But we live in times of chaos and complexity, and the future of writing and reading is deeply uncertain. -- Mark Derry
Perhaps so. 10 Zen Monkeys' piece, Is the Net Good for Writers, provides the ruminations of various professional writers in answer to the question, Is the internet good for writers and writing?
Depends on how we define the term writer. A few of the interviewees in this text see themselves as part of an elitist class, members of a profession which is not too enamored of the democratizing effect of the Internet: "The advent of personal computers has been ruinous. Empowering, my ass. Suddenly everyone's a writer" (Michael Simmons). I wonder how prevalent these bitter feelings are among the profession?
I was also intrigued by the observation of some that Internet reading and writing is changing the length of pieces in more traditional media publications. Does anyone know if this is indeed the case in journalism and magazine writing?
what is a writer?
Maybe we need to think of ourselves as scribblers in the 18th century, Swiftian sense, rather than as writers. I'll have to read the article before I spout off too much, but does my getting paid a nickel a word for a few articles a year make me a writer? Does my blogging make me a writer? Does all the crap I write for the college make me a writer? Do my "creative" efforts make me a writer? Does my teaching of writing make me a writer? Or must my income be solely, or primarily, based on my writing?
With all that, I think the internet is good for writing if only because more people are communicating with writing. It may not be the good old epistolary days, and the writing may not be so finely crafted as we like to think it was back in the day, but more people are writing to connect, and that can't be a bad thing, can it?
bradley || bleckblog.org