History and the Web
“It Isn’t Writing, It’s Only Typing”
Truman Capote’s slam of Kerouac’s writing sums how I have felt about blogging in the past. Prior to this class I have blogged for several other classes and I honestly never really enjoyed it. I always wondered why I had to express myself in this format when no one would read my blog except for my professors and classmates (and they do this simply because they were required to.) However, after this week’s readings, and my writing class, I am beginning to see a real purpose and reason to blog. As Cummings and Jarrett, blogging is “freer and faster” than formal writing and it offers an easy forum to express my ideas (255.) The format also allows me to work on my writing in a forum that is not for publication or promotion. This allows us as bloggers to enjoy ourselves as we try and digest readings, formulate our thoughts, and make connections in a broader historical context.
Blogs make our ideas available to a wider audience, the general public. Posts are available to anyone with a computer and internet connection. I never looked at blog posts this way until I started having to use tags for a previous class. But as Tanaka points out this is just one of the ways the past is “becoming larger.” (36) As more information finds its way onto the web and more people, of varying levels of expertise, use and interpret the information “history and the way we write history will change.” (37) As our writing instructor always asks, “Is this good? Or Does this suck?” I am not sure. The collective body of knowledge existing on the web has its positive and negative features. There are many examples to support both sides of this issue, but I believe the pros far exceed the cons, especially where the field of history is concerned. My one example for the positive aspects of the web would be our class blog. By writing down my thoughts about the readings and reading your posts I have a better understanding of the information covered for the upcoming week’s class. I tend to agree with Weinberger’s assertion that the web and all its features, both good and bad, “can make us smarter, if we want to be smarter.” (91)
David, I agree, especially after our class discussion last week, that the positives definitely outweigh the negatives on information found on the internet. I was leery about the internet at first, as like we talked about, ANYONE can post, can create a page, can post “researech,” even “document” their findings. Yet, this does not mean that we, as researchers and historians, have to believe everything we read on the internet. Just because it’s on the internet, does NOT mean that it is true. We have the responsibility to verify the sources and information before we utilize the information. Like Dr. Nelson said, “For every one bad site, there a ten other good sites out there.” This went a long way to changing my way of looking at this vast wealth of information out there, called the internet.
Hi David,
I think blogging is a medium that is particularly well-suited to opening a conversation about a subject, and so is perhaps is one of the best ways to participate in “networked knowledge.” I am thinking of Weinberger’s discussion of Jay Rosen’s site, which brings “long-form thinking” to the digital realm (105). I agree with Weinberger that a particular advantage to this way of conveying information is that “readers point out topics that the author then realizes he must address” (107). This type of immediate, conversational exchange on a long-form argument would not have been possible in the print media world.
Claire
wonderful! Link to Jay Rosen here: http://pressthink.org/
David,
The critique you quoted at the beginning of your post stuck out to me as well, but perhaps for a slightly different reason. The most prominent concern I had while going through the readings this week was the loss of the traditional role of the historian scholar due to the advent of the Digital Age. It is a slight fear of mine that in opening the conversation up to everyone, the historian will become more of a passive participant–a curator of blogging conversations online. If that were to happen, I feel as though we would lose the historic writing in a sea of “only typing”. However, I am not blind to the clear benefits of opening up the narrative to anyone and everyone–namely, we can better engage the public by including them in the conversation. I think blogging is a great medium for doing so.
Carmen
David, I so agree with the connection between blogging and our writing class! It is a great way to air ideas and to gain feedback before a “high stakes release.” While there may be some self-sorting out of who will read and comment on your blog, I’m not so sure this is creating an echo chamber as Weinberger defines it. After all, since blogging is a more informal kind of writing and correspondence, there isn’t the pressure to be highly trained or highly academic to participate in the conversation. I know–I’ve commented on blogs before when I haven’t felt “qualified” to comment in a more structured setting!
David,
I don’t think I caught that quote about the internet “can make us smarter if we want to be smarter” when I read through Weinberger – but I like it. It’s like so many things in life that require a choice. “Should I eat that cheeseburger?” Well one cheeseburger’s okay, but one everyday…well…. Yuk.
The internet can be a great repository for primary source research, such as the “Valley of the Shadow” project; however, as you said it can also be a wonderful platform for a blog and with the right choices, it can be a great place to connect, learn and try out our writing skills before the “High Stake Release.”
So, going back to our writing class, “Is the internet good? Does it suck?”
“Well, It depends.”
“Posts are available to anyone with a computer and internet connection.”
That’s…kind of terrifying. Not only can an “average Joe” see posts, but so can perhaps our future colleagues of the history world! That said, I think blogging is a fantastic way to open a real dialogue, as we’ve read this week. In a blog, you can get away with a little bit of stream-of-consciousness writing; in a monograph, not so much. There is a lot of benefit to seeing how people tick when they think instead of simply the end result of what their brain spits onto a page after artifact analysis. Blogging allows us to do that, and I think it can be a great tool to actually teach professional writing. Don’t ask me how, I just have a hunch…
As skeptical as I am about the quality, quantity, and randomness of internet participation on blogs, I do have to admit, that at the right ‘scale’–so to speak–blogging seems like a fun and interactive way to approach a variety of issues. I still like the idea of knowing with whom I am having a conversation, however, and I think that that’s why I enjoy blogging with classmates, rather than anyone who happens to be trolling the internet for a place to assert their opinion…
It’s my first time to write a blog for class. I thought my readers are only my professors and classmates as well. I did wonder if there will be any other person read my blog, and I know the blog like mine will probably not stay at the first page because of low content score. But once I start to write and keep adding more on it to increase that score and searchable words, I also begin to expect someone will search a keyword and click on my blog someday in future, especially after reading Weinberger. So there is always expectation and hope for more readers. =D