No. A better analogy would be that English literature is to blog posts as Computer Science is to Web 2.0: Blog posts and Web 2.0 are very marginally influenced by -- and are studied on the margins of -- English literature and Computer Science respectively, but they're both primarily sociological phenomena.
EDIT: Looking back at the topic, I'm not sure if the submitter is aware of Dijkstra's comment about the nature of Computer Science: "Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes". Comparing Computer Science to "Pen Science" (which is presumably the study of pens) simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of what Computer Science is.
Whereas the original "pen science is to writing as CS is to web 2.0" analogy might be awfully skewed, you do have to ask yourself how frequently it is necessary to apply the kind of algorithms and techniques [that CS is in part comprised of] in a typical Web 2.0 application.
I also ask myself how frequently it is necessary to apply the plot and characterization -- or for that matter, grammar and spelling, apparently -- to blog posts. Gulliver's Travels is better writing than most blog posts, just like the FreeBSD kernel is better code than Reddit. If most Web 2.0 applications don't apply many concepts from Computer Science, it says more to me about the quality of Web 2.0 applications than it does about the importance of Computer Science.
Web 2.0 apps should of course make use of many concepts from Computer Science -- just as professional writers should make use of the latest word processing software.
But you can still have the case that the web 2.0 apps are much more interesting than the CS concepts on which they are based.
"you can still have the case that the web 2.0 apps are much more interesting than the CS concepts on which they are based"
Which is more interesting, opera or football? Personally, I'm interested in opera -- and Computer Science -- but I'm willing to accept that most people find football (and web 2.0 applications) to be far more interesting.
But you thinking that Computer Science is boring doesn't imply that Computer Science is analogous to studying pens any more than me thinking that football is boring implies that football is analogous to the mating behaviour of male elk. In both cases there is similarity at first glance -- Computer Science courses tend to focus on very simple and well-understood algorithms (quicksort, binary search, minimal spanning tree, etc.), while to someone without understanding of tactics, football appears to be nothing more than a bunch of large males running at and into each other -- but if you take the time to understand either of these you'll see that the analogies fail quite quickly.
Well maybe some advanced algorithms are important (e.g., encryption), but they are part of libraries. You do not need to worry about how they work just as you do not need to worry about the physics behind pens or the way a word processor is constructed when writing a novel.
I'm no fan of Dijkstra, at least when it comes to his views of what CS should be all about. He wanted to turn a rather boring field into something that is much worse.
The point of the analogy is that implementation -- essentially what CS is all about -- is not interesting just as the way you construct a pen or use it to write grammatical sentences is not interesting.
"The point of the analogy is that the implementation -- essentially what CS is all about..."
Computer Science is not about how to build a computer.
Computer Science is about what you can do with a computer. Google's pagerank is computer science. Recommendation systems, like Amazon and Netflix use, are computer science. Computer science is about discovering new ways to design bridges -- not about building them.
EDIT: Looking back at the topic, I'm not sure if the submitter is aware of Dijkstra's comment about the nature of Computer Science: "Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes". Comparing Computer Science to "Pen Science" (which is presumably the study of pens) simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of what Computer Science is.