I have to admit i had a lot of expectations from Julie Rak's article on Weblogs and homosexual identity and not all of them were met. She begins by discussing blogs entries in termws of personal journals, drawing parallels between the self disclosures in both forms of writing. However, she breaks from this traditional view of blogs to declare blogs, particularly "queer blogs"a separate genre, with its own codes and rules. I'm wondering if the use of the word "genre" does not in itself constitute some defined boundaries and watertight compartments. There are a lot of blogs out there that are not an exploration of the writer's identity per se. Blogging technology is now being used for all sorts of purposes, some commercial, educational and yes perhaps personal. Like all writing, the words say something about the author, but I just wonder if the authors themselves would like to be classified as this genre or that.
And that brings me to my major disappointment. Rak read 40 blogs closely, a hundred more cursorily. I found myself wishing I could hear directly from some of the authors of the "queer" blogs to find out how they felt about connections between the online and offline. Do all of them define themselves as gay first and then parents, professionals or any other "definitions" later? Does the fact that they tagged their blogs with the keyword "queer" ever come into play when they are deciding what to write about on any given day. And if they look back over their posts, would they be able to identify with everything they've written?
2 comments:
I agree with your disappointment in Rak's over generalization of the blog "genre". It was fascinating how she traced the path of blogs from their inception, but, as you say, it's current form seems to defy classification.
Rak also doesn't do a good job of covering the so called queer blog...two pages! It definitely could have benefited from interviews with the actual bloggers as to intent and perception of their blogs.
I too found myself scratching my head about the Rak article largely because the identity thing about who blog authors are was spread out between two points on a spectrum and not well argued at all. There was a dynamic going on about the issues of homogeneity and gay specific identity and whether it is good or not to know the sexual identity of the blogger. Frankly I expect that if the queer blogger wants to express themselves most honestly and without prejudice then thier queer identity shouldn't make much of a difference. After all the GLBT community constantly asks simply for acceptance.(This was supported in the article in a detailed way thankfully). The other side of this issue was sloppy and all over the place, referencing the significance of the gay community blogs as separate spaces with a critical need to stand out and be counted. I know this need well having lived in San Francisco for 25 years. It's wild to see these two primal concerns in this article that yes is clearly dated (even if it was written only 2 years ago). But the problem is this dynamic was presented poorly and not argued or resolved well enough to satisfy the reader. Personally, I am not so much interested in the sexual orientation of the blogger unless it directly affects thier political position - then we will more likely have plenty in common. It's ideas that count for me, not what anyone does in thier bedroom.
Post a Comment