.
<< Home