My good friend, L.L., is coining a new term and using Blogger in an interesting way to build community for her upcoming book: Stone Crossings. I haven’t read the book yet (because it doesn’t come out until April 2008), but I’m excited about the premise.
L.L. first posted about her wog concept at Seedlings In Stone a few weeks ago.
Pretty quickly, several friends pointed out a problem with the word she coined.
Turns out, “wog” is an unfortunate racial epithet. According to the OED, the word is still in usage, though I have never heard it before. Julian Savarin uses it to describe a character in the relatively recent book Water Hole: “He hated Arabs… They were all wogs to him.”
Ouch.
But the word raises two important questions.
1) What exactly is a blog?
Do we even need a new word? In this video from the blogwordexpo, you’ll see that the concept is still fuzzy for people. Fox News even put the same spin when they covered the event. (You can see their video here, but you’ll need to scroll down anc click on the video titled “Bloggers, vloggers, and podcasters…” It was the fourth video when I checked.)
So what is a blog? Is it the platform and the technology? Or is it merely the way people have used the platform and technology until now? (Those two links go to great instructional videos from Common Craft. If you’ve never seen their work, check it out.)
That’s a rhetorical question. I think the answer is pretty obvious. As Marshall McLuhan said, “The medium is the message.” And the message expands to communicate in every way possible for a particular medium. TV is passive. Movies are more experiential. Books require imagination. But only social media allows direct connection between the creator and the consumer. Enter blogs.
So far blogs have been used mostly as journal sites (almost diaries at times)–personality driven, niche focused, semi-regularly updated. After all, that is the easiest way to use them. Start a free blog and post something. At times I really appreciate the editorial review process of mainstream media.
But then, folks like L.L. come along and try something new. Rather than use blogs to build something like an online newspaper, magazine, or devotional book, she has created an outpost for reader feedback. It’s a bulletin board with a homepage. It’s a discussion group without the messy signup process. It’s a user-generated website (from L.L.) that is completely dependent on user-generated content from others (her readers).
Frankly, it’s a perfect example of American ingenuity. Publishers take note. If you have an author who knows how to engage readers online, watch out. These people are eager to earn some reader loyalty.
It’s true. I can’t tell you how loyal I feel to authors I’ve “met” online: L.L., Mary DeMuth, Wayne Thomas Batson, Austin Boyd, and many, many others.
Let’s face it. Blogging is hard. It’s time consuming, and it’s really tricky to do it with integrity. Those four people are really good at it. More and more, I think it will be a valuable skill for authors to have, akin to reading their own work in public with gusto.
And finally, I come to the second question.
2) Can we redeem words?
So wog is a bad word. Can we redeem it? Can we change what the word means? This is a pretty silly example, I know. I’m not looking to unite the world around a new meaning for “wog.” Neither is L.L.
But the philosophical question is an interesting one. Can we change language intentionally? Or will we just be perceived as prescriptive grammarians?
What do you think?
{ 7 comments }
Mark,
As you know, the language is continually evolving, and word meanings, as well as usage, often change considerably over time. Yet this is a natural, organic, and slowly occurring process. It doesn’t happen overnight, and it doesn’t occur at will. There are often many years of tradition, prejudice, and ideological inflexibility to overcome–as would appear to be the case with the word you mention.
This word could gradually move into general use with the newer meaning; but might it not be far more expedient to simply seek another, less controversial word–one with far fewer negative associations/connotations–and be done with it (at least until the next stage in the evolutionary process)?
Then again, your question as to whether or not we do in fact even need a new word at all is definitely worthy of serious consideration.
Jeanne
I’m still philosophizing on the significance of labeling the second question “1″ . . .
I’m not certain we need a new word.
And I agree that authors who know how to wield the internet (at least to some extent) will prove to be quite powerful.
Spaghetti, you are so funny.
Just a quick note here to say that regardless of whether we need a new word (which is food for a good debate), I hadn’t known that “wog” had any other meanings when I coined it as a cross between “web page” (a medium where content stays pretty much the same) and “blog” (which has the feature of reader interaction). To my knowledge, no other author has a blog like this, so it seemed to be a good idea to set it apart with a new word.
Oh, and as for “wog”, apparently, it has also been coined to mean “Not quite a walk, not quite a jog, but a ‘wog’”.
Other thoughts?
Jeanne, I agree completely that we can’t control language change. Just ask the old English teachers who insist on the grammatical correctness of archaic phrases. Also, mass media, TV, movies, etc. have slowed language change considerably.
spaghettipie, oops. Thanks for pointing that out. I changed the “1″ to a “2.” By the way, if you figure out how to wield the net, let me know, will ya?
L.L., I have two dogs. When I take my fat dog out, the best she can do is woggle. It’s not quite a walk. Not quite a jog. And not very graceful at all.
What is a blog? The typical answer is that it is an online journal, but from a technical perspective, it is essentially a user interface (UI) for a website or a portion of a website. I believe there are dangers in trying to stretch the blog technology too far. The blog UI directs people’s attention to the newest information and discourages looking at older information. In addition, the blog UI encourages search engines to give preference to the newer posts. This works well for a journal, but it doesn’t work as well for other things.
Never heard the word ‘wog’? Maybe it’s used more in Australia because it is used HEAPS here – in both derogatory and in an endearing manner in relation to people like Italians etc. I would say that the word isn’t losing it’s meaning, but rather it’s tone is becoming more favourable and something that ‘wogs’ are often proud to be known as.
Just thought I’d throw in my two bob worth.
Timothy, thanks for the comment. I think you’ve set up some really good criteria for considering what blog UI can do best. If new content is stressed on the site and the search engines, what uses go best with that? Hmm…
Miss A., thanks for stopping by! I figured “wogs” were not American standard usage, but I wasn’t sure where the word was in use. Just another example of how writing on the world stage is a little bit trickier than writing for the hometown press.
Comments on this entry are closed.