Exercising without artistic license

I admire courage wherever I see it, and I can't stop marveling over the fact that Glenn Reynolds actually dared to admit he found some topics (like social security) "boring."

Is it borderline treason for a blogger of Glenn Reynolds' stature to make such an admission?

It's easy enough for me [as a second string blogger] to say what I like and what I don't like. While there have been attempts to make me write about things (usually by accusing me of ignoring them), for the most part I face no pressure, and I can write about whatever I want, and ignore whatever doesn't interest me.

The aspect of blogging that I find most tedious is the obligation to write about stuff simply because everyone else is. This is especially painful when it's something I do care about, but there's not much I can add. Yet if I don't say anything, I'll look like an insensitive, uncaring person. The Tsunami is a perfect example. Of course I cared about the deaths. I hate to see people die, expecially innocent, unsuspecting civilians. But when I have nothing to add, and I have to just write about it in order not to look like a jerk, it tries my patience.

If everyone is screaming about something, am I obligated (blogligated is a better word) to scream too? Can anyone tell me why?

While I'm at it, Glenn Reynolds linked to another honest admission -- by Ann Althouse:

I'd say people get tired of talking about politics all the time. And -- the article doesn't mention this -- the debate about Social Security was mind-numbing! Also, even though I'm especially interested in the topic, the subject of judges, religion, and the filibuster is really tiresome. What are the good topics? The other day Rush Limbaugh was going on for hours about ABC's exposé of "American Idol." He tried to tie it to all sorts of big themes about how journalism is left-wing and the left is all about character assassination, but it was a tiny topic and it seemed awfully silly to make such a big deal about it. So what if Paula slept with Corey? (Not saying she did, just that it doesn't matter.)
To tell you the truth, I don't honestly know who Paula is. Or Carey. (Although I think I saw some deadly dull pictures of them at Drudge.) Perhaps "the culture" is collapsing because of them. I doubt it. Why should I have to learn about these idiots because some bombastic pundit or another spends his time raving about them?

And guess what? I already know journalism is for the most part left wing! Do I need proof? Why, I seriously suspect that most convicted prisoners are actually guilty of the crimes of which they were convicted. And I should be horrified by the shocking details by having my nose rubbed in it, and maybe by being blamed for helping create a "climate" of "culture rot" which makes people boil their family members in oil.

I feel a bit guilty even quoting these two bloggers, because it might be taken the wrong way. Someone might even be annoyed at them for supplying me with fuel for my culturally deranged ideas, or chaos-based artistic objection to following the herd.

If so, I apologize to them.

And I probably should apologize. To them and to others. Any time you admit that you find something boring, you run the risk of insulting those who find it interesting. People are touchy about these things. I may have just alienated Paula and Corey fans, as well as people who want me to talk about social security. It's a bit like high school, when people took it personally if I didn't like their favorite rock bands. The difference is that aside from the occasional commenters, I have no real idea what blog readers like or what they're thinking. I suspect, though, that when I force myself to write a post about something "because everyone else is" (and I have nothing new to offer) that readers will not spend much time on that post. To me, that's substandard blogging, and a poor excuse for art. More on the level of all in a day's work. I committed myself to this blog for three years, though, and I'm as unlikely to develop the syndrome called "blogger burnout" as I am to stop my daily running. Or the ghastly pushups, leg raises, and chinups. I do 120 pushups with stands each day, followed by awful abdominal crunches, then chinups till I collapse in a panting heap -- but I face a self-imposed requirement of a minimum of fifty goddamned chinups. Believe me, I hate these exercises with a passion! In fact, I'm avoiding and dreading them as I write this post. So because blogging can never be as bad as that, if I can get through my exercises, I can write posts. Even on a detestable subject like Paula and Corey.

Hey, at least I'm not obligated to write about Michael Jackson. I admit, I might find social security more interesting.

MORE: Right now (thanks to this link) I'm into admiring Laura Bush. (Especially because these crackpots think she's undermining "traditional" values. Hey, this blog has nothing against tradition!)

UPDATE: Regarding the letter above, it was (according to Wesley Pruden):

posted as an "Official Statement" from the "Coalition for Traditional Values," which turns out to be a figment of a clever imagination, meant to be confused with the similarly named Traditional Values Coalition.
I apologize for calling them crackpots, and I am for once delighted to discover that "traditional values" are a figment of the imagination.

NOT SO FAST: Here's Michelle Malkin:

The First Lady resorting to horse masturbation jokes is not much better than Whoopi Goldberg trafficking in dumb puns on the Bush family name. It was wholly unnecessary.

Self-censorship is a conservative value.

I'm one of the most self-censoring people I know, and I have no problem with self-censorship as a conservative "value." What I oppose is censoring others. Can anyone tell me why opposition to censorship of others is so often considered a liberal "value?"

posted by Eric on 05.04.05 at 08:34 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/2279






Comments

Quite correct. When a blogger doesn't have a real interest in what he's posting, it shines through. Quantity matters, but quality does, too.

John   ·  May 4, 2005 11:39 AM

Note my blog's topic: books. While I read political blogs almost exclusively, that doesn't mean I'm interested in contributing to them.

B. Durbin   ·  May 4, 2005 11:52 AM

Is there a large number of HM jokes? Which one of these did the first lady tell?

huggy   ·  May 4, 2005 02:46 PM

I like your blog just the way it is. Been reading it for well over a year now, and this is probably the first time I've commented. Just wanted to let you know: keep it up! (pun intended!)

Darren   ·  May 4, 2005 07:38 PM

Thanks for all the thoughtful comments. I don't think anyone should feel obligated to read or write about things that don't interest them. No quicker way to burn out.

Huggy, I think the First Lady's ribaldry has been greatly exaggerated...

Darren, anyone who teached High School and still manages to think as clearly as you deserves a medal of some sort. A close friend quit after three years. Keep up the good work.

Eric Scheie   ·  May 5, 2005 07:30 PM

Censoring others is not a liberal value. Why do you say this?

Instafaggot   ·  May 9, 2005 07:42 AM

Hmmmm.....

I think I know why you're putting words in my mouth.

I'm just crushed by the mean and hurtful remarks you've left here, as well as the disrespectful tone you're displaying by your suggestive blog name. I'll have to seek counseling, and it will be all your fault, whoever you are!

Eric Scheie   ·  May 9, 2005 10:36 AM


March 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits