As a blogger, I naturally feel compelled to add my two cents (1.8 cents U.S.) to the blogosphere pile-up over Nick Carr’s comments on A-listers and the “innocent fraud” that blog proponents purportedly promulgate — that fraud being the idea that anyone can join the conversation, that there are no barriers to entry, that quality trumps relationships or marketing, etc. To that extent, blogging often seems to consist of bloggers blogging about other bloggers blogging (is is just me, or is there an echo in here?). Call it meta-blogging.

So why do we do it — is it because we love to write, love to think, love to have debates, like to get attention, want to get linked to on Techmeme, or to boost our Technorati rankings, or to get comments and links from other bloggers we respect and/or admire and/or envy? Yes. And to sell our books or get more speaking gigs or get invited to one of Mike’s parties, and so on. I think it’s a mistake to assume that any blogger (Nick included) is fueled by one specific desire or impulse. I would expect the vast majority are motivated by at least a half dozen, some of which may even be in direct conflict with each other. That’s just the way human beings are.

To that extent, I think my M-lister friend Kent Newsome is right when he compares blogging to songwriting, and I think my old-media pal Scott Karp is also right when he compares it to screenplays or manuscripts (incidentally, I notice that hardly anyone has made note of the fact that Kent is the one who got this debate started, which I think is at least a partial refutation of the “innocent fraud” argument). And yes, Rex Hammock is also kind of right when he compares Nick to a troll.

People write screenplays and poems and songs (and paint and draw and sculpt) because they feel compelled to do so, because they believe they have something to say, because they want attention, because they want to make money, or all of the above. They may write one thing for money and another for love, and another for attention. And why do we pay attention to them? In some cases it’s because they shock, or titillate, or because they express something unique, or because they are very good at what they do — or all of the above.

I will note one thing, as I mentioned on Scott’s blog: Nick has responded to many of the people who commented on his post, but he hasn’t answered the question I posted there, which was “Why do you blog, Nick?” I’d be interested in hearing what Nick came up with for an answer, but I suspect it is “all of the above.”

About the author

Mathew 2430 posts

I'm a Toronto-based senior writer with Fortune magazine, and my favorite things to write about are social technology, media and the evolution of online behavior

8 Responses to “Nick Carr is right — sort of”
  1. Publishing 2.0: “Blogging Is the New Novel/Screenplay Writing” ben barren – rss’ing down under: “Hellay Dystopia Infiltrates the Bitchesphere.” gapingvoid: “more gatekeeper-y goodness” mathewingram.com/work: “Nick Carr is right — sort of” Software Only: “The revolution of the blog peasants – or who gives a hoot about the A-listers anyway ?” Smalltalk Tidbits, Industry Rants: “Why do we write?” Mark Evans: “Why’s Nick Carr So Grumpy

  2. Self Reinforcing Market PositionsMathew Ingram / mathewingram.com/work: Nick Carr is right — sort of

  3. I must be getting old or something. While Nick has gotten under many people’s skin, including Mike Arrington’s over on Crunchnotes, I can’t even work up a lick of outrage at Nick’s comments. Does that make me an “M-prime” lister?

  4. I think you need remedial blogging lessons, Paul. If you can’t get up any outrage at Nick’s comments, maybe you could develop some over Mike’s use of the a**hole word. Or try something easier — a series of ad hominem attacks on various thinly-disguised A-listers :-)

  5. A transparent — and liquid — market for the ad spaces on single-creator media solves the problem, as adbitrageurs will profit from identifying and helping to popularize undervalued blogs…

  6. I dunno why people get pissed at Nick – the world needs curmudgeons like him. And a few others I can think of. WIthout the Nick’s of this world, ‘we’d’ end up as A-list brown nosers…ooops…we already are. Remember the cartoon on Guy Kawasaki’s blog showing some peasant offering up Stormhoek to get an audience with Prince Scoble? What’s changed? Very little.

  7. Well, I know why I blog; it’s a way for me to self-motivate, to get things done.

    If I look over the past week and think, “I’ve got nothing done!”, that depresses me, but if I go back over my blog and see that, while I didn’t get much project work done, I was at least busy doing useful things, then that’s OK.

    As for why Nick blogs, that’s starting to sound like “Why an I here?” Don’t sweat it, Nick, have a glass of wine, enjoy the company of friends and family, make some music, enjoy the weather. You think too much.

  8. Service offers free access to credit report
    There’s good news erectile difficulty small-business erectile difficulty and sole proprietors. An amendment to the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requires each of the nationwide consumer-reporting companies to provide you with a free copy of your credit report, at your request, once every 12 months.

Comments are closed.