After reading Sarah Boxer’s essay about Blogs in the New York Review of Books, I have decided that to make this blog really popular, because popularity is what blogging is apparently all about,:
For many bloggers infamy is better than no kind of famy at all. In his book The Future of Reputation, Daniel Solove quotes Jessica Cutler of the Washingtonienne blog: “Some people with blogs are never going to get famous, and they’ve been doing it for, like, over a year. I feel bad for them…. Everyone should have a blog. It’s the most democratic thing ever.” To go unnoticed in this democracy is to not exist.
To become really popular I am going to either have to become a snarky, sometimes vicious jerk who says inflammatory things about politics, or I will have to talk about sex. A lot. That okay with you? No? Me either.
There are apparently loads of books these days about blogging, what it is, what it means, who does it. Boxer is even the author of a book on blogging. Her article focuses mainly on political blogs and the kinds of blogs that make the news, which aren’t book blogs in case you are wondering. She is not a blog naysayer. And in her essay she ponders
Are they [blogs] a new literary genre? Do they have their own conceits, forms, and rules? Do they have an essence?
Boxer notes that blogs tend to be “reactive, punchy, conversational, knowing, and free-associative” and infused with “linkiness.” The links are an important part of blogging and blog history. The first blogs acted as information filters for the internet, using links to point people to the good stuff.
I wanted to give Boxer a hug when she talks about how lots of people, especially in the professional media, think blog writing is easy. She quotes Geoffrey Nunberg, a linguist at Standford who sometimes contributes posts to Language Log, as saying (in 2004) “I don’t quite have the hang of the form.” Boxer says that those in the media who think blogging is easy and are forced by their companies to contribute to a blog are stumped as well. They write like they do for traditional media and end up sounding like the journalists they are, not bloggers.
Boxer suggests blogging at its freest is like “going to a masked ball.” You can try on different masks and not worry about anyone knowing who you are. An interesting idea. However I know some bloggers have noted, and I may have mentioned it once too, that they feel like their blogging self is truer to their real self than the person they are in everyday public life. So while blogging might be like a masked ball for some, to a number of bloggers, and to me as well, it’s as though the mask has taken off.
The essay concludes by summing up blog writing thus:
Blog writing is id writing-grandiose, dreamy, private, free-associative, infantile, sexy, petty, dirty. Whether bloggers tell the truth or really are who they claim to be is another matter, but WTF. They are what they write. And you can’t fake that.
Boxer’s essay is a rather refreshing change about blogging that so often shows up in the traditional media. No rants against amateurs or anything, just a light but thoughtful look at a genre that is here to stay.
I didn’t really like Boxer’s essay, mainly because she assumes that blog writing is one thing — quick, jaunty, seat-of-the-pants writing with attitude. I can’t stand it when people assume all blog writing is similar — it’s not! There are people who write long, thoughtful, philosophical posts that are carefully-crafted, and that’s blogging too. I didn’t recognize my own writing in what she was describing or the writing on the blogs I read. She did have a lot of good points, I just wish her understanding of blog writing weren’t so narrow.
Stefanie: You have brought out a very interesting point, a paradox in fact, that anonymity helps us to be open and honest, making us ‘truer to our real self’. Further, I totally agree with Dorothy W. that Boxer has a very limited view of ‘blogging’, maybe because she only studies the more sensational and ‘infamous’ blogs…at least the one I try to create and those I’d like to visit don’t fall into that category.
After writing entries on a diary for almost five years, I turned to blogging just this year because writing on an ordinary diary or journal seemed dull. Blogs are more dynamic and exciting cuz with just a mouse click I can change templates and add images and links and so much more. Blogging makes me feel more “professional” and “out there”. And So Many Books is one of my favorite sites on the Web.
I am currently reading Lost Illusions, my very first Honore de Balzac classic.
What are the best literary blogs that I should check out? Kindly recommend them to me, please. Thank you very much.
I liked part of her points, but like Dorothy I was bothered by most of her assumptions. I would never read a blog like the ones she describes, and even blogs that cover current events can be thoughtfully written. It was still an interesting read though!
Yes, it’s interesting isn’t it, how most writing on blogs longs to define and limit it and say THIS is blogging, nothing else. I have solved the problem! Whereas anyone who really blogs knows it’s all about diversity. Still, it’s nice to read someone who manages to go beyond the old ‘blogging is the spawn of the devil’ argument. Her article isn’t as good as your review of it, though, Stefanie!
“they’ve been doing it for, like, over a year. I feel bad for them.” This is so handy, having someone to feel bad for you, so you don’t have to do it yourself.
The essence of my blog might have to be “eau de wet dog” today – a bit rainy here and the pups has spent far too much time romping in the fields beyond the village. Most days the essence might be “eau de Roiboos tea” as I drink a big mug next to the computer while I type and read.
Is that what she means
After reading the NYTimes style section today I have decided I am in it for the swag, like the beauty bloggers. Apparently, beauty blogging is ALL ABOUT free stuff, and it’s just not worth it if 1000 dollars worth of products arrive at your door.
I am trying to decide what my swag should be? Tea? Wine? I don’t know, but y’all had better start sending it my way.
Dorothy, I agree with you. I didn’t like her assumptions either nor did I find my blog fit her definition which made me grit my teeth a bit. I was happy though to read an essay about blogging that talked it up as being a positive thing!
Arti, the paradox is fascinating to consider, isn’t it? I have hope that someday someone will write an essay about the diversity that is found in blogging.
lyttondora, thank you! I agree with you that blogging is very dynamic. Your private journal doesn’t comment back to you, give you encouragement or tell you about good books
Eva, it is interesting, isn’t? I think you are right that no matter what your subject matter, a blog can be thoughtfully written.
Oh Litlove, you are too kind! Blogging is still so new and everyone has something to say about it. It’s rather fun being in on the birth of a genre.
Amateur Reader, I know that one cracked me up!
Verbivore, essence of eau de Roiboos tea sounds lovely. I’ve never had that particular tea before but I’m sure its essence is why I like your blog
Courtney, maybe you should choose something like precious gems
Perhaps it isn’t writing a blog that is the new and cool trend but writing about blogs. I wonder how many of these authors actually blog themselves–there are lots of books out there now on the phenomenon. I’ve not read the article, but will have to check it out.
I agree that I was glad she didn’t completely trash blogs, but it’s absurd when people consider the number of blogs out there (she actually noted the number, so she has no excuse) that anyone thinks he/she can talk about them in any sort of general way. That would be like saying, “All books…” or “All authors…” Imagine if we all decided that just because they both wrote books that Tolstoy and Thurber are exactly the same, and that we could generalize about them. Like Dorr, I didn’t find her describing any of the sorts of blogs I read and love.
I think it’s interesting that you called blogging a genre. I’ve never heard of it referred to as such, but I think viewing blogging as a genre (which, I think it is) further points out the pointlessness of trying to define what blogging what really is. How many people sit down and try to define what horror is, or what romance, or what science fiction, or what “literature” is? Sure, these genres may have a few things in common, but as with books, blogs are as different as the people who write them. Trying to define what they are is, in my opinion, an exercise in futility. That being said, I haven’t read the article but I sure plan to!
I agree, blogging is just the medium. With so many different kinds of people writing (even for more than, like, a year) of course there will be endless permutations of content.
Lyttondora, sorry I skipped your second comment. As for some really good book blogs to read, well, there are a lot. And you couldn’t go wrong with clicking on the names of the various commenters, and taking a peek at their blogs or perusing the blogroll on the right.
Danielle, that’s a good question. It seems to me most of the people who write these kinds of articles or books about blogs do not themselves blog. Which is part of the problem.
Emily, you are very right. Just plain silly to say “all books are…”, so saying “all blogs are…” shouldn’t be any different.
J.S. I’m not the first to call blogging a genre, but I don’t think many people do. It’s been mostly book bloggers like Dorothy and Litlove and few others who have labeled it such. I agree with you that trying to define blogging with a one-size-fits-all definition is futile.
Melanie, so true. I don’t know about you, but it’s the endless permutations that are so appealing.
There is a widespread stereotype about blogs’ being jaunty, shallow, and trivial, at least that’s how my first impression was before starting my own. Blogs tend to be a bit more of a tabloid scoop with personal touch in addition to the newspaper that we read. But once I started blogging myself, it became so obvious that I can assert individuality and style as well as make the choice of what I want to blog about. I can sit in front of my laptop with a cup of coffee and start raving about the last drama I have. But I decide to write about books and reading, being part of the growing book blogging community that has inspired and opened up new horizons in my reading.
As to popularity of blog, it’s easier to have a one-hit wonder. Whenever I log on to the dashboard of wordpress, 9 out of 10 times I see the same people who make the top posts section. They blog about techie stuffs, sports, and gossips, throw in a little sensitive picture and get 500 hits in a minute. There’s nothing wrong with that because as the blogsphere grows, there will be infinite possibilities of kinds of writing and topics.
I don’t think many of us have in mind to become famous through our blogs. But we continue to give our thoughts and effort to the posts, it’s because we’ve been inspired by those whom we read at the first place.
I thought I would de-lurk (and add to your statistics and popularity) and comment here. I agree with everyone that blogging is a medium rather than a genre in and of itself – there are so many different types of blogs that one couldn’t assign it genre status. I love reading book blogs, sometimes write long thoughtful posts, sometimes do silly memes. I got into blogging because I use it in teaching (college level English), and find students write more thoughtful, insightful things when they perceive that they have an audience. I maintain several – my “private” blog on LJ, a professional, public one on WordPress and various collections of student blogs. I’m glad to see someone writing thoughtfully and not dismissively about blogs but would be more grateful if she had read more widely and had a clearer perception of the reality of the phenomenon.