Why blogs suck: "i am afraid of the analagous phenonena happening: blog as signifier for experience, rather than experience itself."for this link via Kottke grabbed my attention today.
I'm not ardently defensive about blogs. I bash them, too—if they deserve it. But I felt this sentiment—without yet having explored its context—was a bunch of posturing bull. I pictured someone eager to pontificate on the social ramifications of dog poop if it meant it made him sound erudite. (Yes, not smart, but erudite.)
After linking through, I think I may have correctly visualized this person, judging from this text:
blogs seem rather apt at reinforcing the reflective impotence already pervasive in our late-capitalistic society. eg, link-blogging of culture as a stand-in for participating in culture has a very delibidinizing effect on me: curation is a seductive substitute for meaningful absorbtion/digestion/participation in discourse.Am I too ensconced in the "real world," having lost my ability to rapidly parse academic speak? And I'm saying this as quite a fan of ten-dollar words.
Before I explored the link, I was poised to argue the point of the teaser. Of course a blog isn't experience. It's writing, which is inherently reflective or observational. That's the point, and blogs don't detract from actual experience-having but rather provide an outlet for expression.
Any writer type will tell you that he/she often treasures the idea of an experience over the experience itself. In that it will make a good story—spoken or written—in the future. It's how we process the world.
And blogs function as a processing tool. "Blogging" can be writing—in its many forms—or a way of organizing or presenting information. Hell, I'm processing right now. (Thanks for obliging me.)
So now I'm getting defensive about blogs.