I can't tell which is more pathetic... Well, not "pathetic," because that coveys too much pejorativism which isn't my intent at all, but, but... Pathé. That's the name of that, what, film company or something, right? (I think they distributed Chicken Run.) Whatever. It's a good word. Pathé. Which is more pathé. This is a written medium, so I realize that I've got time to look up the proper word and come back and continue this whenever and you wouldn't even notice or mind, but, I kind of like that.
So. I cannot tell which is more pathé: blogs or forums. Speaking of electronic media here (and kind of having a breakdown for being a blogger) but it doesn't have to be; doesn't matter the medium. "Forum" is a good word no matter the medium for what I'm trying to get at, but the other guy-- lone commentators, not per se speaking as part of a larger community, only reacting when it serves his interests, that kind of thing-- I'm not sure if there's an intrinsic word for the concept, but compared against "forum" I think you can catch my drift. Forums, there's a community; blogs, there's, that thing I just said. The internet is a "flat" medium, meaning here, one that most anyone can access, and with content that ostensibly can be accessed equally (net neutrality politics aside- we're focusing on the web as ideally "flat," here.) In such a flat medium, is it better to be anonymous or visible? Or is that at the heart of the idea of the internet or any other flat space, taking away the third parties, as with the direct distribution market?
So it comes down to the old apparent dichotomy, depth versus breadth (I say "apparent" dichotomy because I'm not sure if it really is or not- I haven't seen anything contradicting the notion, but I'm not about to make such a broad sweep on that alone.) Depth versus breadth- my own stance is, hey guys balance is nice, which seems to do me fine so far.
A forum, you get to see this community in action, and get to see different minds coalesce, argue, joke. Argue. Blogging, on the other hand, is more, focused. A core sample taken from a tree (or... something. That's a good metaphor, right?...) In a forum, to see one individual's viewpoint you have to dig more to see within a post the allusions to past posts a poster has made, right? They're just one of the voices there, versus on something more personal like a web log, where it's primarily about their voice, so it'd be more worth it to invest in such an expenditure. And easier. Even with microblogging.
...Especially with microblogging.
Why pay attention to someone when it's about their voice? We're fascinated by celebrities, aren't we. You don't mind listening to a speaker if you think the speaker is in some way talented. It's good to see that these people have lives, you know? You feel happy for them. It's good to see that they're living, or still alive, at least. We get something directly out of it; it benefits us in some way.
Forums and comments boards can be a fine fine thing, providing you're interested in the subject (and really, why would you be anywhere if you weren't?) Such a wide variety can be fascinating. It can also be full of flamewars and arguments that quickly make you lose hope in humanity. The worst a blogger can do is make you lose hope in that one blogger, unless you perceive them to be holding an opinion congruent with the views of wider humanity-- (people are scum, except when they're not.)
Speaking more generally now, in the wider "blogosphere" it is once more about combined opinions, but some would find the amount of time it takes to get the gamut to be a bit excessive. Microblogging comes back in here- it's a really nice balance. Hey guys, we found a really nice balance.
And I'm done here.
No comments:
Post a Comment