Walter Cronkite reading.
Funny how stories you sent to zines over a large space of time often appear at once. http://www.darkestbeforedawn.net/?q=node/40
Thanks to Aldo for posting SOURIS.
One of the the more interesting (for me) aspects of JULIA AND JULIE was the questions raised about the value of blogs. I am sure you run into people too who question the worth of blogging. Whenever I mention my blog, people get that glazed-over look. Oh, you blog. How nice that you have this hobby. We are saving the world in the meantime. We have real lives. But, you, you blog. Knitting can be useful, too.
Of course, when "Julie" of Julia and Julie blogged it was a very new thing. She had no "Crimespot" to tie her to people of similar interests. She was truly out there on her own. Was it anything more than ennui?
Has blogging changed over time? Do you get any respect for having a blog? What is the future of blogging" Will blogs take the place of newspapers and other media? Or is it mostly narcissistic? Does anyone care beside us? What say you, bloggers?
28 comments:
As there are no editorial controls in blogging, the medium becomes a bit like the opening of Dickens' A TALE OF TWO CITIES: It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair [ . . . etc.). As for my particular concerns: (1) there is often too much incivility in discourse (not here but elsewhere); (2) there is too much inaccuracy (not here but elsewhere); (3) there are too many good things being written that are not being read (here, there, and everywhere). Finally, though, this is still a relatively new medium, though it is danger of being made obsolete by newer, quicker media (i.e., Twitter, texting, etc.) Well, for whatever it might be worth, those were my two cents. I rather suspect you will have plenty of other comments.
An amazingly quick and literate response, R.T.. You pretty much sum it up. Thanks for your kind exclusions.
Based on anecdotal feedback, I get more respect than readers for my blogging. I get a lot of nice comments when people learn I have a blog, but very few of them actually read either of them.
I'd like to have a wider readership, but my blogging has helped me a lot. Not just as a writer (though I am better at organizing my thoughts and putting them down concisely), but in general. One of my blogs covers whatever is on my mind at the time, and I find my opinions are better formed if I have to commit them to writing. Sometimes I'm halfway into a blog piece and realize I was mistaken in the first place. I like that. I feel as though I can better justify my positions and beliefs, especially to myself.
Blogging for me takes the space of a "personalizine," a kind of fanzine with essentially the same sort of content as I might put on my blog, or the space that membership in an APA (amateur press association) might. Blogspot blogs particularly replicate the "mailing comments"/comments format of APAzines. I've published several issues of several fanzines and somewhat more formal little reviews over the years, and blogging is simply the less difficult, less expensive variation on that practice, for me.
Homer Simpson: "The internet is on computers now!" Yep.
Of course, in part I got a Blogspot blog so I could comment on other Blogspot blogs with rssticted access.
My favorite blogs are like good pubs.
Patti, get a beer & wine license will ya'?
John McAuley
Didn't you see the sign up, John?
I don't know, I was really drunk at the time. [Pink Floyd reference.]
Hell, I'd still like this joint if all that was served was dirty water in a clean glass.
John McAuley
Pattinase, the notorious speak.
I just write on the blog and appreciate the comments and try as I can to respond to them. I never mention my blog when I am out in the face world reading what I wrote on my blog because it just doesn't occur to me even though in the end they are both the same audience I want to reach.
Well, I am always trying to interest some of the real-life writers and professor I know to contribute to forgotten books. Never happens.
Blogging serves several purposes.
Share the things that interest you and discover others who share those interests.
Forgotten Books that generate reminders of books or writers that one once read. Or books that got missed the first time around.
And not forgetting the non-bloggers who come from Google loking for info - blogging expands the information available to surfers.
Blogging can be a useful tool - but like all tools they have a purpose.
And blogging is self-promotional. Every time I list the link to a story here I am aware of that. Every time I mention my kid, I think of it too. I try to keep it to a minimum.
No, I don´t get any respect among ´live people´ because I have a blog. But when people read one of my reviews and buy the book afterwards, I certainly feel respected!
I did not begin blogging to get anyone´s respect anyway. I have lots of friends, a wonderful family, nice colleagues, but none of them loved crime fiction as much as I do, and none devoured English crime to the extent I do.
That I would gain so many other pleasures from blogging (and spend so much time on it!) surprised me. So no matter what people around me say, my blog is a great pleasure TO ME!
You say: "Well, I am always trying to interest some of the real-life writers and professor I know to contribute to forgotten books. Never happens." Well, actually, it does happen. As a real-life professor, I am pleased to contribute to the forgotten book column.
That's because you understand the value and use of blogging. You "get" it.
Well, Patti, some writers want to be paid wherever they go, some academics are worried about appearing in too demotic a forum (or otherwise rocking someone's boat), even when either aren't simply tired.
And not everyone, obviously, agrees on the value and purpose of blogging.
You'll note that most of the major fiction-writer bloggers we interact with come out of the fannish tradition, that I allude to in my unremarked earlier comment. At least, Bill Crider, Ed Gorman, James Reasoner, Kate Laity, Juri Nummelin, Joe Lansdale, Stephen Gallagher and increasingly bloggerish Dave Langford come to mind in this wise.
And the Inferior 4+1, which includes a shifting cast of characters, but definitely Elizabeth Hand, Paul Di Filippo and Lucius Shepard.
I am headed out for a two-day trip, but what does fannish tradition mean? That they are writers who are also fans of other writers? Or that they started out writing for fanzines.
One reason academics seldom blog is that they fear the criticism that can come from an offhand post. They like to prepare for anything-even this.
That last is one of the things I mean by having boats rocked, including their own.
Fannish tradition does indeed mean the convention-going, fanzine reading/writing/publishing tradition, in this case.
Perspective on blogs changes with time and need. My first reaction, when people I knew started blogs, was "oh, a journal on line, big deal". I looked occasionally but wasn't pulled in.
As more people participated I still wasn't interested. Then I learned that the APA in which I publish may be disbanding. I wanted to continue publishing, and the web was the obvious place. Blogs took on a new meaning for me and I began reading more of them. The more I read, the more I respected what bloggers do.
I'm still publishing in hardcopy, but I expect to make the switch within a year. The software is there, the venues are available, there's enough bandwidth. Do I have enough commitment to do it? Not sure. Do I respect bloggers? Yep, depending on what they present.
"fannish tradition" means that the person was a fan of the genre before he or she became a writer of it. It's fairly common with science fiction and fantasy writers, less so with mystery writers, but there are many. Bill Crider is a good example.
Bill's a good example of both a fantastic-fiction and crime-fiction fan and pro.
Right you are, Todd. In fact, Crider is a good example, period.
RT and Dana had good points. I haven't been blogging that long, but find it keeps me sharp, and involved in my favorite genre(s) (crime fiction and YA).
And I love to read other people's blogs, just because it's a lot more fun than working.
A few years ago, I started a blog where my Republican friend and I "debated" political issues. However, we two committed ideologues pretty much talked past each other. After a while, viewers became weary of our rants as did I so I stopped.
Good question. I started out loving blogging, and I still enjoy it a lot. But as my blog roll has grown and grown and grown it's been harder and harder to keep up. I suppose that's inevitable.
I blog for my own amusement/fun. As I've mentioned before, I started on a whim, with no thought that morning of doing such a thing.
I don't get a lot of traffic. Rarely do I get a hundred hits in a day(maybe five or six, with one memorable day back in the spring over two hundred.
I don't care. It helps me get frustrations out at times, especially a political post, and I enjoy talking about books and movies I like. I could never be a critic. I don't have the knowledge to break down a book or movie. All I can convey is what I like or dislike about something. I don't really like talking about books or movies I didn't like(and that happens), so I probably come off sounding like a cheerleader at times. That's okay.
Chuck, I gave up political blogging because it does attract a lot of hate.
I like blogging because it's like a conversation you can walk away from and come back to. I enjoy reading other blogs as much as writing one myself.
I could never keep up with Charles' band of posters. Yikes!
Post a Comment