why i hate the word blog
When I first purchased this domain name, the header referred to the site as a “weblog.” A few months ago I changed it to “website.” I’m not sure what possessed me to call this site a weblog in the first place. I’ve always hated the word and all its permutations.
Blog. Let’s address the shear ugliness of the word. One syllable, ending in a “G.” It sounds wet and tired. It sounds like a noise I’d make after eating something with an unusually high fiber content. Rhymes with bog, smog, log, fog, frog, and virtually nothing pleasant. It is possibly one of the clumsiest words of recent invention, and I hate hearing it spurt awkwardly out of media pundits’ throats two dozen times a day.
Please, someone define the word “blog” for me. What, exactly do people mean when they say that? Don’t even try to go Dictionary.com on me. The word has only been in popular use for about six years, and you really shouldn’t need a dictionary to define it, especially if you’re reading this. In the internet days of yore (pre-2000), I’m fairly certain that “weblog” referred specifically to a website that include a list of links to other places, usually listed in the order in which they were posted. This later generalized to include chronologically listed pieces of writing, or “posts.” It didn’t stop there.
First, the word “blogger,” meaning a person who writes on a blog. Maybe this had special meaning a few years ago, but thanks to sites like Typepad and (gosh) Blogger, anyone can be a blogger. Funny, I always thought that stringing words together for public consumption made you a writer. Essayist. Poet. Hobbyist. Contributor. Journalist (meaning either reporter or one who writes a journal). Master of Letters. Whatever.
Some organizations get carried away entirely. Myspace says, “Post a new blog” and “Read Bobby Blake’s latest blog.” Someone, please, tell Tom that you can’t put a blog on a blog. The individual articles (or entries, posts, whatever you’d like) are most definitely not “blogs” themselves. Books have chapters and magazines have articles. Malcolm Gladwell will never refer to any of his New Yorker pieces as periodicals. Okay? Keep this infuriating semantic error in mind for later.
Then you’ve got the “blogosphere,” which is a hideous extension of an already unpleasant word. It conjures up images of a vast orb of nothingness, it’s non-surface rough with debris of some unknown material and origin. The word is typically used to refer to weblogs in aggregate, a tag that is supposed to point to the collective unconscious of the entire internet. How this is possible, I don’t know. Dooce, AppleInsider, and Respectful Insolence are all blogs, therefore they are all part of this so-called blogosphere. I dare you to tell me how one noun or adjective can accurately refer to all three in any significant way. Don’t tell me that it’s just a category. The word “website” would do just as well, but media outlets and other bloggers use the word “blog” like it’s supposed to mean something.
The problem is, it doesn’t. AppleInsider is a blog. Let’s run with the idea. It takes contributions from its readers, but most of the news blogs posts entries articles are written by the AppleInsider staff. Doesn’t this make AppleInsider a news website? The equivalent of a specific or local Wired? Another example: Absenter. Blog or not?
What I’m getting at here is that the word “blog” (and all of its ugly accessory words) can be used to refer to just about anything. A word that means everything might as well mean nothing. It becomes semantically useless. Yet “blog” is still supposed to mean something. I use the word “website” because it doesn’t carry any ethereal clause about the purpose or content of my site. There’s no vague image of a grassroots coalition of savvy techno-whatevers tapping away at their keyboards. I’m just a guy who likes to express himself. My chosen avenue is digital. I have a website.
AMEN. I hate the word “blog.” I’m more OK with it in print, but I can’t stand using it in real conversation. I always, always, ALWAYS say “website” when I am talking out loud.
Before “blog” sinks any deeper into the abyss of tautology, the term, “weblog” originated in the late 90’s to describe frequently updated, first-person, online journals. “Weblog” became “we blog” because a small group of people thought it was cute (“hey everyone! Look! We blog!”). The “we” became redundant and dropped, leaving the term, “blog.”
But the term is still pretty focused with regard to its origin and definition. Can the term “blog” be used to refer to a tractor? Peonies? Dark matter? No, no, and no.
This is a blog. Just accept it.
Actually, eL, that’s a good point. But media outlets still have this nasty tendency to refer to “blogs” and “bloggers” as if those terms carry some special significance, when really, they don’t don’t signify much of anything. It just bothers me.
I’ve never managed my own blog. Rest assured, JD, if I did it would definitely be cucumiform.
Furthermore, I have from reliable sources (a random Google search and a creative imagination) that the term “blog” is a derivative of “Webelogs.” At a Webelos Cub Scout badge ceremony, Tricia Martin, mother of little Timmy and Jacob Martin and Scout Leader for Troop #6842 announced to the parents in attendance that she was very pleased with the results of her scouts’ outdoor activity event the weekend past. After delivering the results of the cabin build and knot tie competitions, in one very embarassing moment Tricia reported the outcome of the Webelos log race as “Weblog race.” From that day onward the term stuck and was forever used to refer to any source on the internet where people vomit logorrhea (present comment included) for all to see.
JD, I agree that referring to a blog on a blog in a blogosphere is pleonastic (sorry, I saw “tautology” above and thought I would pull another logic term out of the internet’s backside, so, you know? I can give the impression I’m bombastic, and therefore, wicked smart).
I like your website.
Bulwark — thought I’d throw in one more GRE word for you to impress the other readers.
JD, I don’t disagree that media outlets use said terms as though they have some higher significance, but I attribute that to ignorance and little more–as though all blogs are proactive this or that, and the very idea of “blogging” or whateveryouwanttocallit is new or “news.” (I’d like to see Bill O’Reilly go after Dong Resin one of these days, just for kicks.)
It’s the sort of tickle I get when I hear someone say, “I’m going to go update my Myspace page–the doubled “my” has me in stitches every time.
But blog, blahg, or personal website, I dig what you do here, and don’t let CNN bring you down.