Re: this post on 'content': https://warrenellis.ltd/mc/content/
I've seen various pushback on the word 'content', used thus, in recent years. It's definitely a reponse, most proximally, to the Marvelification of everything. People ask over and over again, torturously, 'are video games art' (yes). This is sort of the opposite end of that -- deploying terminology which, intentionally or otherwise, shifts the emphasis away from these sorts of works -- written, visual, audible, etc. -- as being works of art and instead places it on their being works of entertainment or commerce.
Here's the thing, though. As much as I do recognise this trend and people's irritation with it -- I do think there is at least an element of it driven by the corporatisation of everything -- I still find it a useful and specific term.
The end of the first paragraph of this post is an example of this. I was groping around as to what to refer to these... things as if we have to omit terms like 'art', etc. 'Content' did actually feel like the natural choice there for me (instead, I went with 'these sorts of works' which feels functional but vague).
Perhaps my tolerance for this term comes from working in video games -- especially on a live service game. The idea of a 'content schedule' makes absolute sense, and I don't see another obvious word that could plug into that gap while describing the same thing. It's all writing, but it's not all all writing. The content (yes, content) takes different shapes, so we can't straightforwardly call it 'stories' or something like that, either. 'Content' feels right.
I'm all for using terms thoughtfully, and yes, it feels kinda meaningless to stick the label 'content' on anything when that's not what we really mean. But sometimes, we do mean content, particularly in terms of recognising the status of something as a mixture of art, entertainment, and commerce.