Of blogs and writing

[W]hile the internet may be a nifty vehicle for delivering one's polished prose and penetrating insights to an impatiently waiting world, it can't help you become a better writer if you, pardon my French, suck.

Moreover, the internet leads to all sorts of unsavory writing practices, like blogging. You know, the journal of the 21st century.

[...]

A lot of people will tell you that blogging is merely journaling online. It is not. Blogging is not private, but very public. And very few blogs involve the kind of introspection that characterizes a serious journal. Most blogging is sheer exhibitionism, either the self-absorbed ramblings of an individual blogger or the corporate site that exists for the sole purpose of making money. (If anyone sees a disturbing parallel between blogging and column writing, kindly keep it to yourself.)

This doesn't mean blogs have to be badly written. It just means that most are.

-- "You, To, Can Right Like a Blogger," Wired News, Apr 27, 06

According to rundeep, here's the real problem with blogging:

1) It causes the untalented to believe themselves writers with something of interest to say, and;

2) He who blogs is often not reading books, so as to develop the ability which might cure 1) above.

-- "Blogoholism" via Slate's Fraywatch, Apr 25, 06

I generally refrain from making big, sweeping statements about the exacting craft of writing, and I actively avoid making statements talking about what writers actually do. This is largely because I am very uncomfortable calling myself a "writer," so talking about what writers do feels fraudulent. I am even more uncomfortable making proscriptive statements about how to write when I'm still struggling to figure that out myself.

So I hope you can appreciate how difficult it is for me to publicly express what I'm about to say below:

Knock it off with faulting blogs as the source of all bad writing.

There's a line in David Sedaris's essay "Put a Lid on It" where he reveals that his sister Tiffany is driven by a pure compulsion to express herself. Sometimes, what people have to say transcends their compulsion to say it; sometimes, how they say it reveals a gift. Note how I said sometimes. Not always. But why consistently begrudge someone the compelling urge to break out of the confines of their own solitary consciousness and connect with someone, anyone else via a publicly-available website?

Nobody is making us read anything online. We have choices with each click: the good writing or the bad? There is enough good writing out there to keep even the most voracious reader satiated. And when flinging open the doors of the online marketplace to the best ... well, everyone gets to come in. That is the beauty of a marketplace of ideas.

Not everyone will stay. People get tired of crying out to an indifferent universe and stop trying to express themselves. Other people rely on gatekeepers to keep out the riffraff. There's ample commercial demand for curated collections and editors, and if you're that friggin' concerned about sullying your eyes, stick with the people who vet content for you. It's not like we're all stuck reading "My Ramblin's: Reflections on an Ordinary Life" and sighing, "Oh, if only there were weblogs written by professionals!"

Some people may be cranky because publishing's barriers to entry are lower but in many other ways, the stakes are much higher for anyone who wants to write. We all have to work that much harder for our readers now -- no matter how we work. In the end, I think that's a good thing for both writers and readers.

Comments

[Peggy Nature]

I am a big old snob about writing, and I totally concur. For some reason, it never gets my back up to see "bad writing" on a blog. I just take it for what it is, and sometimes I even get something out of it.

Seems like the people who are more invested in the whole "good writing" thing (ahem -- those getting paid for it) are a little more nervous about the fact that anyone can now instantaneously "publish" anything.

Snootiness and insecurity...like peanut butter and jelly, really.

[amanda]

Oh good -- I was afraid you were going to take the other position.

I think people that are paid to write (especially columnists) get a little nervous by the endless stream of writing (good and bad) that is coming out on the web (through blogging, journaling, whatever) like it threatens them. Want an opinion on a topic? Get a hundred free on the internet. And I really understand the compulsion to guard your turf -- from outsiders and insiders. However, personal writing online is incredibly compelling to me. I like people the most when they have interesting things to say about their lives and there are a lot of people out there like this. I really want to know if there is meaning to the greater whole of all this writing. What does it do for us?

Anyway, saying that there is bad writing out there is like, duh. I'm pretty sure that bad writers were getting published before the internet so it seems a bit silly to blame one's own lack of success on all those other people who are fouling the pool (which is what I was reading between the lines in the Slate piece).

[mike]

Writers whining about bloggers is to me as if professional musicians whined about amateurs and garage bands, a situation that I personally have never heard about.

[drunken monkey]

I feel the same way; the endless stream of columns about how the writing on blogs isn't real writing just comes off as panicked elitism much of the time. Much as with the music industry and online sharing, the media industry is watching this...thing grow online, and they can't get a handle on how to do it correctly themselves, and it scares the hell out of them. So they bloviate about it endlessly instead; you can feel the disdain coming off the screen when they write the word -- blogging.

Yes, some of the writing on blogs is atrocious -- bad grammar, no structure, lack of thought or substance. But the same could be said for some of the writing in magazines, newspapers and books. It's the reader's job to decide what he or she finds worthwhile, for whatever reason.

[foo]

It seems to me that people write blogs for a particular audience. Blogs seem to be narrowcast to appeal only to a small group of people, maybe just friends and family plus a few who like whatever narrow topic you discuss. Of course there is lots of bad writing out there but most of the audience wants to know what you did in Costa Rica not how to plan a trip to Costa Rica.

Most blogs are not trying to take over mass media positions they are there as an expressive supplement to mass media.