 Whedonesque is Blog of the Week in the (UK) Times. The site has been announced Blog of the Week in the Arts Section of The Knowledge magazine free with today's UK version of The Times.
-------------------------------------------
Ahem.
This is not, in fact, a blog.
My 'star' is not, in fact, dimming. It exploded a long time ago. Everyone who cares about my career knows I peaked with my second episode of Parenthood, starring a young Leonardo DiCaprio, who never calls because I am starless and therefore dark and freezing.
I will not, in fact, dress up as Wonder Boy. I WILL dress up as Young Nasty Man, arch nemesis of Wonder Boy, with powers... COMPARABLE TO WONDER BOY'S!
Dimming,eh? Two days doing press in Britain and did I bring up their "Empire" ONCE? Snarkity snark snark snark.
Tra la!
joss | March 04, 17:49 CET
****************
This is a community weblog. This is what a weblog was back in 1999 when we started doing them. Before 'Weblogs inc'. Before Google Adsense. Before the permalink.
Since then, weblogs have evolved in various ways - including that damn shortening of the name to 'blog'.
I think there are people out there who think a blog is a personal diary. And others think blogs are political forums.
But a weblog was and to me still is a website in which items are posted on a regular basis and displayed in reverse chronological order, with the possibility for readers to comment.
Whedonesque is a blog.
Still, shouldn't we be more excited for Whedonesque? I mean, isn't this a pretty big whoop?
We've been mentioned in so many publications, it really isn't that big a deal.
Caroline | March 04, 17:53 CET
****************
Caroline, you must allow that as fast as the technology is changing, the language is as well. What a word means often devolves into what it connotes, in this case a personal diary or some singular person's site, even if there's a comment forum or members. This may have been a 'weblog' back in the day, but I don't think it can be defined as a blog anymore. Your pedantic semantics are the frantic antics of a... Man-Tick! Yes! Still got it! Dimming, my ass!
joss | March 04, 18:09 CET
****************
Whedonesque.com was based on Metafilter.com, which was one of the very first community weblogs on the internet. Metafilter was created by someone who worked at Pyra.com, the company that created Blogger.com, which played an essential part in the proliferation of weblogs. What you are saying is, because other people decide the meaning of the word weblog has expanded, MeFi and Whedonesque, prime examples of what great weblogs can be, should reconsider what they are? I don't follow.
Ask anyone working in web development today, and I mean the people thinking up the future of the web as we speak, they'll recognise Whedonesque as a weblog. And they'll recognise the importance of sites such as this one in that development - in creating a space (the blogosphere!) for ordinary people to link to, comment on and create the news. (Do a search on 'harnessing collective intelligence.')
You all can call it what you like, it's always going to be my weblog to me :P
Caroline | March 04, 18:17 CET
****************
Actually, i'm saying that other people have decided that the meaning of the word has CONTRACTED, limiting it to more personal and less communial sites. The people who create a word have no more control over it than the people who created the constitution have control over how it's used today. Language is liquid. 'Doubt' used to mean 'believe'. "The Great and Terrible Oz" is a phrase that would seem contradictory today. Oh, and 'nubile' is defined around 1900 as 'of marriagable age'. Even if you create a word, you cannot control how its meaning will bend -- often to its very opposite. That's part of the fun. Brigadoon: In Gay Technicolor!
And if we're going to reclaim a word's meaning, can that word be 'literally'? I've heard that word used wrong literally eighty seven billion times.
joss | March 04, 18:35 CET
****************
But it hasn't contracted. It has expanded. 'Blogs' now means more than just our original definition of it. That's cool. Personally I'll never consider a personal diary a weblog pur sang, but if the rest of the world wants to, that's fine with me. There's room for all of us. We can all be blogs. But some are more bloggy than others.
Caroline | March 04, 18:43 CET
****************
Caroline. Your point is valid, and your use of 'pur sang' totally suave. We can shake E-hands and part. I have a screenplay to finish (yes, I'm using that word correctly at last; I'm closing in) and Wonder Boy and I are discussing joining forces to create the greatest band the world has ever known. I remain, bloggliy yours, -j.
joss | March 04, 18:49 CET
****************
Okay. Last thing, can't resist. I've seen the D about five times. The first was maybe six or seven years ago, At House of Blues, thanks to Ms Alyson Hannigan, genius-girl. Huge love. And fun fact -- we (and Alexis, and others) saw them a couple of years later and were spotted by a young fan (as he told me years later) named Drew Goddard, who thought we were all big Hollywood phonies and started a fight with Alexis (the fight part is totally untrue). So many fine things revolve around the D.
"You remember Nicholas Nickleby? That eight hour play based on the novel by Charles Dickens? Well, this is Jackelas Blackleby! -- with a side of K.G. dippin' sauce!"
(My favorite concert quote.) (I'm seriously out of here.)
joss | March 04, 18:59 CET
****************
Cool, good luck with the screenplay. For pointers on how to be a great band, here's my other collective weblog: u2log.com. *grin*
I don't do debate very often, Joss, it's not in my blood and generally makes me very nervous and uneasy. I think I've written more here today than in all of 2005 put together, so you must have pushed the right button.
Now I must go back to my day job. Weekend shift, sigh.
(Oh, you're gone and will never read this.)
Caroline | March 04, 19:01 CET
|
