[Dean's World] Dean: How I Decide What To Blog

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Dean:
How I Decide What To Blog
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1141688686.shtml


   Neo's got a pretty good essay on [1]what prompts her to write about
   certain subjects. Her process is only vaguely like mine. I seem to be
   blessed with a segment of my brain that can process on its own. I'll
   literally be thinking about some essays hours before I write them.
   I've been known to find myself writing them in my sleep--seriously.
   They just come out.

   Back in the antedeluvian days of blogging... which is to say,
   thousands of years ago in blog-years... by which I mean, around
   2002... it was common to say that bloggers came in two types: "deep
   thinkers" and "heavy linkers." Instapundit was given as the archetype
   for the "heavy linkers" (lots of links, lots of short comments), and
   Steven Den Beste was usually cited as the quintessential "deep
   thinker," since the vast majority of his postings were essays, many of
   considerable length.

   I never really bought into this dichotomy, but, it's a loose rule of
   thumb that works. When I started this blog, it was mostly essays, but
   as time has gone on I've become more and more willing to just let fly
   with a short post of no more than "here's a cool link," and I feel
   absolutely no obligation to say more. I also like to goose the
   commenters once in a while by making a very short statement and then
   just watching what comes out of people. That's all kinds of fun.

   I also seem to be blessed with an unusually inquisitive mind. I find a
   whole lot of subjects very interesting. I suppose I'm typical of what
   they now call "ADD." I daydream a lot. I've been known to zone out of
   conversations at the most inopportune times. Some thought will strike
   as interesting and away I'll go. Which also means it's very very easy
   for me to skim through a few of my favorite sites and discover
   something I find interesting enough to say something about. I also,
   lucky me, am blessed with a number of readers who often send me emails
   saying, "you might find this interesting." They're right about 75% of
   the time.

   I will say that I agree very much with Neo about one thing though:
   when I get people who wonder why I don't write about a certain
   subject, the answer is usually as simple as "I don't feel like it." As
   I have said many times, I write about what I want to write about, when
   I want to, for whatever reason I want to. Only a very few subjects do
   I write about to please others, or, out of a sense of obligation. (My
   writing on the war effort is one such subject. Honestly I hate writing
   about it. I feel I have to, like someone's got to counter the non-stop
   drumbeat of defeatism, doom, and failure that are the news media's
   bread and butter.)

   But what's really annoying is when I get people who say, "he's not
   writing about X because he's afraid to." It is, honestly, the cheapest
   way to argue with someone. A very common variation is, "he is
   STRANGELY SILENT on this issue," which is almost always a cheap shot.
   I've begun thinking of it as the "Silence Implies Defeat Or
   Dishonesty" fallacy, in part because a commenter (I forget who you
   were, sorry) came up with that basic formula. I've had some dipwads
   actually hit me with that literally HOURS after some news story has
   hit the news wires, assuming I should have seen it before they did and
   that I have some obligation to write about it because it (supposedly)
   challenges something I said or wrote in the past. This is always
   obnoxious, and always stupid.

   Another pet peeve: people who try to tell me I'd have more credibility
   on an issue if only I'd address X, Y, or Z in one of my posts. Listen
   pally: I didn't ask for your advice on how to be credible, and I don't
   need it thanks. Furthermore, when someone assumes I haven't written
   about something, when in fact I may have written about it weeks or
   months ago already, it really ticks me off. A much more reasonable
   thing to ask is, "I haven't seen you address X, have you?"

   Still another pet peeve: people who attempt to psychoanalyze me. See,
   rather than questioning my logic or my synthesis of the relavant
   facts, they choose to pat me on the head and tell me that if only I
   understood things right I wouldn't think what I do. Honestly, there's
   no quicker way to make me think you're a jackass. You either address
   what I say on the merits or don't, but you aren't my psychotherapist,
   thanks.

   And finally, yes, my biggest gripe: people who say, "well you had time
   to write about these other subjects, why did you write about this?"
   I'll tell you why: because you're not paying me to write what you want
   me to write about.

   I write about what I want to write about, and most of the time it's
   because I find it fun, or relaxing, or emotionally satisfying. Writing
   about what someone else wants you to write about is work. It doesn't
   even matter if it's a subject you're interested in, when you are
   assigned to do it, it's work in a way that writing about whatever you
   feel like writing about simply is not.

   Which is why, by the way, I can easily churn out a 3,000 word essay
   for Dean's World, but I might resent having to write 300 words on
   something I don't enjoy at all.

   So you know, you're either along for the ride here or not. It's not
   that I can't get my feelings hurt but, honestly, if you're not
   enjoying what you read here, then, you can just close the window.

   So, what was my point in writing all this? Oh yeah. Neo's got an essay
   on blogging. Go read it. ;-)

References

   1. http://neo-neocon.blogspot.com/2006/03/why-dont-i-write-about-take-your-pick.html