There are three different feeds you can subscribe to, which correspond to the different types of content. Links are short posts of one or two paragraphs which simply share an interesting link with brief commentary. Entries are longer prose pieces of at least 300 words. If you subscribe to everything, you'll get everything I publish, including approximately one entry and five links a week. Comments are not included in the everything feed. If you want to subscribe to comments, you can keep up with the conversation using the comments feed.

Timestamp
Published at 10:40 PM on December 9, 2008
Comments
There are 8 comments on this post. Add yours.
Content

We have built a culture of immediacy, which started long before the internet, but which has been stimulated and expanded within our digital realm. This culture of immediacy puts time above, and at the expense of, all else.

In no way is this a new trend: as Clay Shirky says in Here Comes Everybody, the pendulum of time has slowly swung towards the miniaturization of culture. When scribe was a profession, every word had great value. With the printing press, each character lost a whole lot of its worth when hundreds of siblings could be created concurrently. With innovations in technology (phone, tv, email, etc.), culture has been continually abbreviated.

This is not a bad thing. In many respects, it is actually good. Shorter and less valuable writing is often far more accessible on both economic and intellectual scales. There are thousands of great ideas in the world, many of which would be lost if they were presented in long and scholarly essays.

Unfortunately, the interweb culture has taken this concept (the abbreviation of culture) too far. Instead of taking good ideas and abbreviating them, we are making short ideas without respect to quality. This has led to an excess of dirt which makes finding the gems increasingly hard.

Here Comes Everybody

Here Comes Everybody is an excellent summary of social media by Clay Shirky.

Clay Shirky is a great believer in the doctrine of publish-then-filter, where the best will rise to the top. I remain skeptical, given what I know of people:

People are lazy.

Even when all it takes is the click of a button, filtering takes effort. Unfortunately, most people don’t want to exert that effort. Think about it: many people still watch commercials, even when a show is TiVoed.

The majority of Westerners now self-identify as consumers. Where we once had the working (producing) class, we now have the consuming class.1 We are no longer, by nature, filterers or producers.

Of course, most blogs do have to engage in some form of filtering — it would be impractical to share everything. But then bloggers realize the very direct correlation between number of posts and income/popularity earned. We continue to tinker with the formula, trying to increase the percentage of incoming content converted to outgoing content. Unfortunately, it is easy to lose track of why we are sharing at all, in the effort to maximize the yield. Many blogs become the proverbial newspaper so filled with “advertising” that there are no longer any stories.

We, being the consumers we are, mostly ignore this: even when it takes effort to read a short post, it’s “easier” than unsubscribing entirely.

The response to this abbreviation of culture and thought is slow blogging, a movement which seeks to critically evaluate and think about ideas before publishing them.

Though I always respected the ideals of slow blogging, there has always been something about it which didn’t sit right with me: it sounds a lot like traditional media and academia, two things which I dislike even more than our culture of immediacy. The methodology of filter-then-publish is the same technique which traditional media has been using to control culture and society for ages. Additionally, many “slow bloggers” write in the style of academia: using a paragraph when a sentence would suffice.

When I took my hiatus from blogging this summer, this was one of the issues I struggled with: how to balance quality thinking and the seemingly implicit “schooliness” of slow blogging.2 S.P. Greenlaw recently wrote a piece which brilliantly articulated those regrets I had been feeling:

My use of the internet is, it turns out, abuse. I have traded away my brooding study in exchange for an all encompassing buckshot of skim reading, estimation, and chiding. I have not got very much to say anymore, but very many topics on which I feel required to speak. In high school I would spend whatever money I had ordering books, and I would wile away an entire weekend dissecting Kropotkin’s The Conquest of Bread. Now I struggle to get through an abridged edition of Marx’s Capital, and I spend no more than fifteen minutes on it at a time before I go running for my RSS Reader to see if XKCD updated. In my youth I spent time writing epic (and awful, as most youthful writing is) novels on reams of loose leaf paper. These days I have to force myself to sit down and drag a short story to a conclusion, if I get that far.

In short, I let the desire for brevity and popularity come before my capacity for critical thought, because I saw the two as mutually exclusive. I wanted to think long about topics and delve deep, but I also wanted to keep my writing accessible.

A realization came to me from, ironically, a blog which touts the very techniques central to the culture of immediacy, in the form of a quote attributed to Blaise Pascal: I have made this letter longer than usual, only because I have not had time to make it shorter.

Contemplative work can be the shortest work of all. It is a slow process to think through an idea, write it, then shorten it. This realization is supported by the Slow Blogging Manifesto:

Slow Blogging is speaking like it matters, like the pixels that give your words form are precious and rare. It is a willingness to let current events pass without comment. It is deliberate in its pace, breaking its unhurried stride for nothing short of true emergency. And perhaps not even then, for slow is not the speed of most emergencies, and places where beloved, reassuring speed rules the day will serve us best at those times.

In a world where words are practically free, the best way to make them valuable again is to use fewer of them. For the scribes, words were valuable because they were hard to produce. Now, words must be valuable because they are hard not to produce. The fewer words we use, the more thought that must be behind them.3

I embrace slow thinking and short blogging.4

Notes
  1. It should be noted that the consumer society is found at all levels of wealth.
  2. Schooliness is, without a doubt, one of the most useful words in the edublogger lexicon—courtesy of Clay Burell.
  3. For example, it takes me far longer to write a tweet than to write a mid-sized email.
  4. This is rather ironic, given the length of this post.

Comments

There are 8 comments on this post. You can add your own below.
Name
Content
Well done. I particularly appreciated this:

In a world where words are practically free, the best way to make them valuable again is to use fewer of them. For the scribes, words were valuable because they were hard to produce. Now, words must be valuable because they are hard not to produce. The fewer words we use, the more thought that must be behind them.

I’m a lover of language and all the beautiful things it can do. Sometimes I carry that to excess (I’ve got a penchant for verbosity). Perhaps I should be mindful of how long what I am saying needs to be, because there is artistry in scarcity. In regards to this post, I think that’s what you’ve done here. You said what needed to be said in the tersest length it could be communicated correctly in. Good job.
Content
I agree with spgreenlaw, there are some great thoughts here. It’s a curious inversion of the modern age, that we used to have excess attention bandwidth and craved content, and now we fight to hold our attention in the flood of things to regard. I do love that quote from Pascal; thanks for reminding me of it, and of course for reading the manifesto and sharing your thoughts.
Name
Content

@spgreenlaw: Thanks. I too have a penchant for words, but I also work hard to only use those I need. Half of good writing is good editing, after all.

@Todd: That Pascal quote is one of my favorite quotes – I always try to remember it when I write posts. I’d like to thank you for writing the manifesto and planting the idea of slow blogging… it is definitely a movement which I support and believe deserves greater recognition.

Content
Nice post. I’m sympathetic to the thrust, but would argue it’s not the length of the post that measures the quality of the writing, but the length of each idea within that post. I’m thankful for almost every long sentence and long novel from our Joyces and Faulkners and Barths, and would never complain over their expansiveness. They teach us that “really long” can still be “not too long, but precisely long enough.” And that’s always the way it’s been with real writing. There’s nothing new here. In this connection, the issue of slow blogging can easily become an object of abuse itself (and no accusations that that’s happening here). I’d argue we need to be careful to keep a high priority on regular, daily writing, and not pooh-pooh a high word count as the goal for our daily quota. That’s what real writers do. (“Inspiration is a lazy bitch. She won’t come to you. You have to chase her down every day.” - a paraphrase of something I read somewhere and hold dear.) So length, to repeat, is not the problem. The perennial teacher-answer to the perennial student-question - “How long does it have to be?” - “Not too short and not too long: just long enough to meet the demands of the assignment” - holds true for a writer’s self-assignments too. It’s those “self-assignments” that bring us closer to any “problem” raised by the “slow blogging” camp. And to me, it’s only a problem for people who want to be writers instead of journalists. There’s a place for them both, obviously. Fragmented reactions to the events of the day are the rightful domain of journalism, and many bloggers have placed their stakes in that territory. There’s nothing wrong with that. There could even be something very right with it, for blogger-journalists who choose to specialize in a narrow range of one or two topics - film, publishing, politics, whatever. Such daily engagement would not produce a “dumber” person at all, I would argue; on the contrary, it would grow into an “expertise” over time, a “deep learning” as a result of the daily reading-reflecting-writing cycle such “fast blogging” follows. (In many cases, it’s hard to deny this would also lead to improved writing skills, since these daily push-ups in sentence construction, organization, voice, and all the rest would serve as workouts to build the writing muscles.) Where “fast blogging” goes wrong, then, is with that other writer: the one who wants something less daily, and more timeless. (Not to be prissy, but the French “belles-lettrist” is a label that comes to mind for this type of writer. Not the only label, mind you. Other labels such as “essayist,” “novelist,” “fiction-writer,” “non-fiction writer,” “philosopher,” “theorist,” and “poet” belong in this set too.) For this writer, “fast blogging” is anathema. Not in length, mind you, but in subject matter. This writer is the one who should embrace “slow blogging,” it seems to me. And the surprise comes in that such an embrace demands decisions, above all, about what to read. And here’s where we might talk about “fast reading” - my term for S.P. Greenlaw’s mention of his RSS Reader addiction - as the real problem, not “fast blogging.” Because it’s the “fast reading” that seduces us into fragmentation, immediacy, the second-hand instead of the hour-hand or, better, the historical timeline spanning centuries. Our writing reflects our ideas, and our ideas come to a large degree from the reading with which we occupy our minds. If we’re reading blogs daily, our minds and ideas are not only occupied by, but also sound like, “Boing Boing.” (Couldn’t resist.) So for the writer aiming at timelessness, maybe the enemy is not the daily “fast blogging.” Maybe it’s the daily “fast reading”: the Google Reader, the Stumbling Upon, the one-inch “Digging” and consumption of the latest hi-calorie Delicious thing. But let’s be fair. These “filtered” publishings we daily (hourly, secondly) consume are often of high quality and high value. The problem comes in the fact that, taken together, they are disjointed, fragmentary, somewhat random, and almost always “contemporaneous” and “immediate” - connected to the day or the year, but by no means the longer river of time. And that makes our thoughts more like mayflies than old growths. Not much timelessness there. So maybe the answer for “slow bloggers” isn’t the imperative to write daily online; maybe it’s to read daily - offline.
Context
...le="Print This Post" rel="nofollow">Print This Post (A response to Morgante Pell’s “Slow Blogging in Fast Times.”) Nice post. I’m sympathetic to the thrust, but would argue it’s not the length of the p...
Name
Patricia Jokajtys
Content
hmmm….”slow blogging” sounds vaguely like the old writing process: brainstorming, writing, editing, revising, publishing. It’s not so bad to think deliberately and succinctly as to what one wants to say. Time and deliberation sometimes changes ones thoughts. But different styles are to be valued. It’s the difference between Hemingway and Faulkner. Who was the bigger literary genius? They both were.
Name
Content
How do slow blogging and slow learning compare? Are they the same, similar, or totally separate concepts?
Name
Content

@Clay: I responded on your blog.

@Patricia: Yes, slow blogging really is the same thing as slow writing (which most writing always has been). Hemingway and Faulkner may have had different styles, but they both wrote “slowly” in comparison to modern standards.

@durff: I’m not a fan of slow learning, simply because I think learning should go at the exact pace needed. There is always something more to learn, so slowing down just prevents further exploration. However, I do enjoy slow “thinking” — intelligent discussion without regard to time.

Respond

Respond to this entry with your remarkable insights.

(Required)