Links Etc. 10.5.03

The usual practice is to provide a column of hypertext links under a heading something like 'Daily Read' or 'Reading'. Maybe I'll get round to this way of thinking but for now, I wish to approach this slightly differently. The following is a list of blogs I'm currently reading, on a regular or sporadic basis, with my own thoughts and mini-review.

I like to think of the blog as a quintessentially personal form of publishing, and an interesting couterpoint to established media which are more anonymous and commercially driven. Ultimately, magazines and newspapers are produced for one reason only and that is to generate profit. How refreshing then, to see thousands of people all around the world develop their own web based means of personal expression, motivated not by the desire for money, but the satisfactions of a public voice. You too can have your own mini-magazine to share with the world - or more correctly your own blog, with its uniquely distinguishing features.

Some blogs repeat and expand on established writing practice, ie those that are written by professional journalists. What they offer compared to the daily or weekly column is a more personalised voice where they 'speak' in their own way and not under the remit of the 'house style' of a newspaper, and which allows for comments and feedback. Andrew Sullivan does this (www.andrewsullivan.com), and so do journalists at the UK Guardian. However it is obvious that both of these blogs - and others like them - remain subject to not only a house style, but the constraints of audience response and professional reputation. In other words, they are an extended form of professional practice and thus do not represent the essence of blogging - if such a thing exists.

What is clear is that there are thousands of blogs not remotely connected with established media culture. This is what I mean: Tom Coates writes www.plasticbag.org, which is well designed and skilfully written. I read it sometimes because in addition to those distinguishing features, he's quite an interesting fellow. He seems to be, in fact, one of the cutting edge thinkers with regard to blog culture and how to understand it - although sometimes, I have to say, he talks complete cyber-babble. However he is (as he has himself stated), a trained journalist. And he continues to work 'in the trade', ie as a writer and developer of substantial web sites. Plasticbag is clearly a personal and not a corporate site, based on the character, opinions and insight of Tom Coates. And very good it is - it's one of the most popular UK blogs that I'm aware of.

But here's the thing: and it's a subtle and arguable point. If someone is a trained journalist 'in the trade', that must have both a positive and negative aspect. Positive, because they have writing, thinking and research skills, which make their work a pleasure to read. Many blogs lack these things. But it's negative, because in some respects they are by definition 'establishment blogs' with some of the characteristics of establishment media. Tom Coates would disagree, I suspect, because he deplores the idea that, for example, The Guardian could assimilate and eventually influence anarchic blog culture. He disagreed with the 2002 Best UK Blog competition, for exactly that reason (amongst others). And yet whenever you carve out your own audience and develop your loyal readership you become 'establishment', by definition. It's an ambivalent and Catch 22 situation.

Perhaps reading other people's blogs is more like random grazing than a three course meal. I get a little nourishment here, a little nourishment there, and it's ultimately a more varied and variable diet, according to my mood and random discoveries. The site that won The Guardian competition was Scary Duck, and not only is this a comical and amusing read, it's distinctly anarchic and non-establishment. The 'Chairman of Scary Duck', as he calls himself, is not a media person in any sense; he's a clever and amusing fellow enjoying himself on the Web who was probably genuinely surprised when he won the competition. His site is refreshingly amateurish, by which I mean it is full of fizz and enthusiasm, rather than craft and cleverly-wrought insight. I wonder if that's why they-at-The-Guardian liked it: because it is refreshingly different from their own enterprise. When I saw Scary Duck had won, I myself felt a little dismayed: eh, maybe Recumbent Gaze is actually a bit freaking boring? Who really cares about my words when this dude is spinning out his jokes and giving everyone a well-appreciated rest from sensible thinking? Well, each to his own, in both readership and authorship (which is also, incidentally, one of the problems with a blog competition: how can you decide on the criteria?). Comedy is always counter-establishment and anarchic. But consider this: Scary Duck resides (part of it, at least) on the free space provided by Geocities. On the one hand this is irritating: you have to put up with damn advertisements (someone sponsor him, please, and give him some server space). On the other hand, if SD became altogether clean, slick and 'professional' would that detract from its charm? I believe it would. Here again, we have an ambivalent and Catch 22 situation.

OK, moving on. I recently discovered Mike Atherton's site (not "the twat with a bat", as he himself says), and enjoy it for similar reasons to Scary Duck. It's a refreshing personal voice, which manages to amuse. He appears to spend a third of his life on the Internet - staying up into the early hours - a third of it reading books, and the rest working at Foyles in London. And the latter provides him with interesting stories worthy of top level media comment - like meeting Gerry Adams - and yet here he is, this nondescript dude (sorry Mike - but you see what I mean?), recounting his days. It is again amateurish, by which I mean it has more charm and interest than the slickly professional fare which is more commonly high-profile. The Web, you see, was supposed to be like this, an accessible medium giving a public voice to you, me, and anyone else with a connected computer. Ambivalent again: no one wants to return to the bad old days of ten years ago when a 'home page' was a novelty and it was characteristically no more than plain text on a grey background, stuffed into tables and wrapped up in limited, first-phase HTML. A bright, clear, sophisticated design is far more appealing....and yet is something lost when the Web becomes ubiquitously like this? I'm not sure what the answers are - think, in fact, that these are questions to ask rather than conclusions to seek. They occupy my background thinking, because for a long time I've been undecided whether to make the leap into CGI publishing, ie get myself a copy of Movable Type and open up my site to public comments. Interesting. But do you lose anything by doing that? I haven't decided. But consider this: if the trend is towards increasing interaction (in art, films, publishing, television and the 'net), will there come a time when it is self-defeating, ie if there is not much difference between 'life' and the 'net, what interest does the latter have? What's the point in visiting a gallery to see an unmade bed, when I can do the same thing more cheaply and conveniently in my own flat? When there are no discrete spaces, everything is the same as eveything else and nothing has special or seperate value. Is that cool and progessive, or is it featureless and boring? Thus far, I've enjoyed Recumbent Gaze as my little space. It's my back garden, and it's got walls around it. I do it for me, and it's not like a public wall where people can spray their own graffiti, artistic or otherwise. Anyway 'nuff said, I'll stop rambling; in the end it comes down to a few simple preferences.

Onward. I like Jill's site because she's researching and thinking about blog culture, at the same time as she writes hers. The same applies to Mark's, who has a professional relationship with Jill. This guy John Scalzi is a professional writer, and it shows. He's a good read. The same applies to VixGirl, a Londoner, but we warned gentle reader: therein you will find appreciative and affirmative remarks regarding general rubbish and domestic epemera, when said objects are designated as Art. This site is a woman thinking and writing about sex, on a professional basis. What I find interesting is how when a woman does this it is really no different from the male pornographic imagination, which doesn't exactly have cultural credence. When a woman does it (and Cliterati does it also), it somehow has an air of sophistication and cultural cool. Why? Because it reverses the stereotype and makes an implicit statement that 'I'm a woman and I enjoy sexuality. This is 2003 and if you don't like it, that's your problem.' Or something like that. It has a subtle political message.

This is cute and entertaining. So is Ani and so, for that matter, is Jess. A site called Jester when your name is Jess is rather cool. Molly seems to have an interesting life, Nick is an educated kind of kiind of guy (I think) who posts short, incisive little remarks about things like politics and current affairs. Looblylu is cute and pretty, nice to look at as much as read. OK that'll do for now....