Recently I’ve been reading a lot of arguments in blog comments about the proliferation of web content, and why it brings down the reputation of everyone who writes on the internet.
A lot of the vitriol is directed at so-called ‘content mills’, those sites to which almost anyone can contribute almost anything, sometimes receiving a small (very small) payment for their efforts. Those sites contain a great deal of information, some good, some not so much. The argument against these sites is that it makes writers lazy, they earn three bucks for 15 minutes’ worth of Googling and rewriting what they find, and people shouldn’t get paid so little for writing, anyway. It’s not enough to live on! As well, a lot of people seem to have an idea that because of the nature of web writing (short sentences, bullet points, just give them the basic information without getting lyrical), good writing on teh interwebs is in short supply.
To me, this whole argument is ridiculous and frustrating. The writing community has a huge snobbery contingent. This has probably been true since language was scratched on stones in ancient civilisations.
People, listen. Just because it’s short, to-the-point, and is easy to digest, does not mean that a writer can’t get a point across, and do it well. Hemingway was famously able to tell a whole story in just six words: For sale: baby shoes, never worn. No, we are not all Hemingway (which is probably just as well, the world couldn’t handle that many emos). Yes, there is a lot of drivel on the internet. That is why at school we’re taught to critically analyse texts. Yes, great, informative, to-the-point writing can be found on the internet.
I fully believe that as more writers take the plunge and get into the web writing biz, the overall quality of this very new medium will get better and better. Maybe the snobbery against those who write primarily for the web will die out as the team gets stronger and more visible.
I suspect that too often the good web writing gets overlooked by this elitist group, because they seek crap writing to validate their point, consciously or subconsciously. Seek, and you shall find, as it were. Maybe if their efforts were focused more on ignoring the rubbish (do not feed the troll!) and constructively applauding the good, they might find less need to complain about the quality of web writing. What do you think?
You’re right. There’s a self-fulfilling prophecy at play.
The snobbery you reference isn’t just frustrating and ridiculous to me. It’s also a little sickening. Too often, people abandon anything approaching intellectual honesty and seem to intentionally ignore the arguments they don’t like in order to advance their agenda.
Although I am a web writer myself, I would have to argue that the “bad content” is much more prevalent than the good – especially when you find it via a search engine. True, if all you read are highly recommended articles from Twitter or Digg, you’ll consistently find quality. But try Googling something like “How to kill yellow mold” and you’ll likely get a bunch of garbage that is not useful and not to the point. I find that many web articles are heavy on the preamble and commentary (non-expert at that) yet very light on the hard facts, reportage, interviews, citations, etc. Every time I flip through a Wired or a Newsweek or Wend magazine I am amazed at how much more substance there is to the writing.
Comparing web writing to Hemingway is the wrong thing to do (and using the word “emo” as a noun is even more wrong). Hemingway was an artist. We are plying a trade. And while we can sometimes turn a phrase or spin a poetic description to great effect, that isn’t our job. Our job is to provide accurate, articulate, authoratative and most of all, original information. The problem with web writing isn’t that it is artless (there’s no artistry in the Encyclopedia Britannica). The weakness is in it’s inherently derivative nature. When you are getting paid $5 to write about the best cell phones of 2010, there’s no way it’s going to be worth your time to actually do a rigorous hands-on review, comparison and performance test. But Consumer Reports does. And CNet does – and they are online. But they have writers that are experts in the subject matter, have their own opinions and are likely paid enough to get the job done right. You can’t write a smartphone review in 250 words and I am very thankful that they don’t try.
With all that being said, I think the feud between web and print writers is misdirected. We should only be focusing on good writing (substance) and bad writing (empty content). And in that, you are absolutely right – the best thing we can do as a community is to show the naysayers that you can get quality articles off the Internet. And the key to that IS visibility. So, all of us who work for those high traffic, low quality mega content mills, you gotta start hitting it out of the park each time. Easier said than done, I know, but it’s vital to cleaning up the bad PR that web writing is getting.
Thank you, Lucy, for taking a stab at getting to the heart of this ugly debate. I agree, we should stop feeding the troll! Let’s get constructive and raise the quality of web-writing !!
Oh my. I think Hemingway is a perfect example of how short writing can work.
The distinction between artist and plying a trade is in the eye of the beholder, not measurable.
And by the way, the distinction between bad writing and good writing is also in the eye of the beholder; the measurable is correct or incorrect.
Content mills are currently filling a need – in both the best and worst so-called free market fashion. Suspect in another few years content mills will be a memory and we’ll be arguing about something else.
Bottom line? I don’t have to write for them nor do I have to read them.
You know my stance on it
I agree with Carson on the “sickening” feeling I get. Honestly…who cares who does what? If Joe wants to flip burgers for a living, do I have the right to tell him that he’s “putting out garbage” and filling people’s stomachs with poor-quality food?
Absolutely not!
Meanwhile, there is a market for fast, disposable content. And, as Anne says, quality is in the eye of the beholder. I use my testimonial section on the website as a reference point. I’ve had people criticize me for not working for “high profile” places, and that my testimonials don’t mean squat because they aren’t from “high profile” publishers, but I disagree. They (they clients) were happy. They paid me. They came back for more work down the road. One client in particular got off to a rocky start with me due to a miscommunication between the two of us, and ended up being one of my most loyal customers, offering me close to 6 months worth of work and many times paying me in advance.
As long as my clients are happy and I’m making what I want to make every year…I could care less what someone else thinks of me.
Jack: my only “job” is to make a paycheck. Period. I could care less if my prose is more or less articulate than someone else’s. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I can’t stand Hemingway. I also can’t stand the Twilight novels. But it doesn’t change the fact that the Twilight novels have taken the world by storm and made hundreds of millions of dollars. It doesn’t matter that I personally think it’s drivel…for millions of people around the world it’s not drivel, it’s good, quality writing.
Artistic integrity? Please. My only goal in life is to provide for my wife and myself. I do that by whatever means necessary. Period. If that means writing fast, disposable content for 50-60 dollars an hour on How To Clean Kitty Poo, then I’ll be writing about cat poo. I want a paycheck, not a pat on the back.
That’s not to say that I don’t write for traditional clients. I do. But content writing has its place, and much like Sir Laurence Olivier would do movies for the cash despite his hatred of the film industry, I write fiction for the passion and website content for the coins.
In other words…I’m mercenary. I have no artistic soul. I’m not here to write flowery words and impress people with awards. I’m here to earn a paycheck by any means necessary. Content writing disposable content is one of those ways.