My Digital Notebook

online journalism, search, and digital media
Archive for July, 2009

Summertime blogging, anyone?

writing

image credit: dbdbrobot

I’m looking for someone to work in our content department for the next month or so. You’ll be writing blogs, web pages, news and feature articles and anything else related to online content production.

Net Media Planet is the fourth biggest search company in the UK. We work with Dell, McAfee, Disney, O2, Symantec and Singapore Airline. We are based on Great Titchfield Street, which runs between Oxford Circus and Regent’s Park.

It’s paid work and will be a brilliant introduction to digital publishing. You will be expected to listen to quite a bit of David Bowie.

Interested? Get in touch:

Peter [at] netmediaplanet [dot] com

The Pleasure of Books

Burning Books

William Lyon Phelps delivered the following speech in a radio broadcast on 6 April, 1933, just one month before the NAZIs burnt around 25,000 books in a single disquieting night in Berlin.

The speech documents his reverence for books and the fundamental place that they had in his life. Phelps spoke of his strong emotional attachment to books as live objects: they could be held in the hand, filed away or arranged on a shelf  for aesthetic pleasure.

For Phelps, referring to an old, pencil-marked book in later life was like ‘visiting a forest where you once blazed a trail.’ ‘You have the pleasure of going over old ground… recalling both the intellectual scenery and your own earlier self.’

It’s a strong argument for the important place that books, as tangible objects, have played in society over the past five centuries.

William Lyon Phelps – The Pleasure of Books

“The habit of reading is one of the greatest resources of mankind; and we enjoy reading books that belong to us much more than if they are borrowed. A borrowed book is like a guest in the house; it must be treated with punctiliousness, with a certain considerate formality. You must see that it sustains no damage; it must not suffer while under your roof. You cannot leave it carelessly, you cannot mark it, you cannot turn down the pages, you cannot use it familiarly. And then, some day, although this is seldom done, you really ought to return it.

But your own books belong to you; you treat them with that affectionate intimacy that annihilates formality. Books are for use, not for show; you should own no book that you are afraid to mark up, or afraid to place on the table, wide open and face down. A good reason for marking favorite passages in books is that this practice enables you to remember more easily the significant sayings, to refer to them quickly, and then in later years, it is like visiting a forest where you once blazed a trail. You have the pleasure of going over the old ground, and recalling both the intellectual scenery and your own earlier self.

Everyone should begin collecting a private library in youth; the instinct of private property, which is fundamental in human beings, can here be cultivated with every advantage and no evils. One should have one’s own bookshelves, which should not have doors, glass windows, or keys; they should be free and accessible to the hand as well as to the eye. The best of mural decorations is books; they are more varied in color and appearance than any wallpaper, they are more attractive in design, and they have the prime advantage of being separate personalities, so that if you sit alone in the room in the firelight, you are surrounded with intimate friends. The knowledge that they are there in plain view is both stimulating and refreshing. You do not have to read them all. Most of my indoor life is spent in a room containing six thousand books; and I have a stock answer to the invariable question that comes from strangers. “Have you read all of these books?” “Some of them twice.” This reply is both true and unexpected.

There are of course no friends like living, breathing, corporeal men and women; my devotion to reading has never made me a recluse. How could it? Books are of the people, by the people, for the people. Literature is the immortal part of history; it is the best and most enduring part of personality. But book-friends have this advantage over living friends; you can enjoy the most truly aristocratic society in the world whenever you want it. The great dead are beyond our physical reach, and the great living are usually almost as inaccessible; as for our personal friends and acquaintances, we cannot always see them. Perchance they are asleep, or away on a journey. But in a private library, you can at any moment converse with Socrates or Shakespeare or Carlyle or Dumas or Dickens or Shaw or Barrie or Galsworthy. And there is no doubt that in these books you see these men at their best. They wrote for you. They “laid themselves out,” they did their ultimate best to entertain you, to make a favorable impression. You are necessary to them as an audience is to an actor; only instead of seeing them masked, you look into their innermost heart of heart.”

Good Twittering/Bad Twittering

image credit: Julie Berlin

For the sake of brevity

Twittering in just 140 characters is an art. The challenge is to be succinct, interesting and informative or funny in one go. The goal is to spark a thought or prompt a reaction.

Good Twittering is like good subbing: drawing out interesting quotes, writing provocative headlines and framing a thought or a perspective.

All told, I’d estimate that with each Tweet you have around a second to catch a person’s attention. And if you fail repeatedly, you’ll just end up being ignored.

And as Twitter has grown, a new language has sprung up alongside it: clever ways of passing a message on quickly and effectively.

Some of the best have even forged their own individual style; one example of which would be @jemimakiss who regularly mimics the odd phrasing of the “I Can Has Cheezburger” website.

The FAIL game

More irritatingly, however, have been the appearance of Twitter clichés. Any regular user will quickly notice them and they are becoming more frequent. I’ll sketch three which annoy me here:

Firstly, people have started to carve each news story up into one of two categories: fails or wins (who knew that analysis could be so simple?).

It’s a simple formula: find a news story that you like and plant the word WIN (and possibly an explanation mark) next to it; if you don’t like the story, all you have to do is replace WIN with FAIL. It’s a terrible habit, and one which is getting increasingly popular.

Another favourite is to prefix a link to an opinion article with the phrase “what s/he said” – a very effective construction that only becomes annoying when you see it fifteen times a day.

Finally, and this is the one which will one day prompt me to great violence – is people going “nom, nom, nom” at lunchtime.

These are ways of sidestepping the linguistic challenge of writing something intelligible and fresh in just 140 characters. They are signs of bad Twittering in just the same way that “economic climate” and the “green shoots of recovery” would be symptomatic of stale financial journalism.

With all the fuss about Twitter as a platform or a medium (or whatever the hell it is), we might as well start thinking about what makes a bad tweet. And what doesn’t.