When Writing Becomes Content: Academic Review On Content Creation & Writing

   A widely discussed issue found in today's culture is where and how creative writing fits into content. Some believe passion-driven writing is quickly being replaced by cheap, easily produced, AI-generated articles. Others believe there is still hope. Lisa Dush’s When Writing Becomes Content discusses the contemporary idea that writing and content merge into one. Her article provides an in-depth analysis of what content is and its many components. Dush uses her definition of content to describe the state that writing is changing to in the era of content creation and digital writing.

   Dush states that content is identified by four categories. The categories are conditional, computable, networked, and commodified (Dush 174). Dush presents us with a metaphor that can be interpreted in two ways and helps us (the reader) understand the discussion of what content is. She states, “When writing becomes content is a phrase that can be read two ways. First, the phrase suggests growth, merging: the old thing, writing, is now also the new thing, content. The second implication is that of a change, a transformation: the old thing, writing, has now become a new thing, content.” (Dush 175). Content as conditional describes content as the form and shape it takes. Conditional aspects of content exist in the context of digital platforms, where it takes shape and travels across the internet. Computable content is analyzed by search engines and AI, thus reshaped by what Dush calls a “machine audience” (Dush 176). Essentially, the computability aspect of digital content will ultimately be altered and/or used in other spaces of the internet. Formatting and structure are also subject to changes based on the device used to view this content. Networked content is both conditional and computable. The content can only exist through “…human and nonhuman actors.” (Dush 177). The networked component is comprised of mediums like the internet, the people, and the machines on the internet. Lastly, content is commodified. This means that the content has value. The value is often measured by today's standard of interaction and circulation. Content value is also measured by profit and the ability to meet needs. Dush ultimately concludes that the definition of content when discussed in terms of writing as, “…digital assets, conditional in their shape and value, that are assembled within and pushed out to networks, where human and machine audiences will assess them, assign value to them, consume them, appropriate and repurpose them, extract from them, and push them into other networks. Said differently, as a set of characteristics, content is conditional, computable, networked, and it is—or will be—commodified.” (Dush 178). Dush’s conclusion is that writing exists and overlaps with the world of content creation and management. This overlap could lead to digital writing as content creation instead of writing as a craft.

    Dush’s thorough breakdown of the elements that make up content and writing in relation to content offers a productive insight into what we create and consume daily. Today, and often, we are both consumers and producers of content. Whether in a professional workplace in teams of authors, editors, and social media/marketing managers, or on personal blogs or other mediums for passion, content, and writing, coexist. Dush elaborates on this idea by explaining each piece and how it comes together to form her definition of content. While these components serve her definition well and can be used to describe content generally (especially in the digital age), I feel as though the word content can be better defined and used without specific parameters. Upon my own reflection, ‘content’ is a very loose term. In my own words, I would describe it as “something that occupies a space”. This definition can be used in both a physical and digital sense. Per the Oxford English Dictionary, content is defined as, “A thing contained; now only in plural (with of or possessive): That which is contained (in a vessel or the like); also figurative”. This definition encapsulates both physical space and figurative space. When we create content in a digital space, it exists in a nonphysical form. Dush’s article claims that content can be the writing that occupies this space; however, she also states that content and writing are also separate. While it is understood that Dush thinks that the value of writing and rhetoric is changing from core principles in academics to that of content-culture and marketability, it is not clear what is to be done about it. Another observation of mine is that both the commodification of writing and writing as a craft can exist in the same space. Dush states that, “The content professions offer a compellingly familiar understanding of the social and material dimensions of writing and are an intriguing career path for our students. But other aspects of content are troublesome. I’m sympathetic to the arguments of literary writers such as Tim Kreider, and I wonder how writing-as-a-craft will weather the commodification of writing-as-content.” (Dush 191). This perspective raises some questions about the discussion of content and writing; however, it can also be seen as two things being true at once.

Overall, I believe Dush presents a very interesting topic of discussion. Her definition of content and how it interacts with writing is compelling and thought-provoking. Most importantly, I believe her carefully crafted definition works with the discussion. The two-way metaphor of content and writing is incredibly interesting and real. Dush provides us with adequate material to understand the worries of writing in the digital age. It also follows where and what we value in a culture of content creation. While I believe Dush has reason to be skeptical of the commodification of writing in content culture, the solution to how to navigate this remains mostly unanswered.​