When Writing Becomes Content

When Writing Becomes Content, Lisa Dush: Full Article.

Does writing becoming content suggest growth? Or perhaps writing has transitioned into content over time. In this article, Lisa Dush defines content, while respecting the different forms it comes in, regarding all different types of writing professions. She also goes into detail about the four characteristics of content: conditional, computable, networked, and commodified.

In regards to content being computable,

They believe content is merely data you are accessing on a computer. While some people might think that the writer must control the content, in order to make it adaptable to the platform, Dush argues that we have little control over which direction the content takes us. I agree with that, as a writer I know inspiration can take your work to places you didn’t plan for it to go, but that’s not a bad thing. Words flow and you start making connections you didn’t previously see. It’s a part of being a writer. The conditional and computable aspects of writing go hand in hand with the content being networked. There can be all sorts of networks, person and work related. What Dush means by “content will be commodified,” is the value it has when it a work of writing is in circulation.

People may think of writing as “idiosyncratic” while content is “standardized” as if they are opposite ends of a spectrum. “Might content, with its machines and its standardization, simply threaten the idiosyncratic and human work of writing?” (PG. 182) Can they not work together? Even in works of fiction, you can find valuable content. You can see things from other people’s perspectives, or even gain an understanding about a period in history in a way that’s more engaging. Yes, of course, case and research studies are valuable as well, but I have found that you can learn just as much from a well written work of fiction.

Dush does an amazing job articulation her point, and quotes are either in a different font all together or in bold so they stand out. However, one quote she uses from Johnson-Eilola about “marketable chunks” suggests that pulling material from other sources takes away form the original work. For example, “chapters extracted from a book for republication in a “permissions-paid” coursepack, or individual songs sold in isolation from the albums on which they originally appeared.” (PG.178) She believes it becomes less about communicating useful information, and instead becomes something to generate clicks and retweets. She contradicts herself by using quotes from other sources throughout her entire article to enhance her point, just like she criticized others for doing. Does that mean Dush is only doing so to “generate likes and retweets.” I don’t think so. I believe that quoting others is good to do in your work, if used sparingly and given proper credit. She clearly does as well, as you can see by all the quotes in her article.