India Uncut
This blog has moved to its own domain. Please visit IndiaUncut.com for the all-new India
Uncut and bookmark it. The new site has much more content and some new sections, and you can read about them here and here. You can subscribe to full RSS feeds of all the sections from here.
This blogspot site will no longer be updated, except in case of emergencies, if the main site suffers a prolonged outage. Thanks - Amit.
Friday, May 13, 2005
Finding our audience
Anand of Locana, after reading the post (“The libertarian internet”) in which I spoke of the internet as meritocratic, wrote in:
Fair point, so let me elaborate. What I meant, essentially, is that in the blogosphere every blogger will ultimately find the audience that is suited to his work. A good lit blog might get less readers than an average general blog, because it is more specialised; but the quality of engagement with its readers will probably be higher. Each blog functions within a particular space, and within that space how well it does is based on the value it provides to its readers.
Now, some might not be happy with the kind of readers there are in the world, and complain that they prefer TOI to the Hindu (I personally prefer the Indian Express) or Bhagat to Ghosh; well, that’s the way it is, and we can’t be elitist and preach to people what they should read. And why bother? Do you think Ghosh really wants Bhagat’s readers?
My point about the blogosphere is this: more than in the real world, it allows a writer to find the right audience for his work. It allows him, in Andrew Sullivan’s words (via Peter), to “seize the means of production”, bypassing publishers, editors and so on. And within the space he chooses for himself – defined by the kind of writing he does – he progresses solely on merit.
[I]s it correct to equate merit with traffic (or links)? I personally consider the Hindu more meritorious than TOI. Isn't Amitav Ghosh a better novelist than Chetan Bhagat? In my field, the most cited papers are not always the best (or influential) papers. It'll be nice if you could explain why blogs need to be treated differently.
Fair point, so let me elaborate. What I meant, essentially, is that in the blogosphere every blogger will ultimately find the audience that is suited to his work. A good lit blog might get less readers than an average general blog, because it is more specialised; but the quality of engagement with its readers will probably be higher. Each blog functions within a particular space, and within that space how well it does is based on the value it provides to its readers.
Now, some might not be happy with the kind of readers there are in the world, and complain that they prefer TOI to the Hindu (I personally prefer the Indian Express) or Bhagat to Ghosh; well, that’s the way it is, and we can’t be elitist and preach to people what they should read. And why bother? Do you think Ghosh really wants Bhagat’s readers?
My point about the blogosphere is this: more than in the real world, it allows a writer to find the right audience for his work. It allows him, in Andrew Sullivan’s words (via Peter), to “seize the means of production”, bypassing publishers, editors and so on. And within the space he chooses for himself – defined by the kind of writing he does – he progresses solely on merit.
