And another thing...

Looking back at that last post, it occurs to me that (i) all this stuff is covered much more coherently by people like Tom Coates, in the face of whom, well, why bother? Whatever I have to say on the subject, he'll say first, and better. And (ii) despite that, it really irks me how everyone seems to take it as read that the form of writing to which blogging must aspire -- and which, according to some, it will never achieve -- is journalism. Journalism, for fuck's sake! What kind of a goal is that?

Outside of their own incestuous little coteries, journalists tend to be regarded about on a par with politicians -- which is to say, slightly above child molesters -- in the grand scheme of things. Yes, we have a few heroic myths of the crusading investigative reporter, we have our belief in the freedom of the press -- we also know that the vast majority of them are grubby, compromised hacks, whoring their meagre talents to Rupert Murdoch and his ilk.

Is that really all blogging can aspire to? Why isn't the question "Is blogging poetry?" or "Is blogging fiction?" Why don't we want to be playwrights or biographers or humourists?

In most cases, of course, we want to be none of the above. The very question is pompous and patronising. Blogging is blogging, people will do with it what they will. But, if you're going to take it seriously, at least give it some scope for value beyond mere reportage. Otherwise, what hope is there?

For what it's worth, that's why all the references in my previous post are to fictions.

Now quit it, Matthew. This is no fit subject for a self-respecting blogger. Get back to droning on about your life!
Posted by matt at September 5, 2003 12:51 PM