How is it possible that someone came to a conclusion that any piece of writing that seems not to cover a specific topic is lacking in content? Do they actually understand what language is about?
Has anybody else noticed that one of the top ten posts of the moment, in an idiotic show of preference that typifies the way things work at triond, is about the publishing of posts that have no content? My question would have to be, quite simply, what constitutes content for any post and how does one define interesting, when it comes to what gets read?
The simple fact that I bothered to transcribe my thoughts on this issue to the blank page must surely mean that I am producing content for my post, because you are reading those words. Just because the text does not convey revelations about Justin Bieber’s sex life, or Pippa Middleton’s backside does not make it any less readable, because what always drives a reader to carry on devouring the written word is not always the subject matter, but the way it is presented.
If I choose to have a rant in praise of the latest wave of feminist activity known as slutwalks, then I am including content that is topical, but with what written words, am I guilty of producing a content-less post, when it seems to me that the mere inclusion of a single creative sentence must represent content of some kind? How can it be that a top post, in popularity terms, is only about the fact that the post in question is not, theoretically anyway, actually about anything?
It would be very useful indeed if other contributors to this site could add their input to what seems a farcical debate, about the merits of composing written works whose sole purpose is to not have any real point to them, other than to show that what should be regarded as content depends not at all upon the subject matter that the writing is trying to describe, but the skill of the writer involved in making that message interesting and relevant to the reader.
I tend to think that, when I compose a poem, I think not for a second about the merits or otherwise of the writing contained within that single poem, but more of the feelings I wish to convey through the penning of the piece, and the overall message I want the reader to feel they have received. The content question never rears its head, and there can be no reason why it should. The question arises whether you lose the thread of your creativity if you try to be too correct.
Usually, when one writes a factual piece, one wishes to inform and entertain the reader, to the extent that they feel inclined to view more of your work, and in that regard the content is important, without doubt, but not everything one writes is meant to be informative, and not all so-called content can be placed in neat categories, because the creative writing process demands limitless flexibility of expression.
To my writing mind-set, the debate over lack of content in any article or other piece of writing borders on the sublimely ridiculous, because the only way to create a post without content is to publish a blank page, letting the reader decide for themselves what it should say. Each time you, as a writer, add another word to your post, you are creating content that someone will be curious enough to want to read, and in so doing are enhancing your own writer reputation, if that content-less post is of sufficient quality.
This is the most ridiculous and pointless debate imaginable, started no doubt by somebody wanting to provoke reaction from other scribes, who no doubt are looking hard at their own work and questioning their content within the writing. Any way a writer of fiction or fact cares to approach the subject, the simple fact that words spring forth when he starts to compose signifies the birth of content, of one kind or another, an inescapable truth. Content is the written word itself, so why this idiotic debate?