Bix writes that "there’s not actually anything especially wrong with blogging as a form and a format" in response to yesterday's post on a text renaissance and "New Blogging".
I largely agree.
Still, as I said, we have been stuck in the same paradigm for the past couple of decades; whether that's because it just works or because there's no real viable alternative I don't know. Have we reached a state of inertia because things must conform to standards and those standards have been left alone for so long?
It's hard to envision something new, something different, because of the time we've been in this position. The daily feed is one variant but that's all it is - a variant, just a reworking of what we already have. Maybe we can only tweak it round the edges due to the nature of blogging itself.
I hope not.
I can see the appeal of doing new things with blogging, presenting our thoughts in radically different, innovative ways. Would this still be considered blogging? I don't really see why not. Would such a change be transmittable via some kind of new delivery mechanism or would we become rooted to the page itself? Would that necessarily be such a bad thing?
We have become slaves to standards and convenience, perhaps it's time to shake things up a bit.