My Definition of Blook

I'm never surprised that the definition of blook which I use here at Blooking Central is challenged by those who wish to reserve it, or, to be fair, simply apply it, for/to online fiction. But being a bit of a curmudgeon, I have clung stubbornly to my initial position, more out of obstinacy than from philosophy. However, I've recently exchanged emails with a gentleman (Carl Jeffries) who said that he didn't see the value of my definition. Which caused me to wonder if I could justify -- in a "reasoned" fashion -- just why I have been insisting that a blook is not a blook until it hits print. With his permission I am reproducing our discussion. I'll conclude with what I think are my reasons for being so persnickety.

Carl asked for my definition; I replied, "At Blooking Central I use the definition put in place by the Lulu Blooker Prize competition:

"A blook is a book with content that was developed in a significant way from material originally presented on a blog, webcomic or other website. This material includes the website's characters, themes, ideas or outline that ends up getting published as a printed book."

"n. blook. A printed and bound book, based on a blog (cf. web log) or website; a new stage in the life-cycle of content, if not a new category of content and a new dawn for the book itself."

Carl: So your definition (the Lulu definition) is a physical book based on a blog? That definition and the definition I use (something like "a long form work published in a blog") are both in the Wikipedia entry for "blook" (as well as an interesting but unrelated third definition). I strongly disagree with the Lulu definition, as it seems to me to be living in the past where something can't be a blook if it's solely in digital form. My definition of blook is broader, not excluding works like those in Pages Unbound. Granted, most of the Pages Unbound stories suck, but, for example, poetry doesn't become poetry because it's published by a publisher. Especially since Lulu itself has no bar for entry and publishes plenty of dreck themselves. I just don't see the point in rejecting blogs that are long-form works on the basis that they're on the internet instead of on the page. Right now, for instance, I'd say Gold Medal Murder is a blook, even if it's not published yet. (It isn't yet, is it?) [CH: not yet]

Of course, we'll see what the definition ends up being in, say, five years. (Which makes it silly to me that the OED is considering accepting it as a word, seemingly forgetting a lot of internet words that have fallen by the wayside.)

Blooking Central: The subject of the definition I use has received its share of criticism. But if you take a look at the two
posts that I've referenced, maybe you'll be better able to understand my position - here and here.

Carl: Read your articles. I know it's semantics to a large degree, but I wholly disagree with you. I don't think something online can't be a book. You can have your novel online. Hell, you can have your novel in manuscript form, and it's still a novel. If you want to define a "book" as having to be a hard copy, well, I guess you can do that... but even in that case, doesn't "blook" have the same problem as "eBook"? Why does one letter have to make something NOT a book in one instance and a type of book in another?

I think the more important subject is the vast difference between an eBook and a book-on-a-blog (whatever you wanna call it in its non-dead-tree form). An eBook is the final book in download form. You can purchase eBooks at Lulu, or they're often available for download from an author's site. A blook by MY definition is the work when it's in blog form, often not yet completed.

I'm just not sure I see the value of your definition. You're arguing that your definition is the right one, but I'm not sure why it's the most useful definition. Why not call online blog-books "blooks" too. Then when they're published in dead-tree-form, they're still blooks, only now you can put them on your shelves. Instead you're left calling online blog-books "online blog-books" or "serialized web books" or something. Unless you have a better term? And a reason for using a different term?

I guess my definition focuses more on the works themselves, and you want a separate word for the hard copy of something and the online copy of it, whereas in my mind they're the same thing, and in fact, with decent advertising, the online version will be read more and make more money than the print version.

***

Next up, my defense.