Why, No, We Shouldn’t

In my continued effort to work through/cull my Bloglines subscriptions, I have noticed a strange and saddening trend of people seemingly suggesting that we should just shut up. (That is, stop blogging.)

I saw it in this post at What not to do in Asia…, as well as in this final post at ξενιτεια. (Boy I hope the Greek shows up correctly.)

I can understand the sinking whumph of deciding to give up—for however long—on blogging. I can see the motivation in mocking Friday Cat Bloggery—I mean, I don’t give a damn about other peoples’ cats, of course, except my friend John’s whom I only think of when it’s slinking toward me.

But I don’t think that it’s necessary to declare the death of blogging in general, the irrelevance of this strange new world we’re all creating out there in the blogosphere. I’m sure I’ll have my fill of it, too, sooner or later. I find already it eats up too much of my time.

But that doesn’t mean we should look down on it. More and more, the political bloggery seems to me less interesting—though more necessary—and the niche bloggery seems more necessary.

The niche stuff is interesting because you get mini-experts, or even pseudo-experts. The political stuff, though, involves too little interchange between different parts of the spectrum to be considered an example of political discussion (see this for more).

The personal stuff… ah, the personal stuff. Sometimes I think I post too much of the personal stuff, but you know, outside of the best few niche blogs in each subject, I find myself returning time and time again to blogs where interesting personal stuff gets posted.

Okay, and also where people do creative stuff, like this Diner Radio show by James Lileks (which I am listening to right now). If you ask me, the future of mediablogging is in the direction of this, man.

But hey, for those of us who are just textual geeks, for now, I’ll settle for a shortened list of subscriptions at bloglines, and amuse myself in other ways.

For now.

7 thoughts on “Why, No, We Shouldn’t

  1. Blogging is vast. It contains multitudes. Some folks will stop, others will start, and the world will keep on turning.

    Look next week for an interesting column from the Mrs. on confessional writing that dovetails nicely with your comments re: personal information above. I’ll post a link in my blog.

  2. No, wait, on second thought: hk, don’t explain why. I know why. It’s because you’re projecting. Your projecting because I pointed out your own spelling in Korean was wrong. You’re embarrassed yourself because pretty much I pulled your comment apart and showed what a mindless, rabid little shit you are actually saying something like “Go teach my people Engrish” to someone who might be a fellow Korean, and might not even be in Korea. You yourself are embarrassed because you could think of nothing cleverer to say than to start cussing me out and acting as if you pity me.

    I already pretty much grasp that. I grasp that you at least understand you look stupid for being such a rabid bigot.

    I don’t understand the pathology that keeps you posting, but if you comment here again, I’m deleting. I have no need of trolls here, and it’s MY site.

  3. Hello Gord,

    Excellent points.

    Here’s what Fareed Zakaria had to say about blogs in The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad:

    “In the world of journalism, the personal website (“blog”) was hailed as the killer of the traditional media. In fact, it has become something quite different. Far from replacing newspapers and magazines, the best blogs – and the best are very clever – have become guides to them, pointing to unusual sources and commenting on familiar ones. They have become new mediators for the informed public. Although the creators of blogs think of themselves as radical democrats, they are in fact a new Toquevillean elite. Much of the Web has moved in this direction because the the wilder, bigger, and more chaotic it becomes, the more people will need help navigating it.” (pg. 254)

    As far as “hk” goes: delete and ban. It is your blog. As you know, I had a troll on mine and expunged her. These trolls offer nothing to a blog. They get their kicks from cowardly provocation, while hiding behind pseudonyms. Even when they have valid points to make, they are so inarticulate that they can do no better than to mock. Let “hk” have his/her/its own blog.

    You have often disagreed on my blog, but have done so in an intelligent and relatively polite way and I hope I have done so on yours. This “hk” should learn to do the same.

    Pax,

  4. Joshua,

    While I often disagree, and while I am reticent to ban anyone on the grounds that I daren’t impede criticism, I am doing it in this case.

    You’ve generally been well within the bounds of respectful criticism, Joshua, and so I have no complaints about your comments here, disagreements aside.

    And I think what you say about the Tocquevillean elite may have something to it; but have you ever noticed it’s only Americans who talk about Tocqueville? Never the French, as a francophone friend once commented—if I remember correctly, anyway. Quite possibly I’m wrong.

  5. Hello Gord,

    You did a good thing banning your troll. You’re not impeding criticism; you’re impeding idiocy. Ad hominem attacks and snide commentry do not constitute criticism.

    It wouldn’t surprsise me if the French never talked about de Tocqueville. Their Revolution and the American one were quite different, as are the respective societies that resulted.

    Pax,
    Joshua

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *