I’ve been following, with some amusement, the reaction to my recent Democrat and Chronicle essay, in which I introduced a term—wrogging—to describe high-quality writing on a blog—a word that, I predict, will be in the dictionary before the turn of the century. (Note to bloggers: j o k i n g.)
Here’s a sampling:
“do you suppose saffran considers himself a blogger or a wrogger?”
Well, duh, l.j. (that’s “lowercasing jane” for the uninitiated), of course I consider myself a wrogger. What would you expect??
It may surprise you, though, that after reading his post, I also count Seth among the wroggers of the world—for although he takes issue with some of my points, he does so in a thoughtful, well-written manner. In fact, some of our views aren’t that far apart. For example, I wholeheartedly agree with him about poorly written blogs:
“I would argue that the flaw exists in the writer, not the technology.”
“I wonder who has been arguing that [they] shouldn’t.”
Um, that’s really not the point, Munir. Though I’m unaware of anyone advocating bad writing, there’s no shortage of bloggers practicing it. But, props to Munir for this:
“I proof read before I post. Nevertheless, our errors can make some readers not want to read our posts.”
I, too, ‘admit’ to proofreading, and I ‘confess’ (get ready for this) to a preference for reading good writing (astonishing, I know).
That startling revelation brings us to Ken, at The Fretful Porpentine, who, regarding my coinage of wrogging, searched my essay for “signs of satire or sarcasm with negative results.” Apparently, Ken failed to notice the word “facetiously” (it’s right there, in some of the black ink he says the D&C wasted).
But, Ken concedes, “Maybe he struck a little too close to home?”
In any case, to all bloggers who, on account of my words, felt incensed, oppressed, enraged or aroused, I say:
L i g h t e n u p!
(It’s kind of ironic, actually.)
Also, allow me to clue you in to a couple things about newspaper op-eds:
1. They’re intended to be provocative (just try getting one published that’s not)—that’s one reason they’re called opinion-editorials.
2. Writers often have agendas. In my case, in addition to wanting to share my views on blog writing (a true desire), an ulterior motive was to drive readers to our new Web log. So, thanks to jane, Seth, Munir and Ken for doing their part.
As for wrogging, go ahead and Google it. You’ll see it’s already on its way to legitimacy by the turn of the century—with more than 93 years to go, it has gained stature as a word on the “fringe,” according to the Double-Tongued Word Wrester.
One final admonition: Don’t take this newfound status on the fringe—or this blog post—too seriously. (After all, both might be on the Lunatic Fringe.)