In the republic of
the word
By Mark Cantrell
ONE of these days I’m going to start blogging.
Hang on, though, isn’t this a blog? Well, no. Sure, it’s a
blogging platform, but I started this site as a place to post my writing work
rather than to actually blog per se.
That’s why it’s filled with poems and fiction, newsy bits
(the ones that catch my eye – a hangover from a writers’ newsletter I once
edited, but that’s another blog), comment pieces and essays, not to mention the
odd feature article, and plenty of stuff plugging my writing elsewhere.
Since I am a writer and a journalist, the site – the blog
– reflects that and though it might tend towards the literary, it also has a
tendency to reflect the themes and issues that interest me: political issues,
human interest, social affairs, a range of stuff, old and new, and frankly it
does sometimes become my ‘pulpit’. So, what’s the point of having a blog if I
can’t pontificate every so often?
Content is supposed to be king. We hear the mantra invoked
like some profound snippet of ancient wisdom and most of the sages who proclaim
‘content is king’ tend to leave it that. Well, in my experience they do anyway.
Thing is, all too often, this monarch is naked – if not actually dead.
The word doesn’t mean much by itself, even less in the
context of that proclamation, without some thought as to what the content
actually is – and who and what it is for. Face it, content isn’t content – it’s
a news story, it’s a piece of investigative journalism, it’s a poem, a horror
story, a romance, a fluff piece about a holiday resort, it’s a page three model
with her tits out, it’s… well, you get the picture.
Naturally, content is aimed at a particular audience, some
more general than others, some rather more tightly defined, some of them
overlapping more readily than others, but some of that ‘content’ is what people
want, while some of it is what they feel – or at least what the content creator
considers – they need.
Content isn’t worth a damn without the concrete substance of
what the content is and what it is for, nor is it worth much without some idea
of the audience and what they want and need. And some of it hooks easier than
others. That’s the way it goes. We can either accept this, or subject
everything to a blind popularity contest that kills everything but the one with
the highest bid. All hail the King!
To be honest, when I hear someone proclaim ‘Content is King’
my impression is that they don’t give much of a damn about the content or the
audience. They just want to crunch the numbers – get more hits, more viewers
more readers – and content is just a ready vehicle to keep the counter ticking
upwards.
No bad thing, one might say. Got to give the punter what
they want, after all, and if the numbers keep rising, then all is well and
good. No doubt that’s fine, so long as one doesn’t become lost in the numbers –
that way leads to an ever-narrowing focus and a stagnant range of material.
Here’s a quick-fire example: I work on a housing magazine,
print and web version, and every two weeks we do an email newsletter. As a
trade journal, we have to reflect a wide variety of industry news and features
on a wide array of topics, from business matters to social issues, but the
stories with the most hits on our newsletters are frequently accidents and
deaths at work.
Now what does that say (apart from our readers being a
bloodthirsty lot)? Content is King, so let’s follow the numbers in a crude
manner and cull everything that doesn’t get the highest scores – before long
we’re not a housing industry newsletter but a venue for blood and guts horror
stories that just happens to be read by people in the housing industry.
Well, so what? The King has spoken, his subjects have taken
up the cheer, so we must go with the numbers and hang the rest, right? That’s
fine, if you care little for the content, for the readers, and the nature and
purpose of the content – and content, incidentally, is rather more than just
one item, it tends to be a package.
Sooner or later, we’ll see those skyrise stats drop off a
cliff as the readers start to get the information – the news and the features
on other matters – they need from other sources. So much for the numbers game.
Some material will naturally find a readier audience than
others, fictional or factual, poetic or personal, but we follow the numbers
blindly at our peril – for that way leads to an ever-narrower alley where the
same old phrases echo endlessly in tireless repeat.
So what’s all this got to with my website, with my
note-to-self that I start actually blogging rather than just using a blogging
platform, and what am I trying to say about my varied and diverse writing
exploits?
The clue is in the word I used above: package. This is mine.
My pot pourri of words, poems, features, essays, stories, comment and –
okay – outright rants, and let’s not forget my novels, they are all part of a
complex whole and this site is intended to reflect that multiplicity in the
work it presents. Naturally, I want to share that work with those who might gain
some satisfaction out of it, but if I follow the numbers blindly, how many will
I exclude?
Sure, give your readers what they want, but remember that
readers are many and they are diverse – so why narrow them down unnecessarily –
and it is also important that a writer remains true to their writing as well as
their readers. Sometimes there is going to be an inevitable disconnect between
the two. Some of my work will naturally attract a smaller audience than others,
while other aspects will simply prove less attractive. It’s the nature of the
game but the essence of a writers work is no one individual story, poem,
feature or novel, but the sum totality of their words and the ebbing and
flowing tides of readership.
Focus too much on one aspect of my writing, that which
appears to draw the strongest hits, then I am not only narrowing my range, I am
also imposing restrictions on readers. Go with the flow, not the numbers, and
remain true to the writing – because that’s how one attracts readers over time.
There is perhaps one aspect missing, hence my suggestion
that I start blogging, and that is me: too much, too often, I prefer to stand
aside and let the stories and poems speak for themselves, but I figure I really
ought to speak for myself a time or too. Consider this the start, then; another
thread to weave into the rich garment of my writing, and a little colourful
personality too. Well, I’ll do my best.
One thing I have no intention of doing is bowing to the
threadbare monarch; I am no subject to bow down but a republican. My voice
shall be raised within the amphitheatre, no matter whether I carry the numbers
or stand in dissent outnumbered. These are my words, share in them at will or
leisure, but don’t deny them to others because they don’t add up to your
numerical favour.
So, yeah, one of these days I’m going to start blogging.
The King is dead – long live the Republic!
ENDS
Mark Cantrell,
Stoke-on-Trent,
13 November 2011
Copyright © November 2011. All Rights Reserved.
Category: BLOG
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment