I’d stopped blogging about blooks in Blogsome some time ago, due to exams and stress and pretty much real life. But looking back on the links and the commentary on the emergence of the word ‘blook’ is just gold. Check this out:

“These so called 75,000 new online diaries are not, by any stretch of the imagination mostly diaries. They are everything from diaries, to marketing channels, to sales channels, to small business models, to PR venues and moreNow, this extremely ridiculous label called ”˜blook’ is trying to stick to the blogosphere (another outdated name) and keep the whole concept of mass communication via this platform in the realm of ”˜tiddly-winks, thing-a-mabobs and watch-ya-macall-its’. Listen, not every new idea or process that results from this platform needs to start with ”˜bl’. I don’t have a solution to this naming convention catastrophe, but, I do know that it’s not pretty.” Found here.

What a paragraph. Here’s another one i found back then:

“Am I being a dinosaur for feeling that this will mean even more stratification? 75,000 new online journals every day implies, to me, the old needle-in-a-haystack dilemma: many are called (or at least are hopeful) but damned few will be found. There are a few fascinating jewels that have come out of blogs, of course”“though they seem mostly to deal with war and sex. Is there a market? Would the rest of you go in search of a blook?” Found here.

It is an interesting point, isn’t it? Would you go all out to find a blook? We live in a world where pictures do most of the talking, and then we have video, in which the talking is actually literal.

Would you go to the web to find literature? Hmm.

[Update!] Found this link! Blook receives sparce mention (see if you can find it), but the overall message of the article is clear: Blook. A member of the English lanuguage that doesn’t fit in. Wadd’ya expect? Bangalore?