Classical Values :: How not to write a blog post

February 24, 2007

How not to write a blog post

I hate it when I have nothing to write about. What's even worse is when the things I don't have to write about (I mean "have" in the sense of possession not obligation) are staring me in the face. That's because "not having anything to write about" does not mean not having anything to write about; it's a euphemism for not having anything worth writing about, which, if I look closely, translates into "not wanting to write about anything."

The thing is, no one pays me to do this, right? And if they did pay me to do it, I would quit, right? My oh-so-sacrosanct artistic integrity would be compromised if I took money, unless there were truly no strings attached. But money is a string, and so are readers, which means that whether I'm paid or not, what I say is influenced by the public nature of this blog, and the identifiable nature of my persona, which is not anonymous. Thus there's no escaping the fact of inherently compromised integrity. This is not a personal diary that no one can see. There are plenty of things I feel wholly unable to write about. Major things. Things which preoccupy me which I cannot discuss with anyone. And even opinions on certain subjects I dare not share lest people, um, misunderstand. (But I'd better be careful using the word "misunderstand" lest it too become a euphemism for disagreement or simple dislike.)

The above is pretty much the way I feel about blogging most of the time, except I normally spare my feelings. Who the hell wants to know how a blogger feels, for God's sake? That's why I try (not always successfully) to spare readers the personal details and stick to logic, and when I offer my opinions, I try to distinguish them from facts. The problem with over-reliance on feelings is that this leads to an obliteration of the distinction between opinions and facts. That's because a feeling is, by its nature, neither an opinion nor a fact. It's a fact that you have the feeling, if you are sure that you have it. But how can you ever be sure how you feel? Isn't the assertion of a feeling also an opinion? If I "feel" bad about something, what does that mean? It might mean a million things, and it might reveal a lot about me to a psychiatrist or something, but does it really shed light on news, current events, or ideas? How I feel about Bush or Cheney or Obama or Hillary is only of passing interest. What matters (at least what I hope would matter for the purposes of blogging) is what I think, and whether it makes sense logically. I'm not saying feelings should not be disclosed when they are relevant, and I've spent a lot of time lately on the feeling of hate. But it just isn't controlling on anything. I've spent countless hours decrying gun control, the communitarian philosophy of treating adults as children, etc., but of what value would it be for me to just scream "GUN CONTROL HURTS MY FEELINGS"? While it is always relevant to disclose these feelings (because I think it is fair to acknowledge one's biases), it is far better to explain that gun control would threaten my lifestyle, by leaving me defenseless or (worse) by putting me in prison, and that this is why people who want me to leave me defenseless and lock me up make me feel bad.

What happened?

I thought I was going to write a blog post, and I got all distracted with the touchy-feely stuff. Where was I?

I don't think I was anywhere. In fact, I don't even think I ever touched on what was supposed to be the subject this blog post!

See how awful feelings are? Why, they get in the way of reality!

posted by Eric on 02.24.07 at 08:56 AM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/4663

Comments

That's where you and I are different. On my blog, my feelings about issues are the point. Basically, I write about current issues and controversies, just as you do, but my blog focuses on how the average American reacts to them - do I say "yeah!" or "yuch!"?

Now, once I've established WHAT I feel, then I have to write about WHY I feel that way. Then, I do have to justify my gut feeling with facts.

All of which means that I waste a lot more time on the feelings part, before going on to write about the thinking part.

Hm. Now that I think about it (rather than just feel), I like your way better.

Linda F · February 24, 2007 10:16 AM

"once I've established WHAT I feel, then I have to write about WHY I feel that way. Then, I do have to justify my gut feeling with facts."

There's no getting around feelings, and the above is pretty much the same thing I am doing, in a different order. If we did not feel, we could not think. Even though I don't trust them in terms of logic and reason, I nonetheless use my feelings as a sort of general guidepost, and then I tend to blog in order to clarify why I think what I think.

I envy bloggers like Glenn Reynolds who manage to avoid this admittedly cumbersome process.

Eric Scheie · February 24, 2007 11:30 AM

I do write with passion but it seems not to be the same sort of passion that others have for given topics. On some topics I have grown weary of the 'public debate', and put forth a different way to look at things to try and finally end such... which then puts you in: 'the land of those who are not there because you are not taking a recognized side'. Yes, a position that is not on a 'side' loses legitimacy because it is not on a side... so much for having all the options open to me, as a Citizen, for full and robust discourse on topics of the day. If you can't get the 'sides' down to the pre-determined number of '2' then you just don't count if you are in disagreement with both.

And if there is any emotional investment for that position I *then* need to give an even longer exposition of where I am coming from... and that confuses the hell out of everyone because I am not coming from *any* expected direction. So when I get a group calling on a survey about one of those topics, and I am asked if I am pro/anti... well, I am neither and don't see the question in those terms. Thus I don't get counted in the survey because it ONLY looks for pro/anti and I disagree with the premise of the debate. That is true of a number of topics from alternative energy to abortion to warfare to State's rights to self-defense. If I see a topic as vital, as in 'necessary to save the Union' I will continuously write on it from different approaches... the rest doesn't matter much to me and I will state them once or twice and be done with it. Global warming, looked once put down my thoughts and that link now serves forevermore. Same with disasters and NOLA, different topics and ones I don't need to really write about again, as the first is self-evident and the second I have put forth the major ways to address it and disagree with the directions being taken today.

Mentally, I was born into the wrong century... but as my physical conditions would have gotten me dead at a young age in anything before the advent of anti-biotics, I am stuck in this one. I do wonder why anyone looks to the 20th century for *answers* when its *problems* were not soluable by it... and we are left with those. People don't want to look for answers in any year that does not start with a 194_ or higher pre-fix, and most are stuck at 196_ or higher.

Mostly, when there is nothing that interests me, I don't write. Long days of that... and little or no energy, too... then a few scattered posts and not much... if I have no interest or no fun involved, why bother? People keep on asking the same old questions and I keep on handing out my answers, which come from a different direction. If you want better answers, ask different questions.

And if you get answers that do not fit pre-conceived ideas, maybe it is time to see if you actually understood the question you were asking. I do that *a lot* and come up with the damnedest things...

But that is just me. I do think strange thoughts.

ajacksonian · February 24, 2007 02:00 PM