A lot of the time, people will use the terms "blog fiction" and "fictional blog" interchangeably. I admit that I've been guilty of doing this on several occasions. The problem is that referring to a blog fiction site as a "fictional blog" is a misnomer. To make my point, let's look at the definition for fictional given by the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Entry Word:Something that's "fictional" means that it is not real. As in a fictional character, a fictional actor, or a fictional tv show. Using the phrase "fictional blog" would imply that the blog you are talking about isn't real. With the blogs I read, that couldn't be further from actuality. When I read Leroy Power's blog, I load it, read it, leave comments, and even link to it. It is just like any other blog that I read. That blog is real. Leroy might be a fictional character, but his blog most certainly is not fictional.
fictional
Function:
adjective
Text: not real and existing only in the imagination - the events in the horror movie seemed so real to some fans that they could not believe that the whole thing was fictional
I liken the blog in a blog fiction to the stage of a live theater production. In a play, the characters and setting are fictional, but you wouldn't call the stage they stand on fictional. A blog is like the stage of blog fiction writers. Each one is different, but it's real.
Even though "fictional blog" is a misnomer, it seems more natural to say than "blog fiction" or "blog fiction site" and I think that's why some people use that phrase instead. I am going to try to no longer use the phrase when referring to a blog fiction site. The only time I'll use it is if I'm reading a story that refers to a blog that doesn't exist. That would be a fictional blog.
I know that this vocabulary might put me at odds with some people and websites. For instance, The first two words of Betsy Friedrich's thesis on Blog Fiction was "Fictional Blogs:". Also, Jilliane Hamilton's flocalicious directory uses the phrase fictional blog to describe blog fiction sites. It even coins the word "flog" for short.
Now, I'm not going to start crusading through the internet and demand people change their webpage and urls from fictional blog to blog fiction. However, I will pledge to use the terms correctly from this point on and just hope that others will eventually follow my lead.
1 Comentário:
Here's a very (very) late comment. I disagree. I think still a fictional blog makes sense. James Bond is a fictional spy. If he wrote a diary, that would be a fictional diary. If I then wrote a diary imagined to have been written by him, even though I can read and point to that diary, I could still legitimately call it a fictional diary, since I could say that it doesn't really exist as a diary, but does as a pretend diary. I write a fictional blog. In reality, it's not a log of anyone's activities, but a set of entries imagined to be so. The distinction seems to me to be to be both one of emphasis and yet ontological: what exactly is real where does the distinction between the real and the imaginary lie? Certain fictions enjoy blurring that boundary. A blog fiction might present themselves as a real blog telling an imaginary story. I find that less both less accurate and exciting than the idea of a blog which is itself in one sense known to be unreal, but yet which is written and read - even experienced - as a blog. I think the idea of performance can also help: is it just that a fiction is performed in the context of a real blog, or that the creation of the blog itself is a performance? I'm convinced that, when I post, the latter is happening. My own emphasis is not: I'm doing this, imagine if it were true, but imagine if someone were doing this.
Post a Comment