the last straw
August 31, 2002
Discussions about flexible straws, huh? Trivial? Absolutely. But what if there were, say, some larger point? What if I were pleased that my audience could accept that I'm both for and against them? What if we could use an example that pointless to see that maybe there isn't that much distinction between two apparently opposite schools of thought, or to understand that you don't have to be against something just to be for something.
I don't usually like to overexplain, but it would seem that sometimes it's a necessary evil. Those who would demonize me for my stance might be surprised to learn that I also hold the opposite one. Nuance? Subtlety? Complexity? Why, it's downright unamerican.
And the fact that allegory doesn't succeed in the weblog medium... it disappoints me. If this were part of the original series of Star Trek, I don't doubt that fans would have sussed out the meaning of these rather transparent posts. It's a weblog, yes, but first it's writing, regardless of form or technology.
Are we weblog readers so used to obvious, literal posts that we're unable to attempt less blatant pieces that reach their points obliquely? If so, that confirms my increasing suspicion that the weblog's future is in the literal (and boring) world of business, not in the realm of pointless personal sites.
4:28 PM
|
3 TrackBacks
There's a few things we've been too polite to point out to you, but it's time to set you straight. Read More
There's a few things we've been too polite to point out to you, but it's time to set a few Read More
Are we weblog readers so used to obvious, literal posts that we're unable to attempt less blatant pieces that reach their points obliquely? If so, that confirms my increasing suspicion that the weblog's future is in the literal (and boring)... Read More
10 Comments
Leave a comment
- Earlier: The beauty of the dumb gold box
- Next: Google Go Bye-Bye?
Seeing the explanation, I am afraid to ask if a question was asked.
Early, I was discussing with someone your posts on flexi-straws. And how I thought they were about something else, not really flexi-straws. Because, from reading everything else you've written, you don't seem like someone who would just write random rants about average drinking straws. I'm happy to read that I was correct in my assumption.
Might it also be possible, Anil, that your allegory was too obscure? It's not always the reader that's at fault for a miscommunication -- oftentimes it is the writer.
One example of allegorical prose gone awry does not the future of blogging make, in any event. ;)
I knew you were up to something. Brilliant!
I don't understand... will you please give some specific concrete examples? ;)
don't be stuck up man, we've come to expect certain things here. its not that allegory doesnt succeed in weblogs, it just may not succeed in yours.
No question it might've been too obtuse. I'm not just blaming the audience. But I'd like to not be afraid to push the audience, either. I'd not only include myself as someone who doesn't try hard enough with writing, I'd say I'm someone who doesn't put that much effort into reading weblogs, either.
And don't be afraid to put your name on your posts, it's not like I'm going to yell at you. It's a completely valid criticism to say my usually-breezy writing style encourages reading at a simpler level. This isn't kindergarten, (or San Francisco... heh) critiques are welcomed and appreciated.
Yeah, well, [deityofchoice] forbid you wouldn't want to write about American Idol, or something interesting like that.
I hate it when reading something makes me think.
yah the anonymous one was me, I just forgot to put my name on it.
It would be interesting to see how the weblog reading public compares to, say, the public as a whole.
Not sure about blogreaders, but the general public likes their content towards the extremes of the black and white continuum. Makes it easier to digest. Pundits and spinmeisters reinforce that.
I know, I know. I am making a gross generalization. Yes, it's gross.