Blog Thru

Blogs have become the Internet equivalent of fast food. Quick, cheap, and convenient. Satisfying, but is it good for you? No, according to Todd Sieling's Slow Blog Manifesto:

Slow Blogging is a rejection of immediacy. It is an affirmation that not all things worth reading are written quickly, and that many thoughts are best served after being fully baked and worded in an even temperament.

I agree with Sieling in principal. Many blogs have gained enough credence to justify its authors to spin at least 2-3 drafts of a story before posting it. Some not. Unless blogging is your day job, it's nearly impossible for an "amateur" blogger to devote the level of attention Sieling suggests.

I've tried careful blog revision before. It doesn't lend to better blogging. Just insanity. Because the moment I posted something of quality (not my usual bland commentary with a link to better commentary), was the moment I tried to top it. (I imagine most bloggers have struggled with this at some point.) I spent more time spinning my creative wheels than generating any content. So much so, that I flirted with shutting the whole damn thing down on a weekly basis.

Siva Vaidhyanathan, author of the Sivacracy blog, folded in September under similar self-infliction:

"When you run your own blog, there's a lot of imaginary pressure to publish constantly, to be witty, to be good, and nobody can live with that."

Amen to that, brother.

To maintain my sanity (and my blog), I consolidate my opinion to an average of 2-3 sentences per post. In doing so, I've generated more activity in the past month than the previous three total. More importantly, I'm as happy with the output as I am with the quality. Besides, who really wants to hear what some douchebag in Wisconsin thinks in depth about the world's economic peril? Right. No one.

This post however, is working against my own argument. Or not. I started writing it at 8:11 AM. Some two hours later and this is all I have to show for it. Complete shit.

You want substance, read a book.