What do I want to write about?

This is the big question - bigger than all the others.

Politics, history, the First World War, music, football, work.

You know what? It's not just that. I want others to write and others to be read. Not because I am a particularly nice guy or anything but because I believe if we can get millions writing and being read and all telling their little bit of the global story then I, personally, will end up a lot better informed. Don't you just love it when selfishness and alturism meet?

But saying things like that does rather change the goalposts. Indeed, I can almost imagine myself hardly writing at all. After all, I do find it something of a struggle.

The question is how? We're getting to the stage where anyone who is computer literate can set up their own blog. Hey, this one took five minutes. Writing isn't the problem. Getting read is.

In the early days of the blogosphere bloggers tended to promote one another as a matter of course. That's two years ago and things have changed. The pier to pier element seems to have declined. Nowadays we tend to dream of being Instapundited. This is regrettable because stacks of people are doing excellent work out there but not being covered.

Perhaps this is a gap I should fill. The problem is I have tried in the past to set up digest blogs. Twice, nay three times. Didn't work out. Perhaps I didn't show the necessary commitment. I was always being dragged away by Transport Blog. Well, according to the guiding principles of this blog TB is no longer a factor. Perhaps I should give it another go.

Problem is that TB is still a factor. If I were the only writer, I would combine it and Croziervision, add an In Brief bar (to act as the digest bit), move to Expression Engine and, hey presto, have everything in one place.

Why ever not? Partly because I am not the only writer and I have made certain commitments to others. But then again I get the feeling that writing for Transport Blog is something of a struggle for most of them. TB just doesn't have the readership and I think that is the sine qua non of group blogs. Without that they are doomed. Perhaps worse than the writers is the commentariat. They are an excellent bunch and I feel I would be betraying them.

The other objection is, well, it's just another one of my "ideas". I have lots of them. I am constantly changing my mind and this is not a good thing.

Come to think of it there's a third objection: consistency. I am a serial hiatuser. I have gaps. I am having one right now because I am writing here. There is no way on earth that I am going to be able to keep things going on a day-by-day basis. But is that really a problem? Sure, it limits my readership. But if the idea works then maybe others will take up the cudgels. And that's just fine. Maybe, I'll find others who can contribute - though there would then be an issue with whether they could also contribute to the Main Section. My inclination is to say "no".

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:

• 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?

And at that point I think I'm going to call it a day (or maybe less).