He begins...
In fact, despite what the bloggers themselves believe, the future of literary culture does not lie with blogs--or at least, it shouldn't.
And ends...
The only useful part of most book blogs, in fact, are the links to long-form essays and articles by professional writers, usually from print journals.
I actually do believe that linking may be one of the most important features of litblogging, but that doesn't by any means make litblogging obsolete. Ironically, I only found Wolcott's article through a litblog link, and I'm sure he wouldn't object that I'm passing it on here.
1 comment:
Touché, mademoiselle. I absolutely agree. 'Popular' media don't automatically equate to useless. I think it's all a tool, and it entirely depends on how you use it. Blogs are about communication, and access to new ideas.
When printing became widespread and pamphlets could be made by every Joe Europe, a lot of people thought it brought down the grade of literature as a whole, and I think there was a couple of times when hand written books made a brief comeback. The future of literary culture at the time, however, certainly lay in printed items. The easy access to people's opinions led to an information revolution. I mean, Wolcott takes advantage of printed pamphlets himself, in Vanity Fair. The comparison may be a bit pat, but the print wave and the internet wave have a fair bit in common.
I don't know if blogs will be the medium of choice for literary commentary, but given that the world seems to be carrying itself into the internet, I don't see why blogs should be so easily dismissed. Is it too easy for Wolcott? Not enough editing process? It's one thing to state that the future of literature won't lie in blogs....but to say there isn't any use at all in them? Maybe he'd rather we not read his own blog and just skip over to the Vanity Fair online store link.
Post a Comment