The best piece on blogging I’ve read in a long long time is in the New York Review of Books. Free of all the usual agonising over citizen journalism, new media, bleh, and portmanteau concepts, Sarah Boxer asks the pertinent question – “what about the effect of blogs on language?” – and answers it in a non-moral-panic way. Lots to like about this article, and I learnt something rather sweet and/or sad:
(In Japan neglected or abandoned blogs are called ishikoro, pebbles.)
Her conclusion?
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.
Kim;
What an interesting topic.
Though the statement
is a bit doubtful. The best you can do is take them at face value.
The effect of blogging on language? Well, the way I write in a blog is not the way I normally speak or write – but that’s only because I got my fingers burnt when I first used the internet and now use a few protective measures. Don’t think blogging has affected my everyday language.
You’ve been in the moderator’s chair and have probably come across well-known people posting under a nom-de-blog, Without naming specific people, have you yourself noticed any difference between the language they use in blogging and the language they use in public speaking?
It’s interesting, the idea that virtually ‘anything goes’ regarding the language used by commenters.
I mean, in a public place (which a blog is) most humans don’t use filthy language, don’t pass wind, don’t spit, don’t stick their fingers up their nose, etc. It’s part of being ‘civilized’!
Using filthy language on a blog I believe is a clear sign of immaturity.
Yes, I certainly have. For example, based on comment #2, it’s apparent that DavidG is actually the blogID of Kevin Bloody Wilson.
Yes, Kim, Boxer’s review is a bottler alright. Would have liked to have seen more of an in-depth appraisal of the political blogosphere. The DOS attack on LP as we approached the climax of last November’s election was a clear indication of the ability of blogs to set the political agenda, thereby diminishing the influence of the msm.
In the States, John Dean’s online fundraising in 2004 was a harbinger of what Team Obama is doing now; ie creaming Team HRC in “rats and mice” fund raising to the extent that Hillary recently had to top off her account herself to the tune of $5 mill. Then there was ex-Virginia senator George “macaca” Allen’s racial slip which hit You Tube and was disseminated in blogdom, literally in hours. It destroyed him and contributed to the Dem Senate majority.
Glenn Greenwald went from nowhere to No.1 on Amazon with a bullet when he released his political knife-job of The Imbeciles’s regime, “How Would A Patriot Act” SOLELY on the buzz it created in blogdom.
Stuff like that.
Sez Boxer:”Blogging at its freest is like going to a masked ball.”
Who would have ever thought it?
Not only that he’s obsessive. Surely we could find him a nice non-swearing blog like Weaselwords.com to play at.
(Memo to self: Must stop using rude filthy words like L**eral, B*sh, H**ward…)
According to the ABS book reading is getting less in Australia due to longer hours spent at work etc.
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/4153.0?OpenDocument
Wow. Thanks for that link, Kim.
Sarah Boxer once wrote a NYT article examining my criticism of the bloggers at Iraq The Model.
At the time, I was suggesting that the blog was CIA PsyOps, but I’ve since come to think that the Fadhil brothers are just pro-occupation opportunists who willingly allowed themselves to become pawns of the neoconservatives, raking in as much money from their gullible readers as they could get.
At the time, neocons like Wolfowitz were looking for propaganda outlets to counter the popularity of Salaam Pax and (later) Riverbend. Wolfowitz took two of the Fadhil brothers to meet with Bush in the Oval Office in late 2004, and Bush later quoted a Wall Street Journal article by the Fadhils as “proof” that his “Surge” was working.
Sarah Boxer come under a lot of fire for writing that NYT article, and backed away from any more serious allegations or further investigation. But it’s interesting that the Fadhil brothers are all now living in the USA and studying at prestigious universities! If only all aspiring Iraqi refugees could be so lucky. I guess it all depends on who you know.
More here if anyone is interested.
NB: I am hoping to publish an article about this whole sorry business, and looking for a co-author in NYC willing to track down the Fadhils for an interview.
Mercurious [3]:
[[btw: off-topic - liked your education topic earlier; apologies for not contributing then]].
Thanks. Of course, he has to be K.B.W.; my mistake, I had him pegged as Philip Adams, Janet Albrechtson, His Excellency The Governor-General or Mr Anthony Mundine. How did you pick him?
Everyone:
I suppose the best example of language change in blogging we have around here would be GMB who, I was informed, is a decent, thoughtful and intelligent gentleman – with a short temper – in the flesh.
Enemy Combatant[4] and Gandhi [7]:
“The moving finger writes – And having writ, moves on – Not all thy piety nor wit can lure it back – Nor all they tears wipe out a word of it” [or something like that]. As true today as when Omar Khayyam first wrote that.
Rare is the writer who can make language lie.
Using filthy language on a blog I believe is a clear sign of immaturity.
…’Ken OATH!!
This is my favourite part:
Well then, Helen, if I accept that LP rightly sets the standard of language which should prevail on its blog (no standard) and, by extension, in blogs generally and in our society, then how about you help LP set up a partition to request Parliaments (State and Federal) to change themselves to better reflect the language of the ‘common’ man’.
The partition could read:
We, the undersigned, disapprove of the standard of language used in Parliament. It is not the same as that used by voters especially us intellectual ones.
We demand that the following words be used routinely: f**kin’, c**t, d**khead, a**ehole, motherf**cker, pr*ck, c*cksucker, etc. If these words were used routinely, most of us would feel much more comfortable, like we’re at home.
Yours Sincerely……………..
P.S. You’ll excuse me if I don’t sign it!
DavidG – give up this crazy crusade, dude. Howsabout you sign my petition?
We, the undersigned, demand the right to endlessly potificate on other people’s blog comments policy, and furthermore the right to pass summary judgement on others based on whatever I deem to be obscene language in their blog comments.
Moreover, I would like a new classification level in all media and the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, in order to prevent my sensibilities from offence. I propose it be designated ‘D’, and encapsulate “those things which make DavidG feel a bit icky”.
Sincerely…………….
This is for you, DavidG. It’s got moderated comments, so you’ll approve of the controlled environment, I’m sure.
And I like the idea of an LP partition. An Iron Curtain has descended upon the comment threads, behind which, a number of the commenters are substantially controlled by Moscow.
Hey, FDB, does ‘potificate’ mean to smoke pot? Just askin’.
How about a compromise? Whenever some gets the urge to use a bad word here, they substitute “DavidG” instead? It could be pretty DavidGing funny for a while. On the other hand, it could eventually just end up giving readers the DavidGs..
Ridgey DavidG, Nabs.
It’s much more civil than just telling him to DavidG off, don’t you think?
If it would help to elevate the standard of discourse on this blog, lift it above the LCD, please feel free. Cheers!
Not that you’re doing much to lift it you DavidGsucker.
Oh, look, it’s 4.30. Time to knock off and get DavidGfaced.
Ok, this is good humoured but still off topic. DavidG, you’ve made your point. I responded on another thread. Let’s stick to the topic now, please.
Gandhi [11], you said –
purely in the imterests of scientific enquiry, of course, …. just try me! {Does that include meal and transport allowances too?]
FDB [13] and David G 15]:
Potificate? See, the English Language is richer already. Aren’t these modern interwebs marvellous?
GB[22] it wasn’t me who said that, it was from the article.
Anyway, why would I want to corrupt your wild and crazy blogging style?
Gandhi [23]:
Of course; my error; sorry.
Gandhi [23]
Cross my palm with silver [lots of $100 notes would be better] and see if it corrupts or improves my style.