I have been told by many people that blogs are written too subjectively and by people who can't write well. Personally, I think that they are a great way for an average person to convey their thoughts on issues.
It's definently a great way to share their thoughts, but it's still unqualified and shouldn't be considered real literature. It's just as qualified as user written reviews, it's totally unqualified. No one is paying them for it and there is no standards unless they get paid for their blogs. I suppose those who are paid for their blogs are legitimate since it's a high standard, but those who are spruting out a bunch of opinions aren't qualified and it's not really a legitimate form of literature. It's just like twitter, but with a few more words or user reviews. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.
Realize that I'm not talking about Mark Twain or Nathaniel Hawthorne. I'm saying is it a legitimate source, like could you take a quote from it and use it in a paper (if it's a relatively established blog).
Sometimes I see blogs about computer products, I think it's legitimate because they are paid for it and gets sponsored by the companies to reviews it. Also they have advertisements and their english skills are professional enough. But for most blogs, I don't think it's worth anything, a dime a dozen, or a thousand for unqualified opinion. Maybe those voting yes are ppl who blogs often on the site thinking their words are like immortalized or something. Still only those who are paid to blog is legitimate because they meet a certain standard. 95% of them are unqualified.
Yes, people blog about all kinds of things, the sincerity and subject matter vary but some could be considered literature if there done well. I cant give a example but any forum or writing can having meaning that extends it beyond simple ramblings.
Blogs are a format, just like books, magazines, and newspapers. No format instantly impart legitimacy. The National Enquirer is not a valid source while the New York Times is, despite both being newspapers. Even within a source, some data could be good and some poor. Just because something is printed in the New York Times does not instantly make everything in it true.
Blogs can be valid or invalid, just like anything else. There are great blogs, with intelligent discussion and well-researched information. There are also some that are complete garbage. It all depends on the individual blog. The best way to evaluate that is through triangulation. Never single source anything; always look for collaboration.
It can be but 99% of them are not. In my mind "literature" has a higher quality of content than just writing. Articles in the New York Times aren't literature either. If the prose is of a certain caliber, then it transcends the method of delivery. Even the best articles and discussions aren't still literature unless there is a level of eloquence that the author has in his or her presentation. It's like the difference between art and commercial illustration. There is a higher intent with art than with commercial illustration and literature needs a greater intent than merely educating the reader about a particular subject or what the writer did that day. My definition is pretty strict and excludes a lot of different forms of writing. Still, I don't have a set rule, but I know it when I read it.
In this era, everything is subjective. What you deem as "legitimate" is your subjective opinion. it probably differs from mine. There might a popular consensus but even that is just a bunch of like minded people sharing similar opinions. Just because money is involved does not mean that someone is more qualified or their writing is more legitimate than another. Look at Ign or any of the major gaming magazines. All paid writers, yet their content is influenced and bought by the marketing department. So is their work legitimate? Or more legitimate than say the guy or gal who is writing because of their passion for games but does not have the connections or the ability to become staffed somewhere deemed "more legitimate than their personal blog?"
Everything humanity does is inherently meaningless. We as human apply and make meaning for ourselves. So if you think blogs are literature then they are. If you don't they aren't, but that soly applies to you and you alone. There are no universals.
But that is just my opinion. ^^ Informed by my interest in postmodernism.
The notion that a blog can be a legitimate source is ridiculous. By no stretch can they be a source for anything factual. Blogs have no governing infrastructure, so they cannot be trusted. One would be better off using Wikipedia as a source than a blog (neither should be used, though).
The format lacks standards, and it's saturated with "me too" hacks who think that their enthusiasm for a subject trumps their inability to write a cohesive paragraph. One who keeps a blog is to literature what some drunken twat at open mic night is to poetry. While some good may come out of shitty formats, their are vastly overshadowed by volumes of utter wank. There are some blogs that I've enjoyed reading, but I can't think of one that has the consistency, form, or deliberateness to qualify as anything but a fucking diary.
No. It's a form of writing and communication, but literature implies something more...thought provoking and complex.
And blogs can't do that? Is there something inherent to blogs that prevents them from producing something like Wuthering Heights?
Most blogs don't though, and by the time anything on the internet would reach that level (and I haven't seen it yet), I don't think it would be classified as a blog any longer.
That doesn't really answer my question, though; just because something isn't happening doesn't mean it can't happen. Besides, there's nothing incompatible with blogging and literature. Hell, I even know how it could work: post one chapter per post, and, if demand is high enough at the end of it all, compile it into a single book and sell the damn thing.
@DystopiaX: That doesn't really answer my question, though; just because something isn't happening doesn't mean it can't happen. Besides, there's nothing incompatible with blogging and literature. Hell, I even know how it could work: post one chapter per post, and, if demand is high enough at the end of it all, compile it into a single book and sell the damn thing.
But who would buy it if you could view it for free?
Anyway that's not the point. If you post chapters of a book online, that's not a blog, that's parts of a book viewable online. To me a blog has to be internet based, has to have either a focused subject or be about personal experiences, is heavily opinionated by nature, and is informal. This doesn't really lend itself to "literature" which in my mind is more structured/formal, and has a clear ending, whereas blogs just kind of keep going or end only when the blogger gets bored/tired of maintaining it.
The question is meaningless. "Literature," when used in this fashion, is just another of those terms that pedants use to artificially elevate themselves over the rest. Like "Art." You are expressing thought with words, the only difference between a blog, book or newspaper article is format. If blogging has any issue it is that it often goes without editing, allowing for a lower barrier to entry. This results in a greater variety in what is written, and in more garbage on average.
Considering Whiskey Media sites are written in blogs, I would say yes.
Not really, and I wouldn't consider websites that give you info about certain subjects to be literature either.
Seems to me you're trying to force me to change my mind by stating your opinion as fact. Not going to happen, and yes, most WM sites are written in blogs. Got check out tested.
I imagine people would buy it so they they wouldn't have to open 20-something tabs just to read the book. Besides, again, none of that kills the chance that a blog could be literature. Books are pretty damn flexible, so you could logically pull off all those tricks in a blog and still call the end result literature. If an ending is a concern, then why not just make an account for the sake of the story?
@DystopiaX: I imagine people would buy it so they they wouldn't have to open 20-something tabs just to read the book. Besides, again, none of that kills the chance that a blog could be literature. Books are pretty damn flexible, so you could logically pull off all those tricks in a blog and still call the end result literature. If an ending is a concern, then why not just make an account for the sake of the story?
Because that doesn't make it a blog anymore. If there's a planned ending and you're just using a website as a vehicle for what will eventually be a traditional novel you're no longer writing a blog. You're also talking about a pretty specific case, whereas the OP is more directed towards blogs in general. Last part is randomly bolded for some reason.
@Aronman789 said:
@DystopiaX said:
@Aronman789 said:
Considering Whiskey Media sites are written in blogs, I would say yes.
Not really, and I wouldn't consider websites that give you info about certain subjects to be literature either.
Seems to me you're trying to force me to change my mind by stating your opinion as fact. Not going to happen, and yes, most WM sites are written in blogs. Got check out tested.
Dude you can have whatever opinion you want. I'm just curious as to what your definition of literature is and how WM sites could be considered literature, because I definitely don't consider them to be and can't conceive of an argument in favor of them being so. Doesn't mean that I'm not open to convining, or that I think you're definitely wrong, I just have no idea where you're coming from.
Log in to comment