[Post by Lelangir]
← jpmeyer brings up a whole lot of excellent points:
There are so many aspects of the blog format…that subtly subsume the writer to the blog itself.
Yes, the author is inextricably subsumed in the blog because – by the very fact of their existence in the blogosphere – they cannot exist without a blog. Revisit this paragraph:
lelangir: …[I]n the ‘sphere, it is not communication that is most significant, but being. Being is not a prerequisite for communication – communication is a prerequisite for being. In the ‘sphere, you cannot be unless you write and are read. If no one reads your blog, that makes you not a digital individual but simply a person who keeps a private online journal. Our public identities are predicated upon this collective society, and it is a discursive system of acknowledgment that grants us individuality. So in a world intrinsically reduced to mere letters, what more can we do than produce these mere letters? [my re-emphasis]
As for my cross-posting, jpmeyer asks:
Why post at one of the over 9000 blogs you post at over another unless they are all indistinguishable?
To which I responded with this diagram:
The hypothetical circumstance “indistinguishable blogs” (as I am interpreting the phrase) has one large implication; it assumes that the focus of the content is the same (i.e. twelve blogs focusing on mecha).
What happens when content is all similar? You get a smaller readership because the perimeter of your broadcast is reduced. Let me re-articulate the previous diagram:
Now we have overlapping paradigms: the content paradigm (mecha etc.), the blog paradigm, and the author paradigm. This diagram isn’t to scale – nor is this a precise way of visualizing the complexity of the sphere (which is too complex to bother). But just to clarify this visualization, Crusader’s sphere is totally within THAT’s sphere. Crusader is also within the mecha sphere, etc. Visualize indistinguishable content-blogs:
In this hypothetical situation (and hypothetically insofar as the entire mecha sphere is comprised of three blogs), because the three indicated blogs all write about the same thing, the perimeter of their broadcast is coextensive with their content – they don’t write about yuri hentai, do they? The outlined circle is just a representation of the broadcast perimeter, and the space onto which that representative perimeter is displayed is the readership. White space outside the mecha sphere is constituted of readers, but not mecha readers.
jpmeyer: Why make an identical post on two different sites which have very different focuses? That’s brand dilution on multiple axes.
(1) The focus of the blog is irrelevant when considering expansion of broadcast perimeter, as was depicted in previous diagrams. (2) “Brand dilution”? – I don’t know if “brand” refers to blog or blogger…but in any case that also has little significance. If the representational power of my handle is diminished, then so be it, what good was such power anyway? I haven’t noticed any sort of effect after doing this since August.
jpmeyer: Why have ghostlighting make a post here rather than WRL about pedophilia here rather than somewhere else if what truly matters is who is saying it? Or, this would indicate to me that the importance is on what is said, not who is saying it. [my emphasis]
This is half true – ghostlightning constitutes the ghostlightning sphere – his own entourage. If he didn’t post it, digiboy probably wouldn’t read it, so you lose reader[s] there. Then, ghost in part constitutes the [oh, say mecha] sphere, which is author-independent – readers of the mecha sphere read mecha posts, not ghostlightning posts, so a mecha reader reading ghost writing on mecha is just incidental.
jpmeyer: Thus, [the] reason that different readerships exists is because the different blogs provide different things. This would imply to me that the blog and its branding is more important than the author when dealing with [aggregate blogs].
He got me there – revisit this:
Which can be succinctly countered with: you’re not a reader until you’ve read.
So my previous thoughts on readers exist before the fact that they read doesn’t make any sense because I was confusing the author paradigm with the content paradigm. It’s like saying a reader that reads mecha is intrinsically a reader of Crusader before Crusader existed. Nope.
…however, because some readers of mecha read Crusader not for the fact that he’s Crusader but that he writes on mecha, that seemingly author-centric reading is merely incidental, as I said before. In this respect, the creation of Crusader functions as an insertion into and expansion of the greater mecha sphere.
Dr. Lolikit (PhD in lolikiteanism) gives us his last remark:
[W]ho’s saying it and where it’s being said BOTH matter.
Yes, and this is the only benefit of nomadic blogging: I have my own author-paradigm lelangir sphere, the entourage that follows my centralized feed, and I also appropriate the THAT sphere, the Cal’intents sphere, the F’aizen sphere, those blog paradigms.
Viewed this way, the internet is fractal – the previous diagrams in part constitute the sphere we are familiar with. But it is reducible to one circle that shares the same paradigmatic space with other content-oriented spheres, technology, news, porn, etc. What syntagmatically connects these spheres is cross-posting authors, trackbacks and links:
Maybe it boils down to that we need to recognize the author (unlike the plethora of bitches who don’t distinguish between authors in team posts) as the content-producer of the blog, the readership as an equally important component, and the blog as a significant, integral, intrinsic and inextricable part of the blogosphere (hence BLOGosphere, or what have you). Anyway, thanks, jpmeyer, for shoving a whole bunch of flutes up my ass…it was fun.
And chew on this for some idiolectic food for thought