« DPExpert: review ... after review ... after review | Main | Ever been kissed by a toad? Didn't think so. »
April 30, 2005
The G'day World view
G'day World thinks we've slammed them, not that they're that fussed. [It was, after all, one of those feints with damn praise.)
But commenter Tony Goodson makes a point we'd like to get your views on.
According to Tony, "Blogs are about voice and conversation, usually one at a time and not using "We"! We suspect Tony's a Pom, and he's got a thing about the Royal we. Ours isn't a royal we. It's a device which often reflects joint effort and experience. CW just happens to be the one that writes.
Do we really, absolutely, have to use "I"? In order to have a voice and conversation. Might have to tackle this another time. I'm (definitely first person singular in this case) feeling absolutely exhausted. Getting DPExpert up and running has taken an awful lot of work.
Posted by cw at April 30, 2005 06:35 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://bleedingedge.com.au/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/784
Comments
Using 'We" really does stand out, and is a quirkyness of your writing. The sort of tongue in cheek style that I like.
Do we really, absolutely, have to use "I"?
NO!!!
Posted by: Danielle at May 1, 2005 12:49 AM
I agree with you. When writing for a publication, the use of "we" is OK. Like you say, the guy (a non gender specific guy) doing the writing is just one member of a team. There are the sub-editors, editors, printers, beancounters and all the others that make it possible for the written word to be distrbuted. Even blogs are a team effort.
Posted by: Anthony Caruana at May 1, 2005 02:36 PM
What an awfully mid 20th century criticism to make of you Charles.
In these post modern times to assert that one's consciousness is an indivisible and constant across time “I” is absurd, fatuous and somewhat irrational. The “I” may be a necessary fiction to the maintenance of sanity, the organisation of a justice system, and indeed a tenuous continuity across a life, but that is all. Some would even say the “I” is just the personality that exists at a particular conjunction of socially generated discourses at a particular time! So “we” may be a far better and accurate representation of the bodily self.
Of course there are always those whose brain chemicals are sadly out of balance and can’t control their we’s at all.
This reminds me of the old adage that a very good way to get a spot on public transport to yourself is to sit rocking your head in your hands and muttering “shut up, shut up, no, no, I don’t want to kill them…”
I don’t advise this in the blogosphere though, it may lead to a bunch of spooks and police thugs, anxious to justify their absurd funding levels, beating a path to your door and carting you to the lock up in the new realms the government has created, the one where civil liberties (the right of the I?) no longer exist.
Posted by: tflip at May 1, 2005 06:19 PM
Oh God. We must have done something very wrong in another life (ok we're lying, we know we've done sufficiently wrong in this life) to deserve Tflip.
Posted by: cw at May 1, 2005 08:28 PM
which tflip are you (plural or singular) talking about?
Posted by: tflip at May 2, 2005 04:22 PM
Beats me.
Posted by: cw at May 2, 2005 08:47 PM
Tony is a Pom, and it has nothing to do with the Royal We, but more like a newspaper editorial "We" trying to sound cool and groovy.
It sounds like a 1950s, ex-Pat, things were much better in the good old days, kind off, We.
Posted by: Tony Goodson at May 2, 2005 11:38 PM
tflip,loved your post,I may even frame it.
Posted by: jamrob at May 3, 2005 04:24 PM
Aye, thank ye Jamrob laddie
(or should that be aye aye?)
Posted by: tflip at May 10, 2005 05:49 PM
In that case "we"may even frame it?
Posted by: jamrob at May 10, 2005 08:16 PM