We've Got Blog
July 16, 2002 6:56 AM   Subscribe

We've Got Blog, with Introduction by Rebecca Blood, is now available. As one of the people in the Metafilter thread that is quoted at the end, I got my copy yesterday in the mail. Matt is among those with their own little section, as are many of your readily recognizable names. Haven't gotten through the whole thing, but seems to be a re-hash of the standard line of rah-rah.. will it appeal to people not online (or online unexposed to blogs)? If not, what value does it give to people who are into blogs and probably have read it all before online?
posted by rich (28 comments total)
 
Did the thread in question get trimmed? (ie, is my useless comment there?) Although I got emailed by the author, and I replied with my address, he never sent me the papers to fill out. I was looking forward to seeing my name in print.
posted by Marquis at 8:15 AM on July 16, 2002


You could always look in the phone book.
posted by crunchland at 8:54 AM on July 16, 2002


The book might be very interesting but I must say I have no interest in reading it for some reason. Perhaps it's just standard blogger envy. I didn't think of cashing in on the idea first.
posted by scarabic at 9:05 AM on July 16, 2002


I'd actually thought this was released many months ago...

Everybody(almost literally) is writing a book about blogging, and they all seem to be saying the same things. There doesn't even seem to be the benefit of them saying it differently.
As hated as he might be, read Winer's comments on the two books Rebecca has been involved with so far, in which he also makes some minor speculation about the upcoming Blogroots book. Also, Anil recently reviewed the Handbook, and mentioned not too long ago how many unannounced blog books he's heard about, and the weird secrecy surrounding all of them(link unavailable as his archives are currently screwy).
Interesting comment by Mark Bernstein, at his site: "Blood wants to emphasize that weblogs are easy [...] if weblogs are easy, who needs a handbook?"

The thing I'm afraid of is that the more of these things are written, the more codified the idea is going to become. I want to see more people fucking with the blog. Who cares about "reclaiming" the word? Why bother agonizing over terminology like (war)blog, journal, diary, blahblahblah? Do whatever the hell you want, and let it mutate.
posted by Su at 9:51 AM on July 16, 2002


Do whatever the hell you want, and let it mutate.

I agree that blogwise, as with any other creative endeavour (remember those dastardly "How To Write Poetry" handbooks?), a slogan is better than a manual and that Su's is better than most.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:24 AM on July 16, 2002


Marquis- Your comment is in the book and a copy on its way to you. I took your e-mail as a go ahead. Sorry if I misunderstood your message.

And the thread was trimmed. not everyone wanted their comments published so I took them out.

Su- Couldn't agree with you more.

And I'd hope everyone who reads it hates at least one article in the book. It's not an end-all, be-all collection by any means and it's woefully out-of-date to anyone who blogs regularly (hell, for anyone who reads and posts here regularly).

As for why the book really happened, the Shifted Librarian's response to Dave Winer strikes close to my reasons for the collection.
posted by rodz at 10:33 AM on July 16, 2002


Su, Jason posted the comment you attributed to Anil (blog books & secrecy). Um, there's not much more to it than that.
posted by dhartung at 10:33 AM on July 16, 2002


Great -- thanks a lot, rodz. Best of luck with the release. I'll read and publicise as appropriate. :)
posted by Marquis at 10:36 AM on July 16, 2002


Oh, hell, I guess I have to write a blog book now. (no, no one has to read it-- well, except me as I type it).

Dang. I was looking forward to just being my usual lazy-ass self and staying in bed as much as possible.

Seeing as I'm ramen-eating poor at the moment, I'll have to find a bookstore that carries Rebecca's book and do the read-it-in-the-store thing, as research.

I hate blogger envy. Maybe because I feel it so much. :P
posted by beth at 10:53 AM on July 16, 2002


So far, there have not been many people who have managed to say anything particularly interesting, much less enlightening or profound, about weblogs and blogging. It's all the same stuff said in (when we are lucky) a different way. I wish the authors well, and I hope that they can capitalize on the current interest in the "blog phenomena," but does anyone really expect much else?
posted by fncll at 11:27 AM on July 16, 2002


The only thing about my comment is that it related to the question of community as opposed to the issue about blogs. I think, as a social interaction issue, a lot fo interesting things have been said about blogs.. but it has focused mainly upon the individual interaction versus any community building aspect, and wholy ignored the value proposition (as the value discussions are soundly decried by the enthusiasts as heresy).

I think there is value in the 'blog' idea, but I don't think it has been realized at all to its real potential as a sociatal and even corporate changing form.
posted by rich at 11:45 AM on July 16, 2002


Fncll - I expect the book is, quite rightly, intended for non-bloggers. Much as whoever wrote a "Teach Yourself Finnish" book wouldn't be relying on sales in Finland to pay for his new sauna. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:52 AM on July 16, 2002


Su: Everybody(almost literally) is writing a book about blogging, and they all seem to be saying the same things. There doesn't even seem to be the benefit of them saying it differently.

fncll: So far, there have not been many people who have managed to say anything particularly interesting, much less enlightening or profound, about weblogs and blogging. It's all the same stuff said in (when we are lucky) a different way.

Leaving aside the matter of pots and kettles for the moment...

The Weblog Handbook has only been out for a couple of weeks, and We've Got Blog is even newer than that. These two are quite different from one another, and the other weblog books haven't even been released yet.

I am sure you would not want to embarrass yourself in a public forum by making blanket statements about books you haven't read.
posted by jjg at 1:19 PM on July 16, 2002


I agree with Su. Let's make a note of that.
posted by joeclark at 1:52 PM on July 16, 2002


My thoughts on the MeFi community chapter here.
posted by dogmatic at 2:03 PM on July 16, 2002


There are sssumptions here, yes. Safe ones? I'm willing to risk it.
JJG: Are you suggesting that a book written by Meg and Matt(and Paul, who I'm not familiar with), whose opinions are somewhat less than obscure and undocumented, is suddenly going to reveal opinions contradictory to what they've been saying all along? Oh, that'll help with the credibility.
Essential Blogging's authors include Ben & Mena, Rael, and other "leading bloggers," and seems like it intends to be little more than a compendium of blog software manuals and tips and tricks which may or may not even be relevant as of the versions current at the time it's released. But beyond that, why would someone pay thirty dollars for a book that deals largely with software other than whatever they will end up using, when the ToC doesn't suggest anything that wouldn't be found in the on-line(trans: free) manuals and in the support boards for each of the given programs, which is where they will probably end up anyway, because everybody is blind to their own typos?
Rebecca Blood has been involved with two books already mentioned.
Given the current trend of authors involved in these books, does anybody here seriously expect a surprise in the ones that haven't been released yet?
I want Anil to write a book, damnit. Another by somebody who has absolutely no interest in the "community" aspects of on-line writing. There's a pretty narrow view being put forth, which is kind of amusing considering all the irritation people have been expressing over The Media supposedly using warbloggers to represent all bloggers.

I'm actually somewhat interested in the Blogroots book because of the particular history of the people involved. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like there will be too much of that brought into it from the overview. It's also interesting there will be a section on building your own system. Because we need more blogging tools. The odd thing is, that's not entirely a joke. I have big gripes about the assumptions current programs make.

Dhartung: Thanks for the link. I knew there was a reason I wanted to check Kottke's page when I was writing that.
posted by Su at 2:15 PM on July 16, 2002


Are you suggesting that a book written by Meg and Matt(and Paul, who I'm not familiar with), whose opinions are somewhat less than obscure and undocumented, is suddenly going to reveal opinions contradictory to what they've been saying all along? Oh, that'll help with the credibility.

They would not have to contradict themselves in order to say something surprising, insightful, or rewarding.

There's a pretty narrow view being put forth

Again, you seem to be reacting to the imaginary books you think these people wrote, rather than the real books they actually wrote. We can discuss the volumes in your fantasy library if you like; I think sticking to more tangible works might be a more productive course.
posted by jjg at 2:38 PM on July 16, 2002


The thing I'm afraid of is that the more of these things are written, the more codified the idea is going to become. I want to see more people fucking with the blog.

i agree with this completely. i think there are plenty of ways to build readership and involvement that don't involve the "traditional" guestbook, comments, or archives. though there are some wonderfully designed blogs, next to no one is challenging non-graphic presentation or format.

There's a pretty narrow view being put forth

Again, you seem to be reacting to the imaginary books you think these people wrote, rather than the real books they actually wrote. We can discuss the volumes in your fantasy library if you like; I think sticking to more tangible works might be a more productive course.

i assumed su was talking about the glut of writing (online and off) that discusses blogging, not necessarily the book in this discussion.

again, i agree with her. i think the "definition" of blog is very limited and narrow. and i think that this limited, narrow definition only defines the most generic and boring of blogs.
posted by dobbs at 3:05 PM on July 16, 2002


Hmph. I gave permission for my comments in that rather silly Meta thread to be used, but I don't think I was ever asked for an address to which to send my comp copy.

Bummer.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:15 AM on July 17, 2002


Su and dobbs and all those that feel a narrow and limited view and definition of blogging is being put forth - what would you like to see? I'm not asking this in a snarky way, I'm curious. What do you think is missing from the current articles and books?
posted by megnut at 9:59 AM on July 17, 2002


megnut, i tried to compose a reasonable answer to your question but couldn't do it very succinctly and couldn't do it without talking about my own site. so, sorry for the length and impending self link.

i suppose my problem with blogs is the bloggers themselves. i partially blame things like blogger and software of its ilk. (and sorry, i know you're a co-creator.) though i appreciate blogger's intent, it just seems to have sapped all the oomph out of blogging. its ease of use (selling point) is its problem, i think. because of its simplicity, people think it's PART of blogging. a requirement. (and i don't mean mandatory to use, but mandatory in defining definitions of the presentation of blogging.) and i think that sucks.

to me, a blog is this:

1. an outlet for (usually) creative non-fiction.
2. usually has links to other sites as part of referencing the written piece.

that's it. and i think a lot of bloggers would agree with me. however, this appears to be the case only if i present the above in the same format as everyone else.

it seems that the only "legitimate" way to offer this up is with the traditional "entries/archives/guestbook or comments". frankly, i find that a bore and very limiting.

with Victory Shag, my own site (erm, self like of course), i tried to flip it on its head:

1. my entries are only delivered via email.
2. no way to comment to anyone but myself (by replying).
3. no archives.

is it a blog? well, it fits the definition above. but i get letters all the time telling me "it's not a blog!" (for the record, with the exception of discussing blogs--like i'm doing now--i never refer to my own site as a blog. i never call it such on my site or in my entries.) these people look at the site and (presumably) say to themselves "what kind of blog is this?!" and then they decide to email me their opinion: "this isn't a blog!" 9 times out of 10 they're not even subscribers and haven't a clue as to the content of VS. (incidentally, a similar thing happened on mefi, though not in regards to it being a blog, but in regards to commenting without subscribing.) i dunno. i find the logic baffling. it seems they're trying to defend something they can't even define.

this close-mindedness of the definition of blog carries over to other things. for instance, to me, my readers form a community. but it doesn't fit a "traditional" definition of community so "nope!"

i think the format i've chosen has considerable benefits over the more common format of a blog. however, my naysayers don't want to think about it. to them, it's just a mailing list. this just seems foolish to me--not to consider the differences and the both positive and negative results of a different format.

i have no doubt whatsoever that if i presented exactly the same content that i mail out in the format of a regular blog i'd not be having the same effect.

admittedly, my exposure to blogs is limited. 98% of the blogs i visit (even the "famous" ones everyone seems to love) bore the hell out of me. no doubt my site only appeals to 2% of visitors as well. but at least it's not boring because it's like everything else. at least it's a fault of my content, rather than "ugh. not another blog."

i dunno. am i making any sense? it just seems to me that people need to rethink presentation (and by that i do NOT mean design).

the feedback i get on my, um, project is fantastic in its enthusiasm and diversity. when i read comments and guestbooks on blogs, though, it's just a bunch of "i like cats too!" (yes, that's a terrible generalization, but unfortunately not that far off the mark.)

i just think there are huge benefits in fucking with the format and very few people are reaping them.

i would be very interested, meg, in knowing which blogs you like because they are breaking down barriers or attempting different things. though everyone has their favorite sites for the quality of writing, i'm more curious about the different ways people are playing with the definition. could you possibly list some blogs you visit not just because it's good writing, but because it's good writing and a different presentation?

thanks.
posted by dobbs at 2:47 PM on July 17, 2002


Well I can't really list many that are doing anything because, in some respects, I agree with you. I don't think many people are messing with the format very much. Most of the blogs I read are "traditional" in nature and follow the posts-on-a-web-page model. I thought Jason's Press Nothing to Continue experiment a few years ago was a great step in the direction of experimenting with the tools.

(Not sure if it still works, but what he did was have people post to Blogger, had Blogger output the content in VXML and then the only way to interact with the blog was to call a service called "Tell Me" which read the contents over the phone to you by reading the VXML.)

But for the most part, there's very little of that going on out there. I wouldn't blame the tools though -- certainly Blogger is/was flexible enough to allow Jason to do his project, and I'm sure other tools would enable others to do similar things. What seems to be lacking is the people who are interested in pushing the format.

From a book perspective, I will say that our book talks about alternative interfaces to weblog content (e.g. email, IM, etc.) and tries to look at different ways blogs can be used. There's a chapter devoted to business blogging that explores some of this in more depth.

I don't think we present a narrow and limited view of blogging, after all Matt, pb and I have been deeply involved in building tools and enabling blogging since 1999 and if anything, we'd like to see blogging continue to grow and expand. Our book provided us with an opportunity to further explore some ways in which that would be possible.

As for the label that you're applying to your blog, I can see why some people might be prone to saying what you're doing isn't a blog. The interactions that happen when you publish publicly (i.e. on the web for anyone to see) vs. privately (i.e. on a mailing list or when you send your blog posts only to subscribers via email) are different and people have a fairly strong idea of what a weblog is. They also have strong ideas of what mailing lists are.

though i appreciate blogger's intent, it just seems to have sapped all the oomph out of blogging

Just like word processors have sapped all the oomph out of book writing? Ah yes, the days of quill and ink were much better...

It sounds like you'd like to see more people messing with the definition and presentation and you'd also like some acknowledgement of that in the books and press. In the scheme of things, blogs are pretty new and most coverage is just trying to explain weblogs to a general audience. As we expand and explore what we can do with blogs, I'm sure the articles will expand their coverage as well.
posted by megnut at 3:18 PM on July 17, 2002


As for the label that you're applying to your blog, I can see why some people might be prone to saying what you're doing isn't a blog.

if i were calling it a blog i would agree with you. however, i am not. these are unsolicited emails i get, all from bloggers. it really is rather odd and pathetic. why is the question of whether it is or isn't even entering their heads? they're creating that question themselves and then arguing with themselves. imo, this is because of their own limiting definitions of "blog".

if it were clear cut "not a blog" it wouldn't occur to them to declare it not a blog. (no one emails me to tell me it's not a banana or a telephone.) the point is that it could be a blog except that the definition of blog, in their heads, is so damn limiting that they can't see it as one--even though their own brain is suggesting to them that it is.

The interactions that happen when you publish publicly (i.e. on the web for anyone to see) vs. privately (i.e. on a mailing list or when you send your blog posts only to subscribers via email) are different and people have a fairly strong idea of what a weblog is.

of course they're different. but they're different in ways that people who don't subscribe to something similar or run something similar cannot see, in my opinion. i think that people unfamiliar with the format or who are not curious about it (or don't like the thematic of what i write about, which is fine) think they know these differences. i think they do not. the differences are extreme and not at all what i predicted prior to starting the project.

They also have strong ideas of what mailing lists are.

yes, they do. but i don't know anyone who, when asked what a mailing list is, would offer a definition which encapsulates this format. i'm on many mailing lists. they're all information based--none are journal based. perhaps there are many people doing it. i just don't know who they are.

Just like word processors have sapped all the oomph out of book writing? Ah yes, the days of quill and ink were much better...

i'm not gonna touch this one except to say that's not what i meant at all. perhaps the lack of innovation in which the vast majority of Blogger users use it is sucking out all the oomph.

It sounds like you'd like to see more people messing with the definition and presentation and you'd also like some acknowledgement of that in the books and press.

sorta. but the other way around would work as well. i can't speak for Su, but yes, i'm very surprised there aren't more people (press / books / standing at the water cooler) saying "been there, done that" regarding the presentation.
posted by dobbs at 4:11 PM on July 17, 2002


(Sorry to interrupt your conversation, which is fascinating, but I just wanted to note for posterity that John has told me via email that my copy of the book is indeed winging its way to me.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:08 PM on July 17, 2002


Hey, I just hope Matt's cruel remark in that thread, about me being the MeFi hot dog salesman - not to mention my fawning reply - didn't make it into the book. I have a reputation to protect here!

Assuming it was mercifully deleted, here is Emily Dickinson's famous "I'm Nobody! Who Are You?" poem, to which last line I've added one easily-identified consonant - L.

I dedicate it to Rebecca, of course:

How dreary - to be - Somebody!
How public - like a Frog -
To tell one's name - the livelong June -
To an admiring Blog!

posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:53 PM on July 17, 2002


some non-me-fi'er just mailed me from the thread telling me the "blogathon" banner on my site is a contradiction to my "don't refer to myself as a blogger" comment. just to note: the email comments i'm referring to were coming in way before i put the banner up a month ago. :)
posted by dobbs at 9:28 PM on July 17, 2002


To meg's query, I will say this:

I see too much of the whole A-list thing, and now the warblogging thing, as dominating what the outside world and typical world sees of blogs, when to me there's *so* much more there once you start digging.

That said, I'll be totally frank: I've hardly read any A-lister blogs because when I did, I was immediately struck by the feeling "uh, these people aren't *like me*." The whole flurry about the A-list thing struck me as being similar to the deal about the "popular" kids in high school, and just as pointless.

I realize of course that the whole idea of a cadre of insiders and elites just sort of grew, and probably wasn't intended by the people involved even if some folks saw it that way. Personally, I just went "Eh, whatever - I have too much *interesting* stuff to read to get all worked up about this."

I realized that most of the super-popular mentioned-everywhere "famous" blogs were more from design-focused people whereas I see myself as more in the philosophical / geek / outsider / hacker zone. (Of course, all these definitions are partial and fuzzy and in the eye of the beholder).

To give you an idea of how I feel I differ from the design-is-king-oriented stuff I saw everyone going gaga over for so long, I actually *like* Jakob Nielsen and think he has a lot of good things to say. I don't worship the guy though, and I gleefully giggle at the witty mockery I've seen of him.

But I see myself as being in the "substance over style" camp, where the style exists to convey the substance, not as a superior end in itself. I found too much style and not enough substance that really spoke to me from the most famous blogs. Lots of it, I'm sure, is just that I come from a different direction culturally.

The New Yorker article really kind of bugged me, because it was exciting to see something I thought was cool and growing and that I was a part of be publicized, but it had that whole next-internet-fad treatment about it, and since of course any one article is limited, I felt it didn't tell the whole story.

I guess I need to write some essays about how I feel about blogging in general and so forth, because I have a ton to say and I shouldn't keep spewing here. I wasn't kidding when I commented that I should write a book. (Again, no delusions of grandeur - I just feel the compelling need to write shitloads about this, regardless of whether anyone reads it or it gets imprinted on dead trees in any form, ever.)

I need to read more, though, to be fair. I have only an incomplete picture of the blogoverse, as any of us mere mortals must, since we can't possibly read them all. :)

I got the "We've got blog" book yesterday, though I can't afford it (I will be taking it back to the bookstore later because I need the money). As I read it, I plan to take notes and comment extensively later.

For what it's worth, I think a panel or discussion of some sort at SXSW 2003 would be useful and interesting to explore some ideas of what is blogging / where do we go from here.

And if anyone remembers and saw me, I'm the person who went nuts at SXSW 2001 in one of the panel discussions. I was having a psychotic episode (no kidding), and didn't realize it at the time. I thought I had lost my phone and kept bugging people about it, until the security guard asked me to leave (I did).

I just wanted to say sorry about that. I'm sure I really weirded people out. There's a lot more to it, but I haven't written about it all yet...

Sorry this is so long. Gah. Me shut up now.
posted by beth at 9:58 AM on July 18, 2002


Both the Blogma 2001 missives were printed in the book, so I'm not going to complain too much. The best part? My name doesn't even appear in the book, and I think that rocks. No room for ego in the Blogma camp, heheheh.
posted by GrahamVM at 6:01 AM on July 19, 2002


« Older alreet canny lads and lasses   |   What if they put on a concert and nobody came? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments