The Content Question

In my research I've found something that surprises me: blogging receives high criticism for something Shakespeare’s plays never did: content. Shakespeare’s work contains characters from all walks of life: from the fool to the prince, they are all featured and explored. This characteristic is part of what made Shakespeare’s work so revolutionary and relatable, and is a nod to the humanist efforts to focus on the individual and its value and function in society. Shakespeare moved beyond class structures to representatively explore, in theatric modes, all walks of life.

Contrastingly, as the blogging world evolves and its writers diversify, there has been created a blogging “class structure.” True enough, blogging began as a more political and corporation associated activity. As new programs moved the power of blogging into the hands of everyday citizens, the political and corporate bloggers decried, as one example, the “Mommy Blogs” which overtook the entire practice. Such blogs are familial and flooded with quaint stories and pictures of kids. The extreme contrast the writer of the blog and the function of the blog created a reciprocal pride; however, in time all kinds of blogging will become evolved and integral as valuable views on different levels of society, each its own individual “search.” Renaissance Men and Ideas verifies the value of the search by asserting that “in human affairs it is not just action and events which make history. No less important are the reasons, the justifications that men ascribe to activity, the meaning that they attribute to it” (xi). Just as Shakespeare’s characters become more viable and dynamic when viewed with a humanist contribution, and the value of humanist contributions is placed on the “search,” the value of all types of blogging is defended.