It’s “a one-man show. One has complete freedom of expression, including, if one chooses, the freedom to be scurrilous, abusive and seditious; or, on the other hand, to be more detailed, serious and ‘high-brow’ than is ever possible in a newspaper or most kinds of periodicals. At the same time, since (it’s) always short and unbound, it can be produced much more quickly than a book, and in principle, at any rate, can reach a bigger public. Above all, (it) does not have to follow any prescribed pattern. It can be in prose or in verse, it can consist largely of maps or statistics or quotations, it can take the form of a story, a fable, a letter, an essay, a dialogue, or a piece of ‘reportage.’ All that is required of it is that it shall be topical, polemical, and short.”

This quote aptly describes a communication know as a blog, but it was written in The British Pamphleteer by George Orwell, and refers to pamphleteering in the 1700s. He believed that “in Twentieth-century society the press does not adequately represent all shades of opinion.”

While researching material for my novel, I came across several articles that compared the 1700s explosion of communication by the common person who used pamphlets to the explosion of communication by blogs in today’s world. Snippits from these articles follow.

According to an article from the CanWest News Service, a University of Guelph professor said “Today’s popular blogs began more than 200 years ago, when blotchy and exuberant periodicals circulated in the coffee houses and homes of England.”

It was breezy, energetic stuff. (Blogs a hit in the cafes of the 1700s  http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=86e8b029-9367-48fc-84fe-0e7cc8c4b198&k=67303) (or cut and paste)

Before 1620 the high cost of publishing and purchasing printed tracts prevented the printing press from serving as a public instrument. Although pamphlets were the cheapest publications available, they were generally only produced and consumed among a “small and intimate” selection of literati. Then a new, less expensive type-face technology reduced the cost of production….The most prolific---not to mention, democratic---form of expression on an individual level was undoubtedly the pamphlet. Once it was printed (in London), it would be sold on street corners or in print shops or carried to more rural locations and sold for next-to-nothing. Once it reached a village or town it would be posted for greater consumption. A new pamphlet---whether it contained news, prophesy, or trivia---was sure to be a crowd pleaser, especially considering the potent rhetoric to which the majority of pamphlets were disposed. We do well to remember that printed material was an innovation among the British masses; naturally, pamphlets and broadsides were the talk of the town. Most pamphlets combined text and images from sometimes pretty alarming woodcut prints, which made them accessubke ti tge ukkuterate, (Trends of Anarchy and Hierarchy: Comparing the Cultural Repercussions of Print and Digital Media by A. Griscom  http://www.cyberartsweb.org/cpace/infotech/asg/ag14.html)

In America, Revolutionary pamphleteers weren’t professional writers. They were common citizens engaged in the debate of ideas. They created a sense of democracy to the intellectual struggle that preceded the call to arms. In stark contrast was the French Revolution---debate was among the elites who often looked down on the general population as hopelessly retrograde. If the French Revolution started in salons, the American started in saloons…and town squares, churches, etc. One ended with a stable republic; the other with Napoleon and what was basically a world war. (Liberty and Culture: Bloggers: the Pamphleteers of today.