Whedonesque : Comments on 9718 : Whedonesque is Blog of the Week in the (UK) Times.

Bloody hell. Go Whedonesque.

Don't particularly agree with what they say about the status of his career, but it's still really cool that the site got a mention that'll be seen by thousands(? I don't know anything about newspaper sales).

Ghost Spike | March 04, 18:35 CET

Maybe he has gained too much recognition to still be considered a wonderboy?
And we are the kind of people who appreciate smart, sophisticated dialogue and plotting. Go us!

Lioness | March 04, 18:46 CET

Seeing as one of my first sites made most UK/Irish papers and was discussed on the BBC back in the mid 90's, I'm not going to be impressed until whedonesque.com makes the Six O'Clock News and CNN. And wins a damn Webbie, ffs.

Caroline | March 04, 18:48 CET

Uh, excuse me? "one time wonder boy"???

I don't mean to be disrespectful to "The Times Online" which sounds like it's all important and stuff, but they should at least get their facts straight. While the Serenity sequel may be on the ropes and the Buffy franchise is down for the count, he's still got Goners working for him and he's working on Wonder Woman -- how about that? A major movie production company has entrusted in Joss Whedon one of the most sought after and financially lucrative products for a film in the history of filmmaking. Why? Cuz he's the best person for the job. He's shown that repeatedly. Because Whedon can successfully tell stories about young women with special powers, and do so both entertainingly and lucratively, they gave him the penultimate job in that vein.

That doesn't sound like a "once stellar career" that "looks as if it is dimming somewhat." Still. Y'know. Thanks for the vote of confidence to the website, Times Online. *rolls eyes*

ZachsMind | March 04, 18:51 CET

The Word (a UK magazine) ran a similar vein article about Joss.

Serenity ultimately didn't cause orgasms at the box office, there's no weekly TV shows now, average press people haven't heard of Goners as it hasn't entered production yet, and I suspect a lot of people currently scoff at the prospect of Wonder Woman (after Cat Woman...).

Ultimately, I disagree with the people in the media suggesting Joss has fallen from grace - he made the movie I found most enjoyable and interesting in 2005. There will be a year or two gap before we seen anything Josslike again, at which point that is when media folk should be judgin' with a fiery wrath.

gossi | March 04, 19:03 CET

Snarky if you ask me. Anyway Joss still is 'wonder boy'. And I don't consider Firefly or Serenity to be failures either.

[ edited by The Do That Girl on 2006-03-04 17:05 ]

The Do That Girl | March 04, 19:05 CET

£10 if a press person manages to get Joss to dress as Wonder Boy in a photo shoot. £10 and chocolates.

gossi | March 04, 19:08 CET

Well, that sucks that they appear to be looking down their noses at His Jossness. I can't imagine that making any kind of sense. >:(

Still, shouldn't we be more excited for Whedonesque? I mean, isn't this a pretty big whoop?

Willowy | March 04, 19:17 CET

WHOOP, I say, indeed.

kalia | March 04, 19:24 CET

Brains of the week.

Madhatter | March 04, 19:31 CET

Not trying to start anything here, I'm genuinely curious. Why is Whedonesque a blog and not a site or a chatroom? I thought a blog was the postings of one person telling about an experience or giving their opinions, thoughts, and ideas about various subjects. Anyway, congrats to Whedonesque, its my favorite (and pretty much only) place to go for Jossy goodness.

batmarlowe | March 04, 19:31 CET

batmarlowe, isn't that what we're doing here? BTW, cool byname:)

Madhatter | March 04, 19:46 CET

Ahem.

This is not, in fact, a blog.

My 'star' is not, in fact, dimming. It exploded a long time ago. Everyone who cares about my career knows I peaked with my second episode of Parenthood, starring a young Leonardo DiCaprio, who never calls because I am starless and therefore dark and freezing.

I will not, in fact, dress up as Wonder Boy. I WILL dress up as Young Nasty Man, arch nemesis of Wonder Boy, with powers... COMPARABLE TO WONDER BOY'S!

Dimming,eh? Two days doing press in Britain and did I bring up their "Empire" ONCE? Snarkity snark snark snark.

Tra la!

joss | March 04, 19:49 CET

Yeah Joss - take it to them - and I volunteer to shoot the shot gossi suggested if your interested, or the one you did. If not I still have photoshop and an active imagination.

:)

[ edited by RavenU on 2006-03-04 17:55 ]

RavenU | March 04, 19:52 CET

Heh.

Your star will never dim to us. Ain't it the truth?

Willowy | March 04, 19:53 CET

This is a community weblog. This is what a weblog was back in 1999 when we started doing them. Before 'Weblogs inc'. Before Google Adsense. Before the permalink.

Since then, weblogs have evolved in various ways - including that damn shortening of the name to 'blog'.

I think there are people out there who think a blog is a personal diary. And others think blogs are political forums.

But a weblog was and to me still is a website in which items are posted on a regular basis and displayed in reverse chronological order, with the possibility for readers to comment.

Whedonesque is a blog.

Still, shouldn't we be more excited for Whedonesque? I mean, isn't this a pretty big whoop?

We've been mentioned in so many publications, it really isn't that big a deal.

[ edited by Caroline on 2006-03-04 18:05 ]

Caroline | March 04, 19:53 CET

Caroline, you must allow that as fast as the technology is changing, the language is as well. What a word means often devolves into what it connotes, in this case a personal diary or some singular person's site, even if there's a comment forum or members. This may have been a 'weblog' back in the day, but I don't think it can be defined as a blog anymore. Your pedantic semantics are the frantic antics of a... Man-Tick! Yes! Still got it! Dimming, my ass!

joss | March 04, 20:09 CET

Shining brightly, seems to me!

Chris inVirginia | March 04, 20:12 CET

"Your pedantic semantics are the frantic antics of a... Man-Tick!"

I must have this on a shirt. :D

Willowy | March 04, 20:17 CET

Whedonesque.com was based on Metafilter.com, which was one of the very first community weblogs on the internet. Metafilter was created by someone who worked at Pyra.com, the company that created Blogger.com, which played an essential part in the proliferation of weblogs. What you are saying is, because other people decide the meaning of the word weblog has expanded, MeFi and Whedonesque, prime examples of what great weblogs can be, should reconsider what they are? I don't follow.

Ask anyone working in web development today, and I mean the people thinking up the future of the web as we speak, they'll recognise Whedonesque as a weblog. And they'll recognise the importance of sites such as this one in that development - in creating a space (the blogosphere!) for ordinary people to link to, comment on and create the news. (Do a search on 'harnessing collective intelligence.')

You all can call it what you like, it's always going to be my weblog to me :P

Caroline | March 04, 20:17 CET

The short answer to that, Caroline, is Whedonesque rocks! Thank you so much for this site!

Madhatter | March 04, 20:24 CET

Thanks, Madhatter... and thank you again for your continued support. You know what I mean.

Caroline | March 04, 20:33 CET

Actually, i'm saying that other people have decided that the meaning of the word has CONTRACTED, limiting it to more personal and less communial sites. The people who create a word have no more control over it than the people who created the constitution have control over how it's used today. Language is liquid. 'Doubt' used to mean 'believe'. "The Great and Terrible Oz" is a phrase that would seem contradictory today. Oh, and 'nubile' is defined around 1900 as 'of marriagable age'. Even if you create a word, you cannot control how its meaning will bend -- often to its very opposite. That's part of the fun. Brigadoon: In Gay Technicolor!

And if we're going to reclaim a word's meaning, can that word be 'literally'? I've heard that word used wrong literally eighty seven billion times.

joss | March 04, 20:35 CET

But it hasn't contracted. It has expanded. 'Blogs' now means more than just our original definition of it. That's cool. Personally I'll never consider a personal diary a weblog pur sang, but if the rest of the world wants to, that's fine with me. There's room for all of us. We can all be blogs. But some are more bloggy than others.

Caroline | March 04, 20:43 CET

Caroline. Your point is valid, and your use of 'pur sang' totally suave. We can shake E-hands and part. I have a screenplay to finish (yes, I'm using that word correctly at last; I'm closing in) and Wonder Boy and I are discussing joining forces to create the greatest band the world has ever known. I remain, bloggliy yours, -j.

joss | March 04, 20:49 CET

Joss listens to Tenacious D!!!

Just when i thought the guy couldn't get any cooler in my mind. :)

WhedonTrivia | March 04, 20:51 CET

"Pur sang" is French for "thoroughbred", in case anyone's wondering. just checked it out. i learn something new here every day!

starbreez | March 04, 20:58 CET

Thanks for the compliment, Madhatter. I'm in agreement with the Boss though. It seems to me that a blog is the "turf" of one person (or maybe a small group) and he or she throws out her opinions on whatever and people respond. This is a community centered around The Man Himself and any of the thousands of members can start a thread as long as our very able webmasters (And if this is blog, why are there webmasters?) decide it meets the minimum daily Joss requirement. And what generates the thread is Josscentric news from the outside, not one person posting a Slayage-like thought on their site and others respond. Seems to me a log is one individual's perspective on what's going on (i.e. Kirk's Captain's Log) in a given arena and when that perspective is on their own internet site, it's a weblog.

[ edited by batmarlowe on 2006-03-04 19:06 ]

batmarlowe | March 04, 20:58 CET

Okay. Last thing, can't resist. I've seen the D about five times. The first was maybe six or seven years ago, At House of Blues, thanks to Ms Alyson Hannigan, genius-girl. Huge love. And fun fact -- we (and Alexis, and others) saw them a couple of years later and were spotted by a young fan (as he told me years later) named Drew Goddard, who thought we were all big Hollywood phonies and started a fight with Alexis (the fight part is totally untrue). So many fine things revolve around the D.

"You remember Nicholas Nickleby? That eight hour play based on the novel by Charles Dickens? Well, this is Jackelas Blackleby! -- with a side of K.G. dippin' sauce!"

(My favorite concert quote.) (I'm seriously out of here.)

joss | March 04, 20:59 CET

Cool, good luck with the screenplay. For pointers on how to be a great band, here's my other collective weblog: u2log.com. *grin*

I don't do debate very often, Joss, it's not in my blood and generally makes me very nervous and uneasy. I think I've written more here today than in all of 2005 put together, so you must have pushed the right button.

Now I must go back to my day job. Weekend shift, sigh.

(Oh, you're gone and will never read this.)

Caroline | March 04, 21:01 CET

Ummm....ok.

delirium_haze | March 04, 21:04 CET

Yay! Well-reasoned and interesting etymological discussions between Joss and our fearless W-esque head! That made my morning :-)
Especially because I'm kinda geeky where language is concerned, and love looking at how definitions and usage are constantly evolving. Sometimes it drives me nuts (I hear you on "literally," Joss. As well as "ironically" and "impact" - it's a noun, not a verb! - and quite a few others) and sometimes I love the new words we create or the new connotations or meanings with which we endow them. I'll never be won over to such horrendous creations as "incentivize" or other business-speak monstrosities, but the web is definitely creating a whole new language far faster than Webster's can keep up with it.

I agree that definitions change through usage - not because of original intent or creation, and I side with Joss on this one – at least at "blog" is used among us common, non-techie folk today, it usually carries more connotations of a personal, individual site, albeit with comments. But I adore Whedonesque, whatever it's called, mostly for the great people "who appreciate smart, sophisticated dialogue and plotting" and always have thoughtful, funny, snarky things to add to our discussions. Best chatroom/blog/web community on the Internet :-)

(oh - and I love Tenacious D as well :-) )

[ edited by acp on 2006-03-04 19:07 ]

[ edited by acp on 2006-03-04 19:13 ]

acp | March 04, 21:05 CET

Don't get me started on "ironically"! Usually when people say "ironically" what mean is "coincidentally". And when they say "literally" what they mean is "virtually". And when they say "deconstruct" what they mean is "examine". And when they say "Post-Modern" what they mean is "Modern". I'll shut up now except to say...

LONG LIVE THE D!!!

batmarlowe | March 04, 21:17 CET

Ehum... I've played most Wonder Boy games and I can't recall any Young Nasty Man... Maybe he's present in some really secret area I've yet to find. It would be sweet though to see you Joss as Wonder Boy armed with little stone hammer and his skateboard and that stunning blue helmet, ready to take on the various giant snails and other evil doers hindering him in his path. In fact, it doesn't have to be Joss, anyone feel like cosplaying?
Hmmmmm... Maybe I'm just nostalgic, might be a good idea to the classic up and running instead and then be quiet. Yeah, that sounds like a better idea.

And in all honesty, does it really matter whether or not this is a "blog". Isn't it enough that it's the best way to follow up on all things Joss with postings for the man himself as a major perk and then leave it at that. Now, let's all be happy, sing along and play (or dress up as) Wonder Boy.

Djungelurban | March 04, 21:18 CET

I can't wait for the day 'TV series' starts meaning something else entirely so I can go 'Hah, your BtVS? Your Angel? Your Firefly?' Not award winning television series. No no no! Don't you know TV series have a jury and televoting. Your work is now declared 'fanfic'! So there.

Caroline | March 04, 21:19 CET

Woah five Joss posts !! Anyway The Times - part of News International & related to Fox. 'Nuff said.

Feel free to mention the 'Empire' as often as you see fit. Look what good it did us.

The Do That Girl | March 04, 21:24 CET

There is a wonderful kids book called Frindle about a boy whose teacher loves words and makes them all buy a dictionary at the beginning of the school year. Like the rest of the class, he is bored by all this until the teacher says that all words come from somewhere and have a start. He decides to "test that theory" (mandatory Buffy insert) and he invents the word frindle - to mean a pen. The word catches on, first in his classroom, then the school, then in the small town in which they live, because if every child coming into the stationery store starts asking for "frindles", the proprietor is going to start advertising he sells frindles.
The story gets picked up in the newspaper, then on National News.
But his teacher maintains that it is not a real word until it is in a dictionary.
Many years later, the boy, now a young man, receives a package in the mail. A dictionary with one page marked. There is a note from his teacher saying "You've won".
The boy might have started the word but it was up to everyone else to make it real.
So perhaps in that bigger world out there, this is not a blog, but its set up and framework certainly is. I participate on a number of blogs like this one - there is an owner and an overseerer er er or 2 to make sure that what we might post is appropriate but then everyone who is registered can reply.
And if they are not blogs, then what are they?

Lioness | March 04, 21:26 CET

If Whedonesque is a blog, it's the bloggiest of the blogs. If it's something else, it's the 'est' of whatever that is. : )
Whatever it is, I love that it's here and love being a very small part of it.
I also love semantic antics.
Tomato, tomahto.
Hooker, companion.

; )

Syren | March 04, 21:31 CET

And if they are not blogs, then what are they?

We're a very sexy blog. And that's the way it is.

Simon | March 04, 21:33 CET

Here's how Metafilter is described on Wikipedia:

"MetaFilter, known as MeFi to its members, is a community weblog whose purpose is to share links and discuss interesting websites."

That is the same mission statement we had and still have for Whedonesque.

Also a good read is Rebecca Blood's weblogs: a history and perspective.

Caroline | March 04, 21:34 CET

As somebody who has almost zero knowledge of all things internet related beyond the ability to google i'll not bother offering an opinion on whether this place can be called a blog or not. It could be called an aardvark for all i know. I just type words into this little white box, click on a couple of buttons and the words go all white on black so that others can read my Joss related ramblings. That is about as much as i need to understand concerning how this site works and what it actually is.

I'm soooo not computer educated! It took me months just to figure out the whole "making words go bold and slanted" thing!

Haven't seen the D live yet but i'm damn sure i will be the next time they tour here. I've seen Dave Grohl's side project, the Foo Fighters, a couple of times if that counts for anything. Yeah, i know he is only the unofficial third "D" but he is pretty good at what he does too! ;)

WhedonTrivia | March 04, 21:43 CET

I personally want Joss to give us the final definition of 'canon'....
And 'ret-con', because I've seen that one disputed as well.

Rogue Slayer | March 04, 21:48 CET

Joss, Maaaaaake the best movie in the world. Or I'll eat your soul. That is all. (totally stole that line from my brother)

p.s. - so wrong that W-esque is not a blog.

zeitgeist | March 04, 21:49 CET

My favourite or least favourite change in meaning is "awful". I guess we are so blase that nothing fills us with awe anymore. Although I guess that the way the Times has managed to ignore the quality of Firefly and Serenity when dismissing them is rather awful in both senses.

Lioness | March 04, 22:00 CET

Wow, Caroline held a debate with Joss. That is just...cool. And, of course, I totally missed it (and will remain totally neutral on the subject, 'cuz this is the only site defined as a "blog" that I ever visit).

But, yeah, that Times piece was a bit...um...unfair and sort of inaccurate. Serenity got a lot of critical acclaim, yes? The DVD sold fairly well, yes? HE'S MAKING FRIGGING WONDER WOMAN, YES? I don't think someone's star can be dimming when they're making a huge studio film about one of the most iconic characters in American history.

...And I know nothing about Tenacious D except for that Jack Black is in it. *sad*

(And, yay, Joss is actually finishing the script!)

UnpluggedCrazy | March 04, 22:08 CET

Just to say something about the status of WHEDONesque you are on Dublin City Libraries (Ireland) list of banned URLs as I found out recently.

[ edited by garda39 on 2006-03-04 20:36 ]

garda39 | March 04, 22:15 CET

Yes, Springfield High School in Akron, OH has also banned Whedonesque.

UnpluggedCrazy | March 04, 22:19 CET

Hm, when I wouldn´t know otherwise I´d say Joss is channeling Ty King! Good luck with finishing the script Joss!

Oh and yay for Whedonesque!

Kessie | March 04, 22:28 CET

Joss, your star has not dimmed or exploded, it is merely hiding partially behind a cloud, soon to be brighter than ever before. Just wait until the Amazon lady makes an appearance. And I second the yay for Whedonesque; why would anyone ban this site???

[ edited by spikeangellover on 2006-03-04 20:41 ]

spikeangellover | March 04, 22:39 CET

'Whedonesque, banned in schools and libraries around the world.' Awesome.

Caroline | March 04, 22:40 CET

So Caroline, being the blog of the week did nothing for you but getting banned in schools and libraries, that made your day... Hmmmmm... you're not like everyone else. Nor am I for that matter but that's beside the point.

Djungelurban | March 04, 22:45 CET

"Dimming" indeed. WHEDONesque rocks. Caroline is wonderful. Joss is God. Serenity has won awards and stuff, which does not look like a failure to me.

That is all. I have spoken.

Gill | March 04, 22:59 CET

You just totally saved me £10 and chocolates, Joss. I shall spend it 10 exciting things from the pound shop. Or 10,000 penny sweets.

Look, I can count.

gossi | March 04, 23:04 CET

Yay for Whedonesque getting more recognition! Btw, I would consider Whedonesque a weblog - not a personal blog, but a community blog.

I don't get why Whedonesque would be banned from schools and libraries though. Can someone explain that to me?

Invisible Green | March 04, 23:08 CET

Whedonesque got automatically blocked at my work because somebody said a naughty word here (and that person was probably me).

However, being the IT Admin at my work, somehow the block got removed. It was, like, magic.

gossi | March 04, 23:12 CET

Most of my sites get banned. Liberal use of the c-word may be the reason. I don't remember dropping it here, though. Perhaps the occasional mention of slash/het-fic is reason for blocking.

'... you're not like everyone else.'

Ah, you flatter me.

Caroline | March 04, 23:17 CET

I think a lot of blogs/weblogs/sites like this/gayest color get blocked. If they are popular, filtering companies get scared somebody will post something naughty.

And I have to ask - you have other sites? Dish the dirt!

gossi | March 04, 23:20 CET

gossi, penny sweets are a con these days. I remember when you could get two cola bottles for a penny. Now a sherbert lemon has to be budgeted for. Sigh.
Anyway, language. It's nice. Foamy.

lone fashionable wolf | March 04, 23:23 CET

Yeah, the price of inflation. Those bastards. (Woops, we'll be banned from gossiwork on Monday). (gossiwork is an oxymoron for you language buffs).

gossi | March 04, 23:24 CET

Im interested in what filtering systems are blocking the site. Anyone know which ones they are?

herb | March 04, 23:25 CET

VampiresAreBadAndUgly.com. JossIsDimming.com. FilmsWithAMessage.com. And ProtectTheYounglings.com.

(Yes, I just said "younglings". George has started a trend).

SurfControl clasify Whedonesque as "in our list and categorized as Society & Culture". We're like, totally corrupting ourselves. WHEDONesque is, in fact, the reason Joss is dimmmiminginging.

[ edited by gossi on 2006-03-04 21:32 ]

gossi | March 04, 23:29 CET

'And I have to ask - you have other sites? Dish the dirt!'

Try my profile, it mentions some.

Caroline | March 04, 23:41 CET

My work's filter 'Websense' occasionally blocks W for being...'entertainment'...shudder, gasp.

But then Websense is kind of fickle about blocking stuff. If I refresh hotmail enough times, I can get in. But I can never get to flickr or photobucket, because it's...'personal storage'!!

Yeah, my work is lame and they block things for no apparent reason.

[ edited by Rogue Slayer on 2006-03-04 21:44 ]

Rogue Slayer | March 04, 23:44 CET

Edit: deleted.

[ edited by gossi on 2006-03-04 22:39 ]

gossi | March 05, 00:38 CET

Caroline, the act of filtering your sites provides the modernest etymology for 'clog' and 'clogging'.

futile | March 05, 00:45 CET

Wow! Okay, it's been a very long time since i worked for anyone other than myself but you guys are doing a great job of reminding me why i was never any good at having a boss looking over my shoulder.

Filters that stop you going where you want on the internet whilst at work? I take it that the idea of trusting your employees to not waste time is a thing of the past then? I can appreciate why companies would do what they can to block any form of porn or other offensive subject matter from the work place but filters that block Whedonesque because it's entertainment related???

Thanks to all of you for reminding me why self employment was the only way to go. The only internet filter i have on my computer blocks any and all sites relating to Celine Dion, Charmed and chavs. Having that there is just common sense, after all!

WhedonTrivia | March 05, 00:48 CET

Can't believe that my post started a whole debate and dragged the man himself in! Eek! Is it too late to say that I run Summer Glau's official website using a blog engine too? Hee hee! Sorry if thats considered self-promotion but its all for Summer really! I am with Caroline on this one... Sorry Wonder Boy!

Andy

fade2dust | March 05, 00:52 CET

A vaste majority of companies nowadays log exactly how much time staff spend online, and on what kind of sites, and what they post. My experience is that companies rarely use the data (other than for pie charts for management and stuff) - unless they have any kind of beef with you. If you want an excuse/reason to get rid of a member of staff, just grab the web logs. I know somebody who got fired from their management position for once using the internet to look for a holiday during her lunch break, which was against company policy - in actual fact, she had just told them she was pregnant.

gossi | March 05, 01:23 CET

All blogs and diminishings aside - they at least backhandedly acknowledged Joss's smart, sophisticated dialogue and plotting capabilities ;)

coolpeace | March 05, 01:38 CET

A debate on language featuring no lesser lights than The Man and The [Blog] Creator...Tenacious D talk...this delicious tidbit from Joss (did we overlook this???):

I have a screenplay to finish (yes, I'm using that word correctly at last; I'm closing in)

and news that my favorite website/blog/board/chatroom/URL is full of enough ideas and entertainment and challenges to the status quo that it has been banned here, there and at workplaces near you?

I'll be in my bunk. ;-)

billz | March 05, 01:41 CET

I never even thought that Whedonesque was a blog. The word blog to me means a sort of online diary (Daring Fireball). Then there are blog aggregators that collect the postings of many blogs with related topics (Monologue). To me, Whedonesque is like slashdot with politeness.

I've only given Metafilter.com a cursory glance, but it looks like a multiuser blog. So, my perceptions of Whedonesque being a news site must come from the limited topics discussed here. So is a weblog any site that has users posting messages to each other and starting topics? If I post to usenet from google, is that a web log? I am not too sure of these definitions.

According to Wikipedia:

Blogs are different from forums or newsgroups. Only the author or authoring group can create new subjects for discussion on a blog. A network of blogs can function like a forum in that every entity in the blog network can create subjects of their class. Such networks require interlinking to function, so a group blog with multiple people holding posting rights is now becoming more common. Even where others post to a blog, the blog owners or editors will initiate and frame discussion, manipulating the situation to their specifications.

This is partly true and partly false in Whedonesque's case. Anybody can post topics, but they are limited in subject.

Dictionary.com says:

a personal Web site that provides updated headlines and news articles of other sites that are of interest to the user, also may include journal entries, commentaries and recommendations compiled by the user; also written web log, Weblog; also called blog

By this definition Whedonesque is a weblog. This makes a lot of sense, and I'm slightly embarrassed that given my time online, I've never come across this usage. From now on, I will use the term weblog to refer to ALL sites matching any of the definitions given.

Anyway, it's understandable that people would not know that Whedonesque was a blog. The word has recently become popular and we all know what that does to the accuracy of a word's usage. People who are not in the business will never care about the semantics of your terminology as much as you do. And even given this new knowledge, if someone asked me what Whedonesque was, I would say that it's a blog about Joss, and things that are tangentially connected to him, where people post links to articles and talk about them.

[ edited by Caleb on 2006-03-04 23:57 ]

Caleb | March 05, 01:52 CET

Has anyone here ever read our About page?

Caroline | March 05, 02:17 CET

This is partly true and partly false in Whedonesque's case. Anybody can post topics, but they are limited in subject.

Only people who are members of Whedonesque can post. That's not "anybody". I suppose in a way, a moderated Usenet group could be considered a blog. And Slashdot is totally a blog.

And Caroline, U2log is one of my other go to spots. I was very excited when I figured out the connection. I don't suppose you might consider running a Pratchett news blog? *g*

ETA:

Has anyone here ever read our About page?

Or looked at the title of the homepage.

[ edited by KernelM on 2006-03-05 00:28 ]

KernelM | March 05, 02:19 CET

Joss, you should totally check this out. Yes, a D movie. I've no idea how they funded this.

gossi | March 05, 02:28 CET

I knew Joss posted on this thread! I go out to
the supermarket and come home to find 72 messages
on a newly posted link? Joss had to be here. And
arguing with Caroline over the use of the word blog, no less!!! <--sentence fragment. - 2 points.

Nebula1400 | March 05, 02:30 CET

There seems to be a rash of this "has-been" press going around lately. Don't know if it was mentioned here, but did anyone else see the article/interview in the recent issue of The Word? It's a UK culture magazine in the vein of Q or Empire, and covers Film/Book/Music stuff.

The article in it strongly implies that Whedon's career is falling to pieces. It talks of "Wonder Woman" as being a retreat after the relative poor box-office results of Serenity, a supposed return to writing other peoples stories like with Twister/Speed re-write work. Then it implies that the move out of the office on Fox's grounds (with the closure of Mutant Enemy) was forced by Fox, due to the cancellation of the shows, rather than being Joss's decision. It also makes no mention of Goners, of successful comic book work, of critical-acclaim for Serenity or anything else.

Which is a shame, because other than that specific piece the magazine is excellent.

Gonnas | March 05, 02:31 CET

Your work is now declared 'fanfic'! So there.

Ahhh thanx you two, and I thought nothing would make me smile this morning, or for a good while again. You both totally made me lol then, I was lolling.

nixygirl | March 05, 02:48 CET

Has anyone here ever read our About page?

Apparently I haven't, although if you had asked me before today I would have sworn that I did.

Your work is now declared 'fanfic'! So there.

Hey, I write business software covering many aspects of commerce, and plenty of people call it accounting software. I think there's less love for that than for fanfic.

Caleb | March 05, 02:58 CET

Only people who are members of Whedonesque can post. That's not "anybody". I suppose in a way, a moderated Usenet group could be considered a blog. And Slashdot is totally a blog.

Well, I would disagree on Usenet groups. moderated or not. The fact that you can view them from the web in some cases does not the newsgroup, a website make.

Nixy - drop me a line, you okay?

zeitgeist | March 05, 03:22 CET

Oh yeah, I forgot about that "web" part of "weblog". *g*

KernelM | March 05, 03:27 CET

An erroneous post about a has been by a never was and never will be. It's the dead bulb calling the bright light dim. We must revisit him with I-told-you-so's and a mirror soon.

Nebula1400 | March 05, 03:29 CET

I'm not saying this as a crazed fangirl, but as a language student -- 9 out of 10 dentists agree with Joss. Dentists being linguists and writers, that is. Language is fluid.

orphea | March 05, 03:52 CET

All I can say is that in my dreams my career will someday "dim" as brightly as does Joss's. And at least we members of whedonesque were accurately described. I have absolutely nothing to contribute to the "blog" issue, since it doesn't really matter to me what we're called (well, I would prefer nice names, but beyond that ...). We are a community who join together in a common interest, and that's enough for me.

palehorse | March 05, 04:15 CET

While language is fluid, that word blog doesn't yet mean the opposite of what it meant when this site was started. Also, as several of the staff are writers and respectfully disagree with the man... To quote someone, "If you want unanimous consent, you'll have to get it from someone else." :)

zeitgeist | March 05, 04:21 CET

Does "blog" have an opposite?

Nebula1400 | March 05, 04:26 CET

Yes, I think its geocities, where no one ever updates anything :)

zeitgeist | March 05, 04:30 CET

Hmmmmm... you're not like everyone else. Nor am I for that matter but that's beside the point.

I, on the other hand, am exactly like everyone else. That's what makes me unique ;).

Whedonesque is a weblog in my eyes. It logs web interactions (just like, as KernelM says, that destroyer of virtual worlds, always the last site standing, your favourite and mine, ladies and gentlemen I give you, the mighty Slashdot). Sure language is fluid but if it becomes too fluid then it's not language, it's just noise. Wet, fluidy noise. Like a really loud stream. Or maybe a flushing toilet.

Two days doing press in Britain and did I bring up their "Empire" ONCE?

Yeah, but in fairness we almost never mention how you guys were late into World War 2 ;).

Saje | March 05, 04:43 CET

[S]everal of the staff are writers and respectfully disagree with the man

And at least one of the staff is also a language student/teacher - and, yes, I think Caroline's quite right on this one. But, at this point, it's not exactly a live debate . . . Anyhow, a lively exchange, which I'm sorry I missed in real/interspace time.

SoddingNancyTribe | March 05, 04:49 CET

I would tend to think of Whedonesque as a blog, for the simple reason that I think the word encapulates it. Really, I think usage of the word weblog will fall by the wayside over time. Hell, nobody I know in real life knows what a blog is anyway, let alone a weblog.

By the way, the word blogospeare? How I fear that word. Literally, fear. (The literally is a mocking of my incorrect usage of the word, as I do it all the time, as somebody points out).

[ edited by gossi on 2006-03-05 02:59 ]

gossi | March 05, 04:52 CET

What ever is said and done, a little piece of web history was made today. I was privileged to see it happening. Rarely does one see the subject of a blog commenting on said blog. But when the subject ponders whether it is a blog or not, well that's unique in my book.

Simon | March 05, 04:59 CET

It's like... blog art.

gossi | March 05, 05:00 CET

Post-modern, meta blog art. It's like blog art that is, in and of itself, a comment on blog art. Like blog art art.

In fact, I bet Tracy Emin comes and pitches a tent here any second. Any ... second ... now ... Yup, anytime. Just wait.

Saje | March 05, 05:09 CET

:) Saje

zeitgeist | March 05, 05:14 CET

We should move Whedonesque to Tate Modern.

gossi | March 05, 05:14 CET

By the way, the word blogospeare?

Is that good ol' Billy Shakes's blog?

I lurves me some blogosphere though.

KernelM | March 05, 05:27 CET

Can we agree that this blog is a monologue of a one confused group-soul? I've always wanted to be a part of one. Hi, I'm your abdomen. I'm with Joss.

futile | March 05, 05:27 CET

It was cool to see. At first I felt like, "Eep, mommy and daddy are arguing!"... but then I relaxed and saw that they both made valid points, and were being very cool to one another. Then again with the eep, who's side to take? But I came away feeling like I agreed with Joss on the 'shrinkage' part ('cause 'blog' pretty much does mean 'diary' these days), but with Caroline on the right to call her site whatever the hell she wants (and to stick to the 'literal' definition).

So in my head, by definition, Caroline was right, but by vernacular, Joss was.

Willowy | March 05, 05:29 CET

Rarely does one see the subject of a blog commenting on said blog.
Well, it's even more noteworthy. Cause the discussion was between of the owner and the person in subject of the blog. It's really an extraordinary event.

Djungelurban | March 05, 05:30 CET

Hi, I'm your abdomen. I'm with Joss.

Ooh, ooh, can I be the pancreas ? Tick off another lifelong ambition. I just don't get all these Generation Y'ers with their 'waah, I never got to be a pancreas, waah'. This life fulfilment shit is easy.

OK, any volunteers for the various sphincters ? Come on, let's see some hands.

Saje | March 05, 05:36 CET

Well, it's even more noteworthy. Cause the discussion was between of the owner and the person in subject of the blog. It's really an extraordinary event.

See! The Buffy magazine will cover Joss' shopping list, but this? Oh no. Bastard people.

gossi | March 05, 05:42 CET

Truly, Buffy Magazine is peopled by Bastards.

But, in fairness, the shopping list was extraordinary too. I mean, 5 gallons of guacamole ? How can that not be news ? And why jalapeno peppers specifically ? Hmm ?

Saje | March 05, 05:48 CET

The peppers aren't what they seem. Don't get them happy.

gossi | March 05, 05:49 CET

I would love to be in the Tate Modern, even in a relatively small way--perhaps as a toe. The TM is one of my favourite buildings in the world, it's the desktop screen picture on my mac. Expat nostalgia, I suppose.

The Devil's Robot | March 05, 05:58 CET

What a thread. Identity issues at Whedonesque! I must confess to being really taken aback by Joss’ post. I had been fondly imagining that he appreciates not just the content here but also the form. It’s a blog; not in the ‘this is me’ style controlled by one person that is increasingly common but, instead, in a much more communal form. A community endeavour rather than a soapbox.

Caroline’s in charge but she’s handed over the power to start the conversations to many others with the potential to share the responsibility. I see that as a very fitting set up.

On a related note - the thing that kept on bugging me when Joss was in Australia last year was lazy journalists who described Whedonesque as a blog but called it ‘his’ blog rather than ‘a’ blog about his work. Mind you, if they’d said ‘the’ instead I’d probably have cheered.

purplehazel | March 05, 06:04 CET

I've heard studio folk called WHEDONesque Joss' website. So you're responsible, Whedon!

I wasn't taken back by Joss' posts about it. Really, when I hear the word 'blog', I think of Cassie blogging about how depressed she is and she's going to die tomorrow, or me rambling about politics - that sort of thing. This place is more of a community website. Maybe there isn't a word to describe us? Maybe we're indescribable? Maybe that isn't even a word?

gossi | March 05, 06:10 CET

Maybe this could be a weblog and you rambling about politics can be a blog? That might work.

Caleb | March 05, 06:37 CET

It would, but the words are so similar, and the concepts are close too, so I doubt it'd get any mainstream usage. I'd say 'community log' but somebody would just shorten that to clog. Kevin of the cloggers.

gossi | March 05, 06:48 CET

Its a community weblog, as it is now, always has been and ever shall be. There are new community weblogs popping up today, so I don't subscribe to the theory that the word has changed meaning that much. I think, rather, that the mainstream doesn't have a good grasp on what one is, and therefore is beginning to dilute the derivation and direction, so to speak, of the terminology. But its our terminology and we're not giving it up that easily. Geeks unite!

zeitgeist | March 05, 07:06 CET

Late to the scene as usual. Someone should really cancel my 'E' ticket for this ride. Anyway, here I am and in full colors. Damn if I don't have a thing to say that hasn't been said.

Oh, "Hi, Joss!"

Madhatter | March 05, 07:06 CET

gossi - I get what you say but I think that's part of my point. Admittedly, I had assumed until today that this site was subverting the blog 'genre' and it's now apparent that I got my chronology reversed.

Why look for a new word? Why not be willing to say that there are different kinds of blog and this is the kind that whedonesque is. It doesn’t match the current stereotypes but is a fine example of what can be done with the medium.

As to why I was taken aback – I think that's because at first I thought he was joking and was looking for the next line to be “It’s not a blog it’s a superblog” or something like that - in the way someone might say that BtVS "is not TV it's great literature!"

Added - just noticed Caleb's post on preview - good suggestion.

purplehazel | March 05, 07:08 CET

Purplehazel:
>It doesn’t match the current stereotypes but is a fine example of what can be done with the medium.

I think this hits where it hurts in an exciting way.

futile | March 05, 07:21 CET

"In fact, I bet Tracy Emin comes and pitches a tent here any second. Any ... second ... now ... Yup, anytime. Just wait. " - Saje

Ok, aside from 'blog art', not really getting what the reference to her is supposed to connotate. Is that it? And if so, how obscure. Maybe even insulting? A "my bed" reference, maybe? Or just plain irreverance? Again, not quite getting it.

Love ya Saje, yer a cool newbie, and I find myself laughing and in accord with almost every one of your posts, but this one escaped me. zeitgeist obviously got your joke, but I missed it. 'Splainy?

Willowy | March 05, 09:12 CET

Saje: OK, any volunteers for the various sphincters ? Come on, let's see some hands.

Ummm .... let's not and just say we did, huh?

catalyst2 | March 05, 09:48 CET

What a pointless discussion!

Language is liquid. Nothing is solid. A sphincter expels gas.

It's a blog. It's not a blog.

BLOG, BLOG, BLOG, BLOG, BLOG, BLOG, BLOG!

Sounds like something excreted from the liver.

Now I've got a migraine...

Sheesh!

Nebula1400 | March 05, 09:56 CET

spikeangellover: "Joss, your star has not dimmed or exploded, it is merely hiding partially behind a cloud, soon to be brighter than ever before."

Actually his star exploded. He got some on my shirt.

...

Back in the day (the ancient old west of the Internet which was the late 1990s) we used "online diary" and "online journal" interchangeably for what is now coined a "blog," but neither one looked good on a T-Shirt. Someone came up with "web log" and the rest is history. I still think of myself as a journaller. A diarist. Not a journalist. Journalists actually get paid occasionally. Doesn't mean crap. None of it means a gorram thing. The words are now as archaic in this context as "sanguine" is to... well, whatever.. context it originally had.

And THIS? You can call Whedonesque and MetaFilter and other places "community weblogs" all you want. To me it's still a message board. That's what we used to call them on Video-Tel and Prodigy and Compuserve years ago, and before that BBSs. This whole argument is petty. As in schwa-shi. I used to think a schwa was the letter E moonlighting as a geisha. Shows how much I know.

And no I'm not being funny to show off for Mr. Whedon. IF that was actually HIM he stopped reading when he stopped posting. I don't buy that it's him anywho.

ZachsMind | March 05, 11:18 CET

Well its certainly closer to a message board than a chatroom, ZM :) And Nebula, since you have a migraine, its a lucky thing you have a page all about them, eh? Remember dialing in to BBSs back in the days of computer users groups and we only had a couple hundred baud to play with in phone coupled modems. I think the discussion was interesting, neither petty nor migraine inducing. If I had thought so, I probably would've remained quiet. Reminds me of the people who declared the language question boring during an Aussie Q&A.

zeitgeist | March 05, 11:46 CET

Any moment now I'm going to drench this site in formaldehyde and encase it, for clearly it is an anachronism and needs to be preserved for the Myspace generation to gawk at once they grow up.

Me and Trace we go way back. I've made my bed, I lie in it, and hold my head up high.

I'm off to do some spin painting with The Hirst. Yours pedantically.

Caroline | March 05, 11:55 CET

Try this for frustrating. I glance in here as I was sitting down to close down my computer this afternoon and happen across a language ~~argument~~ discussion between the two supreme rulers of this particular little universe. I immediately think, "But you are both right! Joss is talking about the popular redefinition of "blog" among the general populous and Caroline is talking about the technical definition of the word among people who work intimately with the technology." (Later Willowy would say the same thing with less words.)

So here I am at the computer seeing Joss and Caroline posting about a subject that I love and knowing that I am due to give my son a birthday party in a very short time. In fact I was already running very late. Ugh, the temptation. I was good. I closed down and waited until I came back after the party...and 85 posts.

As language IS fluid and Joss is absolutely correct about the definition of words changing without our ability to stop them, isn't it possible that the change could end up as simple as "blog" ending up meaning a personal weblog and "weblog" being used for sites such as Wedonesque? That seems to be the direction the usage is going...and, yeah, pretty much what Joss said without the "weblog" part of it.

Moving on.

1. What is this dimming star and other BS! (sputter) (sputter) Rediculous! We will speak of it no more.

2. Yea Whedonesque! ...either for being complemented while our purpose for existence is insulted repeatedly, or for being banned internationally in schools and libraries. Whatever works for each of us personally.

3. Saje, Uh, glass houses, stones, mean anything to you? cough(appeasement)cough(Chamberlain)cough I think I'll leave it there. (hums a meaningless tune)

4. Willowy, If I'm not mistaken Saje is indicating (Saje, please correct me if I'm wrong.) that we were late to WW II because we waited to join the war until we were attacked by Japan in 1941. He's either teasing us or trying to make us feel needed...cause we need to be encouraged to enter more conflicts earlier right now. ;-) Thank goodness no one in the Bush administration reads Whedonesque.

...they don't do they? OMG, what if they do? Saje, do you realize if the USA enters another conflict somewhere in the world in the next...some period of time...it may be totally YOUR FAULT? I'm glad I'm not in your shoes tonight Saje. I wouldn't be able to stand the pressure.

[ edited by newcj on 2006-03-05 10:45 ]

newcj | March 05, 12:12 CET

I've posted before on this thread, but seriously. What a fascinating discussion. I am in awe. And here I thought I was somewhat semi-intelligent (someone who got a 27 on their ACT at 15 years old), and I have been proven entirely wrong...not for the first time, no, but definitely the most humiliating time. Jeez, and English is supposed to be my forte, yet I have nothing to say that hasn't already been said.

...Except for Caroline, when you mentioned our About page, I got all excited that we were included for some reason on About.com, only to be hugely disappointed as if I had just bought an ice cream cone on a sweltering hot summer day after having spent three full summers in the Saudi desert being persecuted and harrassed by the ghost of T.E. Lawrence, only to have the ice cream fall out exactly .5 seconds later, as has been known to happen with my supreme klutziness.

Well, okay, maybe not that disappointed, but it sure was fun to write!

UnpluggedCrazy | March 05, 13:19 CET

Willowy said:

Ok, aside from 'blog art', not really getting what the reference to her is supposed to connotate. Is that it? And if so, how obscure. Maybe even insulting? A "my bed" reference, maybe? Or just plain irreverance? Again, not quite getting it.

I was actually referring (obliquely as it turns out ;) to 'Everyone I have Ever Slept With 1963–95' which was an Emin piece from a few years ago in the form of a tent (on which was embroidered the names of all the people she'd slept with but that's not really relevant - except, possibly, to a Freudian psychiatrist so we won't go there ;). The main gist was just that art is taking place here (in a kind of irreverent way since I was responding to what I assumed to be a joky comment from gossi and I doubt anyone seriously thought little ol' we were creating art in the accepted sense). Not seen 'My Bed' tho' it sounds like it has a certain Ewwww factor but I guess that's fine (art is sometimes meant to provoke).

BTW, I wasn't, in case you're wondering, having a go at Emin herself since even tho' the great unwashed British public are fairly unimpressed with her (and my own tastes are probably closer to Turner the artist than Turner the prize) she does seem to have had a pretty hard time of it in her personal life and I sympathise with that.

Hope that sheds some light and thanks for your other comments ;).

(If nothing else, I think this shows that most humour doesn't bear close examination ;).

newcj, dunno what you mean *deliberately looks away from the Chamberlain reference*, what appeasement ? Who ? Where ? (say what you like about Hitler but the guy did serve a mean cup of tea. And scones ! With, like, the proper cream. And jam on top. Can someone like that really be all bad ? OK, so it turns out 'Yes' but, y'know, who knew ? Well, OK 'Everyone else' but apart from them ?)

Pressure ? Pfft (that was nonchalence NOT me exploding from too much pressure), I laugh in the redlining safety valve of pressure. Anyway, George doesn't listen to me since the whole pretzel incident. I still maintain I said 30 chews then swallow, he says he didn't get the memo - there's a whole ugly rift thing now. I heard he's even thinking about renaming Limes because of the negative association with 'Limeys'. They're going to be called 'You-totally-said-swallow-first-s' which i'm sure you'll agree is much more with the wieldyness.

Re: dimming star. Keep dimming that brightly Joss and we'll keep burning our metaphorical retinas on your luminous dimosity.

ETA: Oh, and since I haven't said it already, Congratulations Caroline et al. Go Whedonesque ;).

[ edited by Saje on 2006-03-05 11:30 ]

Saje | March 05, 13:24 CET

Can I just say this is one of the smartest and most sophisticated threads on a blog (or off a blog) I've read in some time. The people coming here from timesonline should have gotten a good impression (just why isn't there a hyperlink on the times website though?) I think language is fluid and we are therefore allowed to invent new meanings to old words, hence for those who don't yet think this is a (we)blog, just broaden your mind and include websites like these in your definition, it's not like there is a better word for it.

Celebithil | March 05, 13:33 CET

Remember dialing in to BBSs back in the days of computer users groups and we only had a couple hundred baud to play with in phone coupled modems.

Oh Zeit, your so old.
Hee. *runs away*

nixygirl | March 05, 13:42 CET

Whedonesque.org is a message board. Whedonesque.com is not.

KernelM | March 05, 14:12 CET

This is a website, people use it to start topics, people reply - sounds like a message board to me.

Language, as said above about twelve bazillion times, is fluid.

About 7 or so years ago, I used to refer to myself as a hacker on my CV. Then, it meant to experiment with technology. Nobody ever questioned it. I've since dropped that term - the media has redefined that word as 14 year olds defacing websites before they goto Daddies house to watch Pimp My Lower Left Leg.

I also come from the BBS generation, before email, exchanging messages via Fidonet. To some extent, I should be smiling at blogging and laughing at MySpace.

gossi | March 05, 15:12 CET

Late to the party as ususal.

The things I've learned on Whedonesque today.
- Caroline is more impressed by the site being blocked than by being mentioned in Times(online), once again proving her smarts, congrats anyway.
- Joss posts that his star cannot dim because it exploded a long time ago, dont know about that, he shines as brightly as ever to us and seems to have a whole galaxy of stars to choose from for his next magical trick the amazing amazon movie.
- IMO In the world outside of Hollywood, if your work are not shown weekly in the box (reruns dont count) your stardom have dimmed and you are doomed to oblivion, in Hollywood the reverse is true, making movies are the holy grail, being a star in the tv world doesnt get you invited to the fancy Oscars parties.
- I really should take the time and read Whedonesques about page.

jpr | March 05, 15:29 CET

"Whedonesque.org is a message board. Whedonesque.com is not."

Thank you, at least one person here knows where I'm coming from.

Caroline | March 05, 15:33 CET

This is a website, people use it to start topics, people reply - sounds like a message board to me."

*shrugs* To me, there's a huge qualitative difference between whedonesque.com and whedonesque.org.

I scoffed when I first heard about blogs, cause I could do the same damn thing using just plain HTML. But I was neglecting the ease of pre-built systems, as well as the social networking aspects of certain blogging systems. But then I also scoffed at: the Web (already got Gopher), Netscape (already got Mosaic), mp3s (already got MIDIs), Napster (already got ftp/Usenet/web mp3 sites), ICQ (already got Unix talk and VMS phone), and AIM (already got ICQ). And I still use Lynx for browsing certain things and vim to edit everything.

And doesn't everybody laugh at myspace?

[ edited by KernelM on 2006-03-05 13:55 ]

KernelM | March 05, 15:53 CET

Myspace makes the baby jesus cry.

gossi | March 05, 16:42 CET

"And doesn't everybody laugh at myspace?"

No. mostly I shudder because every time I make the mistake of going there ( usually to look up some band or other) the pages are all too often set to play some ear splittingly awful embedded music file and it seems to take an eternity to find a way to turn the wretched thing off!

I don't care whether Whedonesque is a blog, a board, a list or a Zog from the planet Zarkon. I like it!

debw | March 05, 16:47 CET

Whedonesque is otherwise known as 'A very cool website' or 'Hey, I don't have to trawl the internet to see Whedon related news, so I can spent the time saved playing with the cat'. In that order.

gossi | March 05, 16:52 CET

gossi - Man, you get all the good programmes in the UK! How come we don't get "Pimp My Lower Left Leg" in Australia? ;-)

Back to topic - To blog or not to blog? I don't care, this is just my little slice of heaven!

catalyst2 | March 05, 18:24 CET

Don't worry, cataylst2, it was cancelled 4 minutes in. It was replaced by CSI: Scunthorpe.

gossi | March 05, 18:40 CET

Oh dear God - "CSI: Scunthorpe" - grey on grey, I'd guess?

catalyst2 | March 05, 18:54 CET

Yeah but they have now replaced CSI: Scunthorpe with Grimsby Idol so who really cares?

fade2dust | March 05, 19:01 CET

Isn't that the lead in show for 'Morecambe Vice' ? I expect big numbers.

Saje | March 05, 19:27 CET

OK, zeitgeist, I'll shut up, except to say that it seems this site is something of a hybrid between a blog and a message board. It serves as a web log in that it lists and chronicles as many things Whedon-related as can be found on a regular basis. It is updated frequently. It is a record of progress and change over the course of time. Many logs (for ships, medical records, educational records) have entries made by a number of designated people. In this case, the members of this community make entries.

It becomes a hybrid, though, because it also serves as a message board. People respond to the entries, interact with each other and ponder the subtleties and non-subtleties of the meanings of words or implications of statements - sometimes ad nauseum. The difference between this and most message boards, though, is that the threads generally have to keep within the parameters of the posted entry, and they disappear after a day or two, never to be revisited.

Nebula1400 | March 05, 19:30 CET

Caroline, if it is any consolation, I read the ‘About’ page when I first came here. And I recall that the explanations given were informative and made sense to me.

I always read ‘about’ pages. Mostly because I am German and I like clear instructions. Gotta have some of those. As far as the little Worldwar II discussion in this thread goes, we started it, so you were all late and you all loose. Virtually speaking. Not literally, because literally we lost of course. But it’s the taking part that counts. At least we made an effort.

On the dimming star front, I will say that there is one good line in Elizabethtown (and one good line only), which seems relevant and goes something like this: ‘We worship success above greatness’.

So. Very. True.

miranda | March 05, 19:34 CET

Yes, Joss is secretly working on 'Titantic 2: Die Leo, Die' which will be highly successful, so Joss will be king for a day. Everybody will love it. Okay, I'll be the only person on Whedonesque who likes it.

gossi | March 05, 19:39 CET

Yep, I read the about page too. (Like Miranda, it's one of those things I always do when I go to a website for the first time). And I still like the community weblog definition. I tend to agree with newjc that you were both right, Caroline – you about the definition as its still understood among tech-savvy people, and Joss about the way the word has morphed for us nontechies.
But the most important thing, I think, is that no matter how that popular definition may change, or how us common folk might misunderstand the different forms a blog can take, this is a great site. One I prefer immensely over almost any other blogs, and message boards, and metasites I've visted. No need to get out the formaldehyde yet :-)

And as I said up top - I'm yet another who's found this thread one of the most fascinating we've had yet, hardly migraine-inducing. And it just keeps getting better - witty, intelligent, funny, thoughtful, and involving a debate between our fearless leader and Whedonesque's raison d'être.

[ edited by acp on 2006-03-05 18:06 ]

acp | March 05, 20:06 CET

The trouble with the British press is that they have a habit of building people up and then knocking them down.

Simon | March 05, 20:18 CET

Because this site serves so many of us so well, and most blogs don't, perhaps it is hard for some to see how this could possibly be a blog. This is what baby blogs aspire to be when they grow up.
Whether or not in its growing up, it has in fact become something else is, obviously, a matter of some discussion.
And may I compliment Mr. Whedon on his precise use of commas? I do like a well placed comma.

[ edited by Lioness on 2006-03-05 18:22 ]

Lioness | March 05, 20:22 CET

acp: In my case, if it causes a migraine, it isn't necessarily bad. Everything induces migraines in me - even good stuff.

As for the article, the thing I find most offensive about it is the whole notion that Joss's star is fading, except for the people who frequent this site. One of the worst aspects of tabloid journalism is that people with ADD have the power to declare something out of style, passe or over in mid-story.

[ edited by Nebula1400 on 2006-03-05 18:34 ]

Nebula1400 | March 05, 20:27 CET

Don't shut up at all Nebula :) And SO with you on the Joss' star thing. Rising, the word you're looking for is RISING, silly Timesfolk. ETA: AND LOVE this line: "people with ADD have the power to declare something out of style".

People respond to the entries, interact with each other and ponder the subtleties and non-subtleties of the meanings of words or implications of statements - sometimes ad nauseum."

The thing about this is that having a comment system does not fall outside the definition of a blog. Message boards are divided into existing categories wherein the topics are free-for-all within the category and threaded discussions take place. Granted, the major difference is how the information is presented, but isn't that always the case. No ones arguing that the popular perception of blogs is that most are diaries or rants or whatnot, and hey what happens when Titanic2: Die Leo, Die, CSI: Scunthorpe, and Pimp My Lower Left Leg all start to lose funding and then join forces? CSI: Titanic: Pimp My Lower Left Leo: Scunthorpe: Gol Edition?

Oops, got off track there. Urbandictionary's definition #5, subsection good blog fits W-esque, while #5, subsection bad blog and all the other definitions fit the general public's view. Hey, thanks blogger/myspace... /cry

ETA: interesting to note that UD's defintion of weblog says:

"in it most simplistic variant its a single persons journal posted to a website. however the range all the way to corporate sites about new products to several people writing news to many people writing many things.
livejournal.com, blogger.com, slashdot.com. my weblog entry for the day was about how blog has sprung up in use with online journals because people were getting them confused with server logs."

Interesting...

zeitgeist | March 05, 20:35 CET

I can't believe this is still going back-and-forth. I'm sure the people who run the Bloggies would be surprised to discover that sites like Metafilter and Slashdot are not blogs. The only thing that separates Whedonesque from, say, Gawker or "Cassie's blog", is the fact that anyone can register to post an entry and anyone can post a comment. That's it. Caroline could restrict posting, and disable comments, two settings that come with practically every blogging application. Does the fact that she chooses not to do this make this a non-blog? I think not.

areacode212 | March 05, 21:01 CET

Hey, MySpace isn't all bad...I mean, I'm a member! ...And I have the Serenity as my background with the Ballad of Serenity playing over it! So...um...woo! I am king of MySpace!

UnpluggedCrazy | March 05, 21:47 CET

No, the person with the Crazy Frog ringtone as their background sound is the king of MySpace.

CSI: Titanic: Pimp My Lower Left Leo: Scunthorpe: Gol Edition

Quick, somebody write a pilot and mail it to Fox. Easy money, people. Just include a character called Wilhelmina.

gossi | March 05, 22:16 CET

Caroline, I forgot to mention I did read the "About" page. I was feeling guilty for a minute when I first read your message. Then I clicked on the link and felt so relieved because, "Oh yeah. I've been here before and read this." In fact, it may have been the first place I read the definition of a "blog" because I have not frequented the net that extensively or for that long. Even so, the popular usage of "blog" still makes me think of a less complex personal site whereas the more sophisticated sounding word "weblog" makes me think of a site like this, that has more polish. That is from a total know-nothing, so I think it is likely to catch on...for obvious reasons. ;-)

The trouble with the British press is that they have a habit of building people up and then knocking them down.
Simon | March 05, 18:18 CET

Unfortunately it is not just the British press...

When you don't have any news, you make some. People on the rise are news. People just going about their excellent work, not as much. People who were on their way up, now failing miserably, double points since if they are as talented as Joss they'll get a come back story when he makes his next big success. The cynical part of me notices that if they don't bring him down, they won't get to write about what an amazing comeback he made. He is in development for at least two projects so they have to bring him down quickly before he can get one made that may give them their come-back story. Oh. Wait. I was going to speak of this no more. (sigh)

Saje, I wouldn't count on this Administration not paying attention to ideas they want to hear just because of some argument where they say they did not get a memo or even never heard of you. Sorry, the pressure is still on.

I also admire your ability to ignore everything that does not fit into your world view. When will you be running for office? ;-)

That said, miranda is right on the whole WW II thing. I wish we could all lose on that basis all the time.

newcj | March 05, 23:39 CET

Someone mentioned Buffy magazine earlier. I'd like to point out that on several occasions they have referenced Whedonesque as a source on some of their articles, which I thought was pretty cool.

I do think the shopping list story was pretty funny, although I'm still not convinced the magazine was reporting it as truth. And it may not be the most highbrow, insightful magazine, but I do think it is pretty indepth. Like they don't just ask people "What costumes did you like wearing?" or "Who was the best cast member to kiss?" I do actually think it makes quite good reading and has some pretty good interviews and features. Although I do wonder how much longer they should keep the magazine out.

It's cool that it has lasted so long after the demise of both shows, but really any news is about projects away from the Buffyverse that the actors or writers have been working on, or the constant rumours of movies. The interviews and stuff are nice, but for example, how many times can you really interview Amy Acker about a three year stint on a show two years ago, and hope to gain more information? And that's not an attack on Amy at all, just that it seems kind of superfluous that people are being interviewed again having not participated in any Buffyverse work since the last interview.

*EDIT*- "Like of superfluous"? Just what was I smoking yesterday?

And my apologies, Gossi, I wasn't criticising you, just commenting on my appreciation of a decent magazine.

[ edited by Razor on 2006-03-06 23:32 ]

Razor | March 06, 02:29 CET

Ah, I joke when I jibe at the Buffy magazine. They're just doing their job.

gossi | March 06, 02:43 CET

March 04 2006