Why blogging cannot be the basis of lasting historical reflection
Blogging and doing history: it is obvious that I think the two are complementary to some degree and that those doing history should blog. But there is an ephemeral nature about blogging that is counter-productive to historical writing. We write to be read—and read by future generations and not simply our passing contemporaries. I just looked at some blog entries I posted three years ago this time of year—Jan 2006—and some of the references on the web I referred to no longer exist. As I said, blogging is too ephemeral a medium to make it the basis of lasting, influential history writing.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 7th, 2009 at 7:11 pm and is filed under Historians. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
January 7th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Dr. Haykin,
It is enjoyable to read your blog. We met a couple of years back at the Evangelical Forum meeeting in Charlottesville.
I have had similar thoughts. Blogging is many times only relevant to the current issue. But perhaps there could be something to glean from the dialogue that takes place on any given topic. Maybe some blogs will be referenced in the future like old newspapers. The information is somewhat retrievable, even after the blog is “officially” deceased.
The problem with references is a point well taken none the less. Especially when writers/historians reference websites. I think the blogs of historians like yourself serve to point us to good resources and to mine out thoughts and ideas we may not have had otherwise.
Grace In Christ,
Travis Hilton
January 8th, 2009 at 2:07 am
Good to hear from you Travis. Thanks for your comment and reflection.
Give my regards to Jeff Riddle when you see him.