Here’s a quick summary of my position against calling law-oriented
weblogs “blawgs“. It now appears at the top of my original piece, the
full-length essay (with updates), “let’s make the term ‘blawg’ obsolete.”
Quick Summary: Lawyers don’t need a special word to
designate their weblogs. Weblog technology is not being
used in any special way at law sites. No other group or
profession has coined a special word for their category
of weblogs. By insisting on using the trivializing, confusing
and too-cute word “blawg,” lawyers appear to be elitist, clan-
nish, or childish (likely, all three). Those who agree can help
stop the terminology from becoming a generally-accepted
part of the English language (and spread worldwide), by not
using the term “blawg” and by declaring their choice publically.
Yes, there are many things I would prefer to be writing right now, and
that you would surely prefer to be reading about — so I hope I can
let the subject percolate on its own for awhile. Before leaving it,
though, I want to say that there was no need for Denise Howell (who
coined “blawg”) to print, and Dennis Kennedy to second, a not-very
veiled insult of anyone who cares about this topic. The insult was com-
pounded by not even bothering to link to the major posts raising the
issue — mine, and the earlier argument from Kevin O’Keefe, who is not
exactly a minor character on the legal weblog scene. Not linking, of
course, made it harder for their readers to encounter our arguments
and less likely that search engines would find them.
On the bright side, Evan Schaeffer was good enough to point to
Kevin O’Keefe’s post and this one (as well as the defense by the Editor
at Blawg Review (“Who let the blawgs out?“), and to risk being unpopular
by reiterating his position on the word “blawg:”
“Not only does the indiscriminate use of the word “blawg”
lead to obscurity, but it gives readers the unintended impres-
sion that the weblog writer is running a private club.”
He received quite a few dissenting Comments, including one from
the well-known Jargon Sheriff, Monica Bay, who stated:
“. . . i don’t mind blawg.
“Why: because it adds meaning to blog. It accurately
describes a specific thing. You see “blawg” and you
know that it is a law-related blog. It defines, it narrows,
and it doesn’t obfuscate.”
My response at Legal Underground was:
Monica, I don’t agree that “blawg” adds significant meaning.
If your audience already knows the proprietor is in the law
community or the topic is law, it adds nothing. If they don’t
know that, just tell them, rather than using a word that does
confuse the uninitiated, and can refer to anything from the
cultural musing of George Wallace’s “Fool in the Forest,” and
my punditry & poetry weblog, to How Appealing‘s small blurbs,
and the major essays of Judge Posner.
Judge Posner.
Of course, I should have added that “blawg” is also applied to both the
personal diaries of law students and the topical legal and political
commentary of well-known law professors and public intellectuals.
Come back to the fold, Dear Scold.
Again, let me stress that I am not against
new words, nor trying to dictate what others should
do.
Two years ago, I wrote a post pointing out that a
lot of the fun of being in a weblog community was lost
when Comments and Trackbacks are deleted because
the weblog owner disagrees with what was said. Today,
I’m waiting to see if Dennis Kennedy will ever post the
Comment I left at Between Lawyers two days ago, con-
cerning the use of the word “blawg” in Europe. or allow
the related Trackbacks.
update (11 PM, Jan. 31): Last Friday, Dennis Kennedy pointed to a
post by Edwin Jacobs, at his Law & Justice weblog, saying “Interest-
ingly, I noticed in the post that legal blogs are apparently being called
‘blawgs’ around the world.” I’m happy to see that Mr. Jacobs has
now clarified his own feelings about the word “blawg,” in Comments
at his own site and at Blawg Review #42. Here’s what Edwin had
to say:
“Indeed, I prefer to use the term “blawg” to explain it and when
it appears in the name of some site/blog I am citing. Otherwise,
I use “lawyer blogs” or “law-related blogs”. The reason is that it
better says what it really is, I think, i.e. a blog related to law or
made by a lawyer in his capacity of a lawyer, e.g. not about his
pet or hobby or whatever.
“I think it’s a simple matter of communication with the target
audience and I don’t make a big issue about it. I don’t care which
word is used, as long as it is clear what person A is communicating
to person B. But I think in communicating with non-lawyers, or with
non-tech savvy lawyers for that matter, it just makes more sense to
talk about a “law related website, lawblog, …” instead of “blawg”.
Frankly, even using the word “blog” is often complicating things.
So, use whatever you want, but “keep it simple” for your target
audience.”
heavy clouds
the snowplows’ rumble
drifts into town
snowmelt
he changes into play clothes
after school
a fat horse
gallops with the others
a bit behind
swaying branch
the warbler’s song
rises and falls
“heavy clouds” from HSA Members’ Anthology (2003)
“snowmelt” – from Walking the Same Path
January 31, 2006
a few more words on eschewing “blawg”
6 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Greetings David,
No insult (veiled or otherwise) intended, just my reaction to something I see as inversely proportionate in importance to the volume of attention it receives. The post was meant as humorous. (If I’d wanted to be both humorous and insulting, I might have gone for something more like the wrap-up of this: http://www.wordlab.com/2006/01/dont-panic.cfm.) Re linking, the benefit of pointing to the searches I did was that anyone interested can find a better collection of on-topic posts there than anything I was willing to put together. All I know is you, Kevin, and Ed. have each done several posts; I would have had to track them all down, and still exclude others who have commented if I wasn’t willing to do yet more work. (Technorati’s tools offer an exceptionally welcome alternative to this kind of mindnumbing and time-gobbliing effort.) I also knew readers would be sent your way from the LL posts to which I linked.
Comment by Denise Howell — February 1, 2006 @ 1:06 pm
Greetings David,
No insult (veiled or otherwise) intended, just my reaction to something I see as inversely proportionate in importance to the volume of attention it receives. The post was meant as humorous. (If I’d wanted to be both humorous and insulting, I might have gone for something more like the wrap-up of this: http://www.wordlab.com/2006/01/dont-panic.cfm.) Re linking, the benefit of pointing to the searches I did was that anyone interested can find a better collection of on-topic posts there than anything I was willing to put together. All I know is you, Kevin, and Ed. have each done several posts; I would have had to track them all down, and still exclude others who have commented if I wasn’t willing to do yet more work. (Technorati’s tools offer an exceptionally welcome alternative to this kind of mindnumbing and time-gobbliing effort.) I also knew readers would be sent your way from the LL posts to which I linked.
Comment by Denise Howell — February 1, 2006 @ 1:06 pm
Hi, Denise, Thank you for your explanation. As you know, you’re still one of my favorite webiverse denizens.
Comment by David Giacalone — February 1, 2006 @ 2:34 pm
Hi, Denise, Thank you for your explanation. As you know, you’re still one of my favorite webiverse denizens.
Comment by David Giacalone — February 1, 2006 @ 2:34 pm
Thanks, and likewise!
Comment by Denise Howell — February 1, 2006 @ 5:35 pm
Thanks, and likewise!
Comment by Denise Howell — February 1, 2006 @ 5:35 pm