Saturday, November 19, 2005

Justification for having a blog. It is a form that I have made lots and lots and lots of fun of in times past. This is true. Especially "blogs" under the title "LiveJournal" (I'm not sure which preceded the other). My basic issues with it broke down into two parts:

(1) The nature of a journal is private. So why are you typing something "private" and then putting it on the internet where absolutely everyone can read it?

(2) The presumption involved in assuming people want to read exactly what you did today, etc etc etc.

I think the first part is what I took issue with more than the second. Especially if issues discussed were excessively private, which is awkward though at times humorous to read. And especially if someone's going to take issue with people for reading or commenting on private things that the writer published on the internet already. Andrea McWethy's journal was the gold standard for this, and has since, I believe, become private.

And then, of course, I made a webpage but didn't want to call it a blog, so I was hypocritical in all but name only, which doesn't make too much sense...and then I got lazy with dealing with formatting, so I just did this instead.

So from having gone from mocking critic to casual appreciator to writer myself. Some things make this ok in my mind...the first issue, I will still stand by- a weblog is not just a journal, or a "livejournal" (whatever that's supposed to mean), but a public journal. And that must be taken into account. Unless you want everyone to know your private issues, just don't put them up for display. But of course, if you do, feel free. That's just not for me. For that same reason I never included particularly personal things on my website. So someone could learn about me, but things I wouldn't talk about in casual conversation with someone, I wouldn't publish on the internet.

Additionally, between Freshman year and the present, there've definitely been a handful of blog type sites that I've particularly enjoyed, and this addresses issue number two. Is it presumptious to assume that people actually want to read your stuff? Not at all! A few examples of consistently kept, interesting blogs spring to mind, e.g. those of Laura D'Amico, Mary Meler, and Kevin Howard (though Kevin's site for any number of reasons is in a different category of its own). And so maybe people might want to read what I write, and it's not particularly arrogant for me to think that that's the case.

It seems, too, that the "blog" is a new type of expressive medium with its own tricks and quirks. It has already gained some level of national acceptance as a new form of journalism, perhaps in a similar way that Wikipedia, for me, is becoming an acceptable research tool...facts and details can't be guaranteed to be correct absolutely...but it's a direction and a place to start. As someon who doesn't write essays, opinion articles or anything else of the like for people to read, maybe this is a useful medium to exercise that sort of thing. Or just aimlessly talk about my day, or myself. Whichever.

The only potential annoying thing I can see here is if, in casual conversation with persons, I tend to repeat the same things that they may have read from this site. That would be really annoying, and if this happens in conversation, please tell me.