Bloggers Versus "Real" Writers

Through the technological marvel of Netflix-streaming through my Playstation 3, I started watching Californication today. It's a Showtime series starring David Duchovny as a down-on-his-luck writer who, for a variety of reason, can't seem to get his shit together. It's pretty interesting so far, in that way that shows with semi-nihilistic, self-destructive characters are usually interesting. One episode in particular though, grabbed me in a slightly different way.

In the episode, Duchovny's character is being interviewed for a local public radio show—Henry Rollins plays the radio show host. In the interview, Duchovny's character goes on this rant against Internet acronyms like “LOL” and “LMAO,” saying that they represent the destruction of the English language. The radio show host points out that Duchovny is part of the same problem because he's blogging for a local website. Duchovny agrees, and makes a joke about self-loathing.

The exchange reminded me of an old argument I've had with myself many times over the difference between being a blogger and a writer.

To a certain extent, there is no difference at all. Bloggers write just the same as other writers. From one point of view, the only difference is in the method of delivery. “Real” writers write for reputable publications like the New Yorker or the L.A. Times. Bloggers either self-publish on their own websites (like this one) or they blog for other websites. The line between writers and bloggers is pretty blurry at times though. Almost every “real” writer these days has a blog, and though many of them complain about the informal, conversational nature of the format, they still aren't stupid enough to allow a new medium to completely pass them by.

For what it's worth, I've always called myself a writer, not a blogger. Maybe it's just that I buy into the snarky stereotyping coming from the “real” writers out there, but I've always felt like calling myself a blogger would somehow belittle what I write. Since I started writing for the Spark, I've become more open to the label, but mostly it's because that's how the world sees what I do, so I can either get with the program and call myself a blogger, or I can insist on calling myself something that the rest of the world will likely never call me.

My name is Christopher George, and I'm a blogger. That wasn't so hard I guess.

Does that put me in the same class as some of the bloggers out there, the ones with prose as clumsy and awkward as a fat kid trying to play shortstop? Maybe.

It's not as though I don't at least somewhat buy some of the criticism being thrown out there by the “real” writers of the world. Lately, I've been doing the Spark's weekly local blog roundup, and just based on that I can tell you that a huge majority of what's out there is terrible, the sort of stuff so awful that when you read it you feel embarrassed for the person who wrote it even if they don't. Still, a fair amount of what's out there is pretty good, especially among the bloggers who take it seriously, so when I read something from some professionally trained journalist going on and on about how awful the blogosphere's content is, I take it with a grain of salt.

Those people are staring down a technological shift that they're not prepared for. It's going to change their entire world in ways nobody can predict, and a lot of times, they're lashing out because they're afraid. A lot of times though, they're also lashing out because of a certain contempt.

It's easy to understand from a certain point of view, a professional, educated point of view.

I don't mean that the point of view itself is educated, just that the people who ascribe to it usually are. These are people who've often spent the better part of a decade learning how to write, paying good money for the privilege. They look at bloggers the same way that a composer who graduated from Juilliard might look at Dee Dee Ramone. It's snobbishness par excellence.

As far as I know, I've never had any of that snobbishness directed at me personally, but I have been in situations where I felt dramatically out of place because I was surrounded by writers far better educated than I am, and far more accomplished to boot. It was intimidating to say the least, but more because I noticed the difference, not because anybody thought any less of me as I writer, at least not openly anyway.

Leaving aside those personal experiences though, I think bloggers don't get nearly the respect they deserve, especially the best of them.

I've read commentaries from blogs that were every bit as nuanced and thought-provoking as the best op-ed's in the New York Times. Conversely, I've read pieces by “real” writers that I could've outdone in high school. As often as not, a person's educational background and his or her professional status have absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the writing that person is capable of producing. Does that mean that it might be better to save the money you intend to spend on that graduate degree in journalism from Columbia and just start a blog, getting by on whatever talent you may have? Well, if you can stand the scorn from others who carry around their possibly meaningless piece of paper as though it's an affirmation from the almighty that they are indeed masters of the English language, the answer is...maybe.

There's still a lot to be learned from that formal training, besides being allowed to call yourself a “real” writer. I don't think I'd be $100,000 better, but I bet I'd be a better writer if I had that graduate degree from Columbia. At the very least, I'd get to shed that blogger label.