Can God question the nature of something He didn't even create?

[franceslievens]

simonf points to a debate at Whedonesque. Nothing new there, I guess. Whedonesque is the place for heated Whedon-related debates. What's much more interesting is what's at stake in this debate: Joss Whedon quarrels with the site's creator if this bit of webspace can be considered a blog¹. It's a quarrel with several layers: first it's about weblogs, second it's about language. Since we're talking about Mr Whedon here, it's probably even more about language than it's about weblogs. It's a meta-debate about what it means to be a (we)blog.

It all starts out so tiny with Whedon stating "This is not, in fact, a blog." Ahem, a sentence like that is bound to stir up some things on a website that presents itself as "a weblog about Joss Whedon created by Caroline van Oosten de Boer (design/html/content) and Milo Vermeulen (PHP/MySQL programming)". So Caroline retorts with a nice definition of what a weblog is (used to be?): "A weblog was and to me still is a website in which items are posted on a regular basis and displayed in reverse chronological order, with the possibility for readers to comment." There you have it, clean and simple. A weblog needs two things: items should be posted in reverse chronological order and readers should have the ability to comment. So, my LJ is a weblog. But isn't, based on this rudimentary definition, a message board like the BC&S a weblog? Let's have look. Are the items posted in reverse chronological order? Check. Can people comment on the items? Check. So, one shouldn't think it strange that Joss Whedon of all people doesn't consider Whedonesque a blog. It's more like a message board, but with an rss-feed!

Now, I shouldn't be so hard on Caroline. Whedonesque is a weblog, but maybe it shouldn't be considered a blog, like most LJ-ers aren't caught dead talking about their blogs. This is an LJ, baby! I have never thought it was wrong to talk about my blog. It's usually the way I present it towards the outside world that generally has a better knowledge of the word "blog" than it has of the obscure abreviation "LJ". Like "flist" it's part of the incrowd-jargon. Another reason why I don't mind talking about "my blog" and call what I do on here deliberately "blogging", because that's what it is. I write for people to read and want them to comment, whether it's on their own blogs, through email or use the comment button on here.

Two things are happening here: first there's a semantic shift and second there's a change in the use of software tools. It is the second change that makes the semantic shift possible. In a first developmental stage blogging software did just what Caroline described. It made it possible to quickly update websites with tiny bits of information. Instead of changing an uploading a complete page, you only have to upload the extra information. The comments-feature is an added bonus.
The leap towards personal diary isn't such a grand one. Look at it as jumping over a dry ditch. Before you know it you have all these people linking to and commenting on each other's personal electronic diaries. It's new, it's hip, it isn't only for teens (hell, every Belgian politician that considers him- or herself something has a blog nowadays), now we need a word to talk about it in the mainstream media. The word is there and voilà: the blog as personal diary tool is born. Whedon says it very well: "What a word means often devolves into what it connotes, in this case a personal diary or some singular person's site, even if there's a comment forum or members." "Blog" as a word doesn't refer anymore to the tools used. Considering the amount in blogging software out there that isn't such a suprise. On the contrary "blog" gets its core meaning from its content and from its contributors. We blog because we say so and we blog because you, dear reader, think so too.
Truely the meaning of the word has contracted whereas the definition of what a blog is, has grown. Several criteria regarding the content of the website have been added. Moreso a blog doesn't even need the ability to comment anymore to be called a blog. The whole blogging thing revolves around what you as writer and reader make of it. There's the website. There's the blog. There's the rss-feed². There's the LiveJournal-friendslist (its very own version of a newsreader). Like Caroline says: "There's room for all of us. We can all be blogs. But some are more bloggy than others." The thing with blogging is like everything else: the tools are there, you just have to make them your own. Like we bend the rules of language into slang, we bend the rules of blogging and the writing of a personal diary into something new that others might actually want to read³.

¹ This brings simonf's great post-title "God calls into question the nature of his universe". I love it, but it isn't quite right according to theology. God created His universe, but the god we're talking about here (i.e. Joss Whedon) did not create this particular part of his 'verse. I can only compare it to God questioning the nature of the personal computer, which of course He didn't build.
Unless of course simonf is refering to gnostic interpretations of creation, in which His universe is actually created by His demonic alter ego.
² This may also count as a reason for the different approach to what a blog is. I'm reading most of my stuff through rss- or atom-feeds via Bloglines. Sites like BBC-News also are on there, but that one isn't a blog, of course.
³ Because I can assure you: you wouldn't want to read my paper diary.

Comments

[candlelightfrot.livejournal.com]

I think something like Whedonesque (which changed its format to be more like a bulletin board) was for a time more of a bleg than a blog. A bleg being a particular kind of blog in which initial entries are 'begged' of the user.

[frances-lievens.livejournal.com]

Maybe we should compare Whedonesque to Boing Boing, which also begs entries from the user. But instead of every user being able to post things, you email them to the "writers". Boing Boing doesn't even have the opportunity to comment. You can only email. And still it's called a blog by many. It lives on the fringes of the definition.

[simonf.livejournal.com]

Aye but Joss created his universe which spawned the Whedonesque universe. "God calls into question the nature of his indirectly related universe" wouldn't have been as snappy. And believe me, snappy titles is what I am all about.

And regarding whether Whedonesque is a blog or not: she who pays the bills, calls the shots.

We should, of course, asked Joss if Whedonesque isn't a blog what does he think it is then?

[frances-lievens.livejournal.com]

Oh, I so totally dig the snappy titles, Simon. It's what had me reading your post in the first place. ;-) It wasn't until later that the logician in me put the question marks in the border. Ach, I'm like that. Betweterig we say in Dutch.

I think I covered your remark when I said "We blog because we say so", so yeah, she who pays the bills, calls the shots. And since Boing Boing can call itself a blog, Whedonesque is one too.

Now if I were Joss what would I call Whedonesque? An egotrip?

[eachman.livejournal.com]

"Moreso a blog doesn't even need the ability to comment anymore"

Weblogs existed before there was a possibility to comment and before they had permalinks. It took a long time before comments *were* possible.

Whedonesque *isn't* a message board. We don't post messages. We post links to other sites, other stories on the web, and comments on those links. This too was once an essential ingredient of the weblog.

[frances-lievens.livejournal.com]

Ah thanks for the clarification. Didn't know that. I don't view whedonesque as a message board. I was only pointing out that such a small definition of weblog makes message boards into weblogs as well.

I can't talk about the early days of weblogs when blogging wasn't a verb yet. Hey I jumped on the bandwagon in the year of the blog: 2004. Everyone seems to have one these days! And that changes the use of the word of course.

Thanks for commenting, but how the hell did you end up here, if I may be so bold to enquire?