Blogging is anarchy.
Anarchy of written expression.
Everyone is quite free, if they so desire, to rent out space, paid for or free, and proclaim anything they see fit to share with the world. The only constraints and feedback bloggers feel impelled to heed is the lust (or not) to be widely read, and consequently, to instigate discussions, arguments, disagreements, notoriety. I’ve said it before: 99.93% of bloggers are raging attention whores. There is no other reason to buy a parcel of cyber real estate in order to mouth off into the wilderness when you could just as easily pick up a notebook at the local Staples into which you would be free to write your drivel, day in, day out, for an audience of one. But no…an audience of one is precisely what bloggers seek to surpass. Although, I suspect an audience of two is enough for most.
Blogging’s greatest gift is also its greatest curse.
The free-wheeling exhange of ideas, great and small, unencumbered by regulation or crass commercialism, ie, editors or gatekeepers, lends blogging a sense of immediacy. It is thus an unfiltered medium through which the blogger’s words literally land directly in the reader’s lap without a meddlesome intermediary to dilute or pollute the message. In the blogosphere, the gatekeepers and editors are the readers. The readers have the ultimate say in what is recognized or ignored.
Before the internet’s nefarious existence, those who sought public exposure of their written wisdom had limited options. One needed to submit his writings to “channels of expression” which usually involved an aspect of commercialism, meaning the “channel” in question needed to churn a profit in order to stay in business. It was a business.
A writer relied on the nature of business to allow his words widespread exposure. This reliance on commercial ventures further meant that the medium needed to appeal to its customer demographic (readers) and thus it maintained a set of entrance standards which required the pieces it chose to publish to represent the channel’s editorial agenda.
Sometimes I read some of the crap I churn out and I think, “Damnit, I could sure use an editor.”
An editor would benefit me because he would supply a pair of neutral and unbiased eyes which would have no qualms about being harshly honest with me. I consider myself my own toughest judge, but even then, I find that I overlook much of my writing’s failures because of my obsessive re-reading which is a terrible habit, for it inhibits your ability to read your own material freshly and impersonally. An editor would shake his head and tell me, “Dude, reconsider this. Is this what you really want to say? It’s way too dramatic and self-conscious. You cuss too much and you can’t afford to alienate your readers any more than you do already!”
I could use a little of that tough love, man.
Many times I read some of my posts and I would love to delete the fuckers right into space. But I don’t think that is an honest manner of running a blog. We must accept our prizes as well as our trash. To deny the trash or hide it or make it disappear is to deny the jewels that live at the other end of our creative spectrum. Strangely, even my trash sometimes has its own wonderful charm and I think it would kill me to delete them. Maybe I need to flag what I consider trash with a trash icon.