What is this blog for?
What if I were new to blogging? What if I hadn't been keeping (at least) two other blogs going for the last two years? What would I do? Would I have a blog? Would I have several? What would I write about? What would it look like? Answering those sorts of questions is what this blog is all about.
Why am I asking these questions? On one level it is because you get tired of doing the same old thing day in day out. On another level it is simply because I love challenging assumptions. I am a contrarian, an iconoclast. I hate the idea that we've got things just so. On yet another level I love an intellectual challenge. And on another, I have the attention span of a goldfish.
Should I have a blog at all? Good question. A bit like: why have a blog? The answer is because I want to get my ideas across. On an even more fundamental level I want to get my ideas out. Do those two things sound the same? They are subtly different. There is a difference between the effect of publishing things that are read and publishing things that could be read. Obviously "are" is better than "could" but it is surprising how good "could" can be. I have found the simple act of getting something out that maybe no one will ever read remarkably cathartic.
But that doesn't really answer the question. Just because I want to publish doesn't necessarily mean that a blog is the answer.
[Hmm. I occurs to me just writing that that there is another reason for blogging: finding things out. Asking a question in the Blogosphere is just as acceptable as fielding an opinion.]
I could just have a web site. I could eschew the internet altogether and attempt to get ahead in the traditional media. Scrub that. Neither idea survives a nano-second's worth of thought. They are too much like hard work. Blogging is easy.
Actually, this touches on something I have been feeling for some time: there is a distinction to be drawn between blogging the technique and blogging the technology. People often think that because you have blog management software eg Blogger, Movable Type, therefore, the only thing you can do with it is blog ie top-post, comment on the news, maintain a blogroll etc. Not true. It is my belief that this technology (especially the more advanced stuff) has almost unbelievable potential. If a technology in its infancy can make a fool out of Dan Rather just imagine what is going to go when it approaches maturity.
Anyway, to recap: if you want to get your opinions/ideas/questions across blogging is a no-brainer.
Right, so, what next? Let's ask some questions:
Why am I asking these questions? On one level it is because you get tired of doing the same old thing day in day out. On another level it is simply because I love challenging assumptions. I am a contrarian, an iconoclast. I hate the idea that we've got things just so. On yet another level I love an intellectual challenge. And on another, I have the attention span of a goldfish.
Should I have a blog at all? Good question. A bit like: why have a blog? The answer is because I want to get my ideas across. On an even more fundamental level I want to get my ideas out. Do those two things sound the same? They are subtly different. There is a difference between the effect of publishing things that are read and publishing things that could be read. Obviously "are" is better than "could" but it is surprising how good "could" can be. I have found the simple act of getting something out that maybe no one will ever read remarkably cathartic.
But that doesn't really answer the question. Just because I want to publish doesn't necessarily mean that a blog is the answer.
[Hmm. I occurs to me just writing that that there is another reason for blogging: finding things out. Asking a question in the Blogosphere is just as acceptable as fielding an opinion.]
I could just have a web site. I could eschew the internet altogether and attempt to get ahead in the traditional media. Scrub that. Neither idea survives a nano-second's worth of thought. They are too much like hard work. Blogging is easy.
Actually, this touches on something I have been feeling for some time: there is a distinction to be drawn between blogging the technique and blogging the technology. People often think that because you have blog management software eg Blogger, Movable Type, therefore, the only thing you can do with it is blog ie top-post, comment on the news, maintain a blogroll etc. Not true. It is my belief that this technology (especially the more advanced stuff) has almost unbelievable potential. If a technology in its infancy can make a fool out of Dan Rather just imagine what is going to go when it approaches maturity.
Anyway, to recap: if you want to get your opinions/ideas/questions across blogging is a no-brainer.
Right, so, what next? Let's ask some questions:
- What do I want to write about?
- How many blogs do I need?
- What should it/they look like?
- What features of a standard blog should I lose, which should I add?
- What technology should I use?
- How should I go about writing?
- Which Blogospherical conventions should I follow and which should I break with?
posted by Patrick Crozier at 1:10 PM
0 comments
