TLDR. Just kidding. In summation: writing is, at its barest, mere communication. It is the relevance we find in what we read, and by extension, its author, that bestows its worth. If we don't agree, we're apt to dismiss. If we don't identify with a method or a culture of communication, we're apt to dismiss. Every bit of writing has its audience, and it's an equal partnership for the audience to scrutinize the content and establish our appraisal of its worth.
If "every bit of writing has its audience," does this mean that any criticism of Twitter, Facebook, etc., is invalid? In Here Comes Everybody, Clay Shirky makes the point about blogs that those who deem them worthless are missing a fundamental point: blogs aren't for them. Blogs are for the writer and the audience, however large or small it might be. Simply because one doesn't see any worth in blogging doesn't mean the online act is worthless, only for that one person, right?
ReplyDelete