Interesting blog

Well, I've been doing a little research on my web project, and I went to the two blog sites of a person I will be interviewing for Reavis Newsletter. They were two of the most interesting pieces of writing I've read in a long time. This first link is a blog of the journal an alumn from NIU kept while he was a sailor in the 1950s. Obviously, I haven't read all the blogs, but his writing just draws you in. The second link is his more current blog, going over his musings from his life. He graduated NIU in 1958.
http://www.doriengrey.blogspot.com
http://www.doriengreyandme.blogspot.com/

Filthy Blog Lucre

I didn't have time to get in the economics of blogs and blogging, but I thought it quite interesting that my old friend, Mike Priggen of Bedazzled makes some kind of living with his blog. The sources of revenue are from places like Amazon, who kick him some dosh when people click from his site to theirs, from the sales of DVD complilations of obscure and wierd and often great music videos and scopitones, from sales of his own CD's, which he shamelessly flogs on his site. He's had a variety of streams of income - including a period of ebay speculation in prints of walter keane paintings (If you don't know what that is, you are so uncool). My point here is that bloggers with strong points of view, unique and specialized knowledge, and the ability to self-promote can make a living with this medium.
If a user-friendly way of micropayments ever becomes easy and transparent - 2 cents a hit to see a video online - then folks like Mike could actually many some decent money. I think we will live to see the day.
And in case you haven't noticed, I am trying to push a more informal and bloggy tone on this blog. Can I get a witness?
Cheers,
DMCG
PS: "No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money."-Samuel Johnson

Journals for Book Reviews

As requested, here is a list of possible journals that may be appropriate for your book review assignment. Note that this is not an exhaustive list; feel free to recommend other journals that you think may work well.

Rhetoric and Composition:

• College Composition and Communication
• Computers and Composition
• KAIROS
• Enculturation

Technical Communication:

• Technical Communication
• Technical Communication Quarterly
• Journal of Business and Technical Communication
• Business Communcation Quarterly

Media, Culture, Cyberculture:

• First Monday
• Media, Culture, and Society
• Postmodern Culture
• Journal of Popular Culture

Some of these are online journals and some are published in print. All are peer reviewed, scholarly publications for academic audiences.

Things forgotten

In their search for forerunners of today’s blog, Miller and Shepherd uncovered these ancestors, among others – reality TV, the memoir, logs of ships (for the name, where the ship’s speed was measured by logs thrown overboard), diaries, clipping services, journals, etc. However, I here humbly assert two others: the radio talk show and the telegraph.

I am a NPR junkie and listen as often as I can to NIU’s station WNIJ with Diane Reim in the morning and Talk of the Nation in the afternoon. These hosts entertain Jack from Montana, Mary from South Dakota, Abdul from London, etc. I was first aware of these in the ‘60’s with Milt Rosenberg who’s still on WGN. Callers get the opportunity to “let it all hang out” on topics moderated by the hosts. Some regular callers have their “handles”, in CB parlance – oops, another example. There’s also short wave.

On Talk of the Nation , Monday, Tom Wheeler, the author of an op-ed in the Washington Post presented his research and took calls on his article “Lincoln Online – The Telegraph as a Window into the Mind of the 16^th President”.(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/11/AR2007021101169.html) We see Lincoln’s innermost thoughts through the nearly 1000 messages he sent via the new telegraph technology.

Andrew Sullivan and the "independent" blog journalist

I found it interesting in the Miller and Shepherd piece for this week to see Andrew Sullivan mentioned. I first learned of his blog through a decidedly nonacademic, though fun, source -- Bill Maher's HBO show. In the article, Sullivan is cited as a journalist, but his blog is also lauded? described as being "independent" of mainstream sponsorship. Oh, how quickly things change. His formerly "independent" status has now found corporate sponsorship from The Atlantic magazine.

It should be noted that Sullivan's claims to journalistic status do solely come from his blogging experience. He is, in fact, a print journalist of long standing and one who, moreover, is a conservative with liberal views on certain issues. However, the change in his status from independent blogger to corporate sponsorship is one that raises issues about how well blogging will ever work as an alternative to mass media. Or, as is posited in the Miller and Shepherd piece, will it simply be co-opted?

Blogging: A New and More Acceptable Exgience for Voyeurs or an Enduring Rhetorical Artifact?

Before I get started, let me just qualify that my comments only refer to specific kinds of bloggers and blogs and are not intended as a generalization. What I found worthy is this week’s reading are Miller’s contention that voyeurism and exhibitionism “have been morally neutralized and are on their ways to becoming ordinary modes of being, subject positions that are inscribed in our mediated discourse” (5). I may be judging blogs and bloggers a little harshly here, but I believe voyeurism and exhibitionism are the impetus that initially attracts new curious bloggers to the medium in the first place. Several people in the class have pointed out that they got started with blogging by lurking. The Gurak et al. article points to the low numbers of people using blogs; however, the article also reveals that “eleven percent of these same users indicate that they visit blogs daily” (2). I can’t say that I necessarily view bloggers who act as voyeurs or exhibitionists on the web any differently than I do voyeurs or exhibitionists who participate in non-electronic public forums – all thrive on the immediacy of shock value in a given situation.

Though I admit that blogs are respectable outlets for creativity and intellectual knowledge, I find that we may be premature in the amount of credibility that we attribute to them and that we are weighing in on their academic worth far too early. The jury, endurance of time, is still out on this one. I admire the authors of the Gurak et al. article who point out that they “focus on the weblog as rhetorical artifact” and that their collection is the “first in its innovative approach to scholarly publishing” (2). Without a doubt these scholars are pioneers of a new way to publish scholarly works. However, I wonder if this new method of publication is permanent?

I’m a little skeptical about the lasting contribution and academic integrity of blogging. Sure, people will read and participate on blogs, but the whole idea that we will somehow give them the equal respect as we do other works of more traditional literature seems a little premature to me. I would be interested to know how scholars of traditional literature view the whole idea of using blogs to bypass rigorous publication processes. Thus, how do professors who publish their scholarly works in traditional publications view works that are published on this forum?

More than anything, I agree with Miller that one of the reasons for the rapid evolution of weblogs is their ability to offer “an exigence” for almost anyone with a voice (8), but weblogs also offer other elements found in the rhetorical situation – the writer, subject, audience, and purpose. For me, the rhetorical situation is the best reason to keep the topic of blogging high on anyone’s priority list.

Fox News anchor Linda Vester & Omarosa: The bloggy details

Even the title of this post makes the point of my entry. While reading through the articles, specifically Miller's, I had this thought. Today people can stumble onto national fame or influence, or they can seize opportunities for publishing works or soliciting help for their personal or political causes without rigorous training or "paying their dues" as I've heard it put before. (Is this kairos?) Do those who take advantage of the access that blogging and electronic media in general has afforded them sustain the fame or influence? Do their words and actions continue to impact the way of society?

Omaraso (The Apprentice and MTV's Surreal Life) is one such pop culture figure who is still leaving her mark. She has done a lot of respectable work with celebrities before being well-known herself, but her national image seems very different from what she was before the fame. I was shocked to see her debating on a serious news show the other day. I caught it right when it was going off. While I was searching on Google to find the details of the show, I found an old blog from news anchor Linda Vester who wrote about her interaction (i.e., fight) with Omarosa. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148792,00.html) Here the traditional journalist, the Reality TV star, the public opinion, and the modern medium are all represented.

Those who brought the weblog to our lives in the '90s changed the way many in our society communicate, and this way does not look to be leaving any time soon. But is modern day blogging comparable to traditional journalism or book publishing? I don't know, and I would like to know what you think.

Have you heard of Helium?

I've been trying to look around and read random blogs because I'm finding that reading about them without a lot of context is... well, not very enlightening. I suppose I've been trying to bring the subject out of the abstract a bit. Reading about literature is great because I've read a lot of literature, but this is a bit different.
In any case, I wanted to share a website I found (called Helium) that seems to be a cross between a wiki and a blog, in which people write about anything and others rate the writings, with the dual goals of trying to compile knowledge (subjective knowledge--there is no emphasis on factual knowledge) and... get this... improving their writing skills. (Who'd've thunk?!) At least these are their stated goals. Sadly, from what I've read so far, it looks like a bank of blog entries and essays that are entirely opinion based, and if they are trying to build a database of knowledge, their tools for searching this database are not evident. But the idea is very interesting. They are not asking people to blog (or "write articles" or whatever you'd like to call it), they are asking for a submission that the writer knows other people will respond to, because everything is "rated." The site dignifies everyone's opinion piece as a valid piece of knowledge that will build their store of knowlege. It is like all the best parts of blogging (like expressing your opinions and having others respond) without the pressure of doing it all the time. Oh, and one more catch--they pay their writers. I don't think it's very much, but a paying writing gig is nothing to laugh at (you know you were laughing).
Could we be seeing a new genre emerging? I know, we need another like a hole in the head... but it certainly is interesting.

Possibilities of Blogging

A common theme within the articles assigned for this week's topic on blogging seems to that of public vs. private. The mini-stories in front of the Miller/Shepard piece really seemed a little over the top in their naivete. The fact that these people are creating blogs and then assuming that they can still retain their privacy seems very strange.

Another current and controversial version of the blog is the phenomenon of myspace. How many kids have gotten kicked off sports teams or gotten in trouble due to their postings on myspace...postings and pictures they thought only their friends could see?

I do not have an answer here, but it seems worth discussing why people seem to feel a sense of entitlement to their privacy when they are knowingly publishing their thoughts to the world.

In response to the comparison of blogs to diaries...who writes diaries assuming that someone will read, analyze and respond to them? I hardly think Anne Frank knew that one day her diary would have such a dramatic impact on society.

Another conversation...

I've been trying to keep up with the weekly posts, and it seems to me, between the different readings, and the various opinions/interpretations of the readings, our blog goes off in many different directions at once. Being new to blogs--this probably sounds simple to you wiser bloggers--but it seems much like the different conversations going on at a party, as (I think) Elizabeth mentioned sometime earlier this semester. So is it okay to only join in with the one or two that catch our attention that particular week? That's all we can really do, right? In watching (just the beginning) of that blogumentary, I was struck by the man who said he blogged because A) he has something relevant to say about "socio-economic" issues and B) "the world needs more conversations." How many conversations do we need? Or rather, how many can be attended to by more than a handful people at once, and how many will continue into any social relevance? {;#[

Blogging: High or Low Culture?

Mortensen's Personal Publication and Public Attention raises some interesting questions about how blogging is/may be perceived by both those within academic circles and those with more "sensuous," unsophisticated tastes. Mortensen adds, "In order for an object to be worthy of study, it needs to flatter a cultured taste, and not a barbaric one." But I'm not sure I understand exactly what she means by this.

As blogs are often categorized by form, this week's readings suggest that content may be the most important element that would help us define what a blog is/does. Therefore, it is unfair to make sweeping generalizations about the blog as a tool of high or low culture without considering the content/genre of X blog. Using Moveable Type as a "measuring stick for the sophisticated blog" seems to encourage a sort of technological one-upmanship that indicates more about one's knowledge of programming than their ability to contribute to serious academic discourse. I seem to recall one of this week's readings mentioning that Blogger may have opened the floodgates to those who just want to, say, blog about their cat. But it also allows more serious academics who don't have the time/inclination to learn HTML to participate in this form of written communication.

In Blogging as Social Action: A Genre Analysis of the Weblog, Miller and Shepherd write, "Perhaps the blog is already evolving into multiple genres, meeting different exigences for different rhetors--journalists, teenagers, the high-tech community, etc." Shouldn't the academic world judge blogs based on content rather than form? After all, pulp fiction and dime novels are structurally the same as canonical literature. . .

A Response to “Personal Publication and Public Attention.”

Torill Elvira Mortenseen describes the academic critique of blogs in a way that approaches blogs almost exclusively from the perspective of form, and this highlights the pedagogical obstacles we might face when attempting to incorporate blogs into a curriculum, especially in the atmosphere of an English classroom. As literature instructors, we can teach blogs as literary artifacts, but we would be hard pressed to find “canonical” bloggers or weblogs. Academic or college-level anthologies (whether online or [god forbid] in print) of “American Weblogs from 1995-2005” (or courses with the same title) are not quite within our grasp. This is partly because weblogs defy the kind of stability we traditionally desire in the object of our critique (the nationality and time period that we usually assign to our courses or anthologies cannot be applied to blogs) and also partly because blogging smacks of the vanity-press publication that undermines our esteem for anything but the most “time-tested” narratives. In composition or technical writing classrooms, blogging can be regulated to “novelty” status because it doesn’t lend itself to the increasingly career-training emphasis of those classrooms. These kinds of obstacles challenge (for worse AND for better) the traditional objects of study in the writing or literature classroom and further objectify or materialize the focus of the Humanities.

The idea of the literary cannon is, of course, riddled with problems, but it does provide us with a body of examples and, to a certain extent, a cultural body of knowledge that we can share (or that we can pretend to share, or that we can imagine that we used to share). Imagine attempting to teach a 20^th Century Novels class with no established examples of “good” 20^th Century novels. Thus, when performing academic critique on blogs, we are cornered into thinking about what a blog “is”: a problem Elvira-Mortenseen addresses by providing several definitions and arguing for the least definitive of them all. We also project the potentials of blogs, what they might mean in the future for bloggers, readers of blogs, and democratic expression in general. These discussions can certainly improve the learning environments we try to create, but they relegate us to examining form and making predictions about what shapes that form might take. This materializes our examinations of literature to a great deal- instead of discussing arguments or specific expressions that reflect upon the human condition, the writing and literature classroom becomes a place where students and teachers take into account economic and technological elements of presently available information storage/delivery devices and wonder about the information storage/delivery devices to come.

Thoughts on "Blogging as Social Action"

Miller and Shepherd's "Blogging as Social Action" inspired in me two thoughts for this particular post, both of which relate well to points I have made either in previous posts or in class discussion.

First, the incidents described at beginning of the article brought me back to the idea of responsibility. We've had myriad discussions (and debates) regarding the responsibilities of bloggers to represent themselves honestly. Even if all bloggers were honest, the incidents described in the article bring into relief the issue of exposure. It seems that many bloggers still use the genre as a means of personal expression on (sometimes) very private issues. Users of blogs (both readers and writers), then, must accept the "risks" inherent to their use. It's an environment of "both buyer and seller beware."

Second, the definition of genre and subsequent application of that to the blog raise intriguing questions. I like the application of the Darwinian model to genres, especially when blogging is the genre under investigation. No one can deny the reciprocal roles that culture and blogging play with one another, and it's hard to imagine blogging will "decay" as Miller suggests genres may do under the pressure of changes in social practice. So should we then break the blogs into subcategories based on form and function? The casual blogger versus the professional? If so, is there any research to suggest which style of blogging might be the fittest and will therefore survive the next evolution, or are they apples and oranges and we can find a place in the world for both?

Jake