Joho the Blog
|
|
|
« Hunting Down the Evil Doers to Their Tastefully Decorated Caves || Back to Blog | One man's turmoil is another... » June 06, 2003
And why would you think they are? Answer: Because you read Simon Dumenco's column in which he somehow fails to notice the difference. Or, more likely (and more to the point), you read Doc's comments on Dumenco's column. There's a germ of truth in what Dumenco says. And since he actually asks bloggers to tell him what he means, I'm happy to oblige. He's feeling overwhelmed by everything he's supposed to know and think about. By TiVo-ing programs that he then doesn't have time to watch, feels that he's not entirely out of the cultural loop because the show is at least residing on his TiVo disk. Instead, he finds himself reading bloggery about what he didn't have time to actually watch and so he's able to engage in the water-cooler conversations. But why is this a bad thing? The truth comes out a couple of paragraphs down: People read bloggery about Dumenco's writing rather than reading the writing itself. He does not say (admit?) that this is insulting. Instead, he goes POMO on us and says that this is "interpassivity," like a laugh track that decides for you what is funny. Worse, Dumenco says that TiVo and blogs:
There are only three things wrong with that idea. First, (as Doc points out) blogging is interactive, not passive. Second, even if you only read blogs and never interact with them, that makes blogs as "hyperpassive" as, well, the writings of a columnist. Third, his reasoning about the seamlessness of TiVo and blogs is hooey. He thinks that, unlike TiVo, unwatched video tapes "constantly taunt you, reminding you of their presence." Yeah, but not nearly as much as the list of unwatched shows presented to you every time you turn on TiVo. (His real problem is ontological - he prefers "a physical collection of information" because it "exists" (his emphasis) - but we needn't go there, girlfriend.) TiVo is a response to the problem that there's too much to watch. Rather than being hyperpassive, TiVo makes every person a monarch in the Kingdom of Couch Potatoes. Think of TiVo as being your own personal channel. Blogging is a response to the problem that there's too much for any one of us to think about. Conversation is the ur-response to the same problem. Aggregators respond to the next level of too-much-ness. Conversations, blogs and aggregators all "up the ante" not on passivity but on thinking together. Dumenco's last sentence asks: "Did you read this essay or did you read about it?" Maybe we didn't have time to read the column. Or maybe I get more out of it by reading it via a thoughtful commentary like Doc's that not only clarifies Dumenco's thought but adds to it. Meanwhile, I suspect the emphasis in Dumenco's last sentence was supposed to be on about. Probably a typo. No problem; I make 'em all the time. Anyway, some blogger no doubt will read Dumenco's writing closer than the editor did, and will notice the error and help make the column just a little bit clearer. Posted
by D. Weinberger at June 6, 2003 08:25 AM
TrackBackListed below are links to weblogs that reference Why Blogs Aren't Tivo:
» Technology as substitute for honesty from Licquia.org Tracked on June 6, 2003 02:54 PM |
Comments
Imagine watching an episode of Buffy, not for fun, but so you don't look stupid when a colleague wants to discuss some "mordant" dialogue. POMO has made bubblegum-pop culture the new required reading. Not surprisingly, a steady diet leaves devotees like Dumenco feeling urpy. Add one more useful function performed by blogs--we are the credibility-saving published-just-in-time Cliff Notes for a new generation of "literati."
Posted by: Betsy Devine | June 6, 2003 09:02 AM
OK, I actually read both pieces (honest!)...I think it's a bad analogy for another reason: the TiVo (if I had one) wouldn't expand my horizon by alerting me to all the shows I didn't even know about. The blogs I read have pointed me not only to other blogs but to many articles and posts that I would never have had the time to find otherwise. And I think it's much easier to calibrate from reading their blog for a while how reliable an informant someone is. Then I have a high degree of confidence that I can judge my potential interest in a subject by viewing it through the lens of their comments. I can then track it down through the links (if I'm interested) or just mentally file the reference in with the other miscellaneous bits (but just knowing that the discussion exists may come in handy at some point). You can't do that with TV, and I think it's much easier to deceive on TV, even over an extended period. Of course I've drifted away from entertainment TV entirely here, but I can't relate to the world that Dumenco describes anyway.
Maybe this is all pretty obvious.
Posted by: John Stein | June 6, 2003 09:54 AM
>Meanwhile, I suspect the emphasis in Dumenco's last sentence was supposed to be on about. Probably a typo or an editor's error. No problem. Some blogger will no doubt notice the error and help explain what Dumenco meant
Just wanted to say that I found it funny that you thought this important enough to mention. I also was curious about the use of italics in a few other spots in the article.
Posted by: fishrush | June 6, 2003 11:34 AM
The big fallacy is apples and oranges, movie cameras vs. movie theaters.
RSS newsreaders are TiVo for bloggers.
Newsreaders like NewzCrawler and Radio UserLand do TiVo things. Time shifting. Easier, more complete channel and program selection.Season pass for your favorite shows. Record in the background while playing in the foreground. Save a post to your blog instead of to your VCR.
TiVo needs blogspace community tools: add social filtering (recommendations), feedback, and threads of commentary. Maybe my next project...
Posted by: Phil Wolff | June 6, 2003 12:09 PM
TiVo and newsreaders are both for sipping from the firehose.
Posted by: Phil Wolff | June 6, 2003 12:10 PM
And blogs are about peeing into a mighty river.
Posted by: Phil Wolff | June 6, 2003 12:12 PM
Fishrush, I was giving a tiny example-by-doing of how the "hyperpassivity" of blogging actually improves things. A small irony. Maybe too small.
Posted by: dweinberger | June 6, 2003 12:46 PM
I don't have, nor would I ever consider TiVo. I think television is generally a vast wasteland and that includes the 150 satellite channels I get. TV is a diversion and not a real source of anything more useful than an old Bogart movie.
You said "TiVo is a response to the problem that there's too much to watch. Rather than being hyperpassive, TiVo makes every person a monarch in the Kingdom of Couch Potatoes. Think of TiVo as being your own personal channel. "
I'd argue (based purely on the people I've known or met who use it) TiVo creates slaves to television who feel obligated to watch rather than monarchs.
TiVo is a tool the media monopolies (the FCC thinks that's a good thing, right?) can use to further control what people are "receiving" in the way of information.
OTOH, as "Hugh" would say, resistance is futile. You will be assimilated." Or was that Bill Gates who said that?
Posted by: Ken Camp | June 6, 2003 07:40 PM
Ken, I don't understand your criticism of TiVo. Instead of having to be sitting on my couch when the broadcast is on, I can watch what I want whenever I want. How does that increase my slavery to TV? It feels like an increase in freedom.
Posted by: dweinberger | June 7, 2003 12:52 AM
You forget that some people believe television is inherently incapable as a medium of producing anything but tripe that only serves to reduce the intellect of the viewer. Therefore, anything that works to make television viewing more attractive to people must necessarily also be just as evil.
I don't understand this worldview, but it exists.
Posted by: The One True b!X | June 8, 2003 09:03 PM