Andrew Sullivan raises a glass to blogging as a great thing that rides side saddle along with print, and how lovely it is for the primacy of words as an instrument of discourse, etc.
"A blogger will air a variety of thoughts or facts on any subject in no particular order other than that dictated by the passing of time. A writer will instead use time, synthesizing these thoughts, ordering them, weighing which points count more than others, seeing how his views evolved in the writing process itself, and responding to an editor’s perusal of a draft or two. The result is almost always more measured, more satisfying, and more enduring than a blizzard of posts. The triumphalist notion that blogging should somehow replace traditional writing is as foolish as it is pernicious. In some ways, blogging’s gifts to our discourse make the skills of a good traditional writer much more valuable, not less. The torrent of blogospheric insights, ideas, and arguments places a greater premium on the person who can finally make sense of it all, turning it into something more solid, and lasting, and rewarding."
I follow many of the blogs Sullivan notes, but honestly, it's the same core as was there years ago, and if there's more than five new blogs that I've sought out so far this year, I'd be surprised.
All these great books get in the way.
I'm reminded of the blogger subculture as heart attack risk story in the NYT a couple years ago, but that piece was almost as long as Mr. Sullivan's.
Doonesbury's Gary Trudeau-as he's done for decades, makes the point with a great deal more dispatch here.
Posted by David