The impending arrival of my first blogiversary next month, several recent (and not so recent) events, and my own introspective nature demand that I ponder blogging itself today. Over the course of this post, I ask myself some hard questions about blogging. I would greatly appreciate any input my readers can offer, including answers different from my own. (Leave comments or email me, if you prefer.)
Why did I begin blogging in the first place?
Around this time last year, I had decided that I wanted to get into opinion writing in some capacity. During graduate school, I'd done so as a sideline, first writing letters to the editor and then my own regular political column. This writing career, as short as it was, was quite successful, with one of my pieces even being picked up by a national outlet. People typically either loved or hated what I wrote. Since our opinion editor always did a great job of editing beforehand, this told me that what I wrote was very thought-provoking. I was succeeding at something that I enjoyed doing and that was almost second-nature anyway. Based on this experience, I envisioned myself as, like Charles Krauthammer, writing on the side, while building a career in a field related to science.
But I faced several obstacles. First, I was out of practice. I had little time for anything else in the year that it took to write my dissertation. (And scientific writing is a totally different beast than opinion writing. While the content may be interesting, the style is completely different. Think: dense, pedantic, dry, and BORING. In fact, the style is just about the only type of writing I hate.) Second, I was a complete unknown. Where would I get a column published? On top of the matter getting one's foot in the door, writing an opinion piece in a publication that hopes to turn a profit is a wee bit more demanding than writing for a campus paper. Third, until I could begin a career in a less time-intensive field, my schedule -- if you can say I have one -- would remain full and unpredictable. Even if I were to miraculously hit the jackpot of some publication wanting something from me on a regular basis right away, the problem would remain: Would I be able to honor a regular time commitment?
Awhile before that, I'd had a conversation with my good friend Raymund, and he talked about people called "bloggers" who achieved enough recognition by such media outlets as Fox News to launch their own careers. I mentally filed this away until one day at work, bored out of my mind during a break in an experiment, I looked into blogging on the internet. Shortly after that, I decided to start my own blog. This looked to be the solution to many of the problems I faced as an aspiring opinion writer.
But is it?
This is the question I want to examine today. I see conflicting evidence on this score. I enjoy blogging and intend to continue, but if it is to be anything other than a stand-alone hobby, I have to think about this matter. I need to focus my efforts towards a definite purpose.
What have I gained from blogging so far?
Being extremely introverted by nature, I failed to anticipate the greatest benefit blogging has bestowed upon me: friendship. I certainly figured I'd engage in some intellectual give-and-take, and get some kind of feedback on my writing, but until I started blogging, I had no idea what a social activity it was. For awhile, I wrote in the near-total obscurity I expected, but fairly soon, friendly strangers started showing up, leaving comments, and linking to my blog.
Curious about who all was reading this thing, I started tracking site visitors and discovered that I had a small following. Over time, some of these readers became friends and I have even met a couple of them in person. I would probably have never met any of these people had I not started blogging: Not a single one is from Houston! My friends are very important to me. This is why I always have and always will acknowledge my friends -- from blogging as well as those who knew me beforehand and follow my blog -- any time I reflect upon my blogging career.
But apart from that very important consideration, what has blogging done for me?
In his final post (link to expire soon) at Anger Management, Don Watkins plays the clairvoyant when he says:
You'll notice that I didn't credit blogging with improving my writing. That's for a good reason: blogging has been a blessing and a curse to me as a writer. The blessing has been that it has certainly improved my writing in several aspects. One of the major benefits is that my first drafts often read better than most people's final drafts.
But that came at a price. While my posts have been insightful and lucid, with certain exceptions, they have not been clear in the Objectivist sense. Clear writing doesn't mean that you can grasp some isolated aspect of the writing. It means that the writing forms an integrated whole -- that each element sheds light on your single theme, leaving the reader with a single, proved, convincing idea. Rather, my posts have been -- as I have previously said -- the equivalent of thinking on paper. That has a certain value, but it is not good writing. Good writing requires intensive editing. So while I've been posting almost every day for three years, the most essential writing skill, my ability to edit, has gone undeveloped.
And that has consequences. I recently submitted my forthcoming Axiomatic article on risk and decision-making to several Objectivists for review. I was proud of it, as it contained a plethora of new integrations and insights. But a few days later, one of the editors sent me an email that pointed out that, qua writing, it was a disaster. There was no clear theme uniting the piece, much of the material (more than half) had almost nothing to do with me ostensive subject, I failed to motivate the reader, I left important questions unanswered, and treated important subjects hastily, etc. None of those were thinking problems, but they were huge writing problems. The root of the problem was that while it made for a great blog post, it was not good writing.
To the list of benefits, I would add that blogging has also helped me in a few other respects. I have had to keep up with current events, something very important if one is to comment intelligently on them. I have had to think more about current events than I would have were I merely, say, reading the paper. The blog has also served as a clipping file, allowing me to greatly reduce the amount of time I have had to spend researching columns on a couple of occasions. I have also, in the process of researching my posts, become familiar with what resources the web offers. I have noticed that I can spit out a short post much more quickly now than I could at first.
But these additional benefits do not alone justify my continuing to blog. Although I have used the blog to write columns, I now
have better research skills. I do not need to blog to continue having that benefit, or to improve upon it. I could participate in forums like those at Objectivism Online as a way of becoming more proficient at applying Objectivism to the issues of the day. And, as a clipping file, a blog is rather inefficient as I recall Paul Blair noting in
his final post. Furthermore, as with Don Watkins, I suspect, based on my experience in editing a column I once wrote for
The Undercurrent, that my writing may suffer from the same problem with clarity that he complains of. This last is not attributable to blogging, but blogging will not make it go away, either.
Aside from maintaining social contacts, then, is there any reason for me to blog? Probably. (I'm thinking out loud here.) The most important lasting benefit I derive, as a writer, from blogging is that having a blog
does make me write, at least
something, on a regular basis. Until I am able to take a job that makes fewer and more predictable demands on my time (long story, but this is going to be very hard for a couple of years), blogging remains the best way for me to make sure I am writing. And I have noticed that having an audience functions for me a little like having a "jogging buddy" might for someone who needs the regular exercise.
But what if I want to build up muscle rather than lose weight? I shouldn't jog, then. I should lift weights and find a spotter. I am writing regularly. The regularity is good, but is the type of writing also good?
What do I hope to gain from blogging?Watkins addresses this facet of blogging, too, although because his objectives are not identical to mine, I need to dig deeper.
So what have I gotten out of blogging the past three years? I would say the major value has been to enable me to build a name for myself so that I can now focus on more profitable activities. It has also enabled me to clarify my thinking on a vast number of topics.
Last things first: Even were I to participate in forums (as a place for the "chewing" of ideas I do in blogging) as I mentioned above, I think that having a blog is still beneficial in that regard. For example, one thing I have noticed over time is that my thinking on the conservative political movement has changed dramatically over the time I have been blogging. How many Objectivists are going to want to discuss politics
ad infinitum in a forum, anyway? Probably none. On top of that, many of the individual items I have blogged wouldn't even merit a forum thread. But in the process of composing coherent commentary on so many things, I have come to appreciate over time the fundamental similarity between the left and the right on a level I doubt I could have achieved on a forum. This potential to continue to benefit in this way (while also forcing myself to write) makes continuing to blog worthwhile in and of itself.
On that score, the process of writing this post serves as an example. I have not yet arrived at the original purpose for writing this post! (That comes next.) Part of my motivation for writing this post came from a serious question I had as to whether it was really a good idea for me to continue blogging. In considering the issue systematically, I have uncovered an enormous benefit that, in my current situation at least, answers that question and puts the next in perspective. (For that matter, it shows that the next question is a separate matter.)
Having said that, here's the question, finally, that got me thinking today: Will blogging help me build a good name for myself so that I, too, will one day face the very nice dilemma that Don Watkins solved by joining Noodle Food?
Part of the answer may indeed be "Yes." Watkins did it and even shows the way insofar as our objectives are the same. What I need to figure out is whether my particular goals might change the path I have to take or even make the answer for Gus Van Horn into a negative. And no, I'm not suddenly turning into one of those dolts who refers to myself in the third person. The use of my pen name has a purpose that will become clear shortly. In sum: Do my goals differ enough from Watkins's that I can't learn from what he has done?
I do not know Don Watkins aside from having read his blog, but as far as I can tell, his main goal in writing is to write primarily for Objectivists. Mine is to get columns published for the general public, something that Robert Tracinski, who is (or was) syndicated has shown to be possible (and has made to look a lot easier than it is).
I think I'm beginning to see the answer here, but just to be sure, I am going to backtrack for a moment to what precipitated this bit of reflection.
A Question of TactOver my almost-year of blogging, I have become aware that my writing can range from the hard-hitting at best to -- (cough) ranting -- at worst. I have this information from someone I trust, but I would like to know whether this problem crops up often. Simple awareness of this pitfall does not necessarily mean that I catch myself every time or even very often. I would like to know (
via email, please) whether I come across this way to readers who, regardless of whether they consider themselves Objectivists, do not have a bone to pick with Objectivism. If I do, I would greatly appreciate the favor of some specific examples. While there are some who will slam any Objectivist simply because he is an Objectivist, the stereotype of the ranting Objectivist does, alas, have a basis in fact. If I am a part of this basis, and not simply because my views are "weird", I want to put an end to that.
And So We Return to the Larger QuestionCan I build a good name for Gus Van Horn as a writer, given my goals, by blogging first? Perhaps. Perhaps not. At worst, I can continue blogging under my pseudonym, using my real name for actual columns. It will be hard, though. My appeal to nearly any leftist audience and to religious conservatives will probably be very limited. There are a few things I can do now, without compromising my principles, to offset this problem, and I will implement these some time in the next few weeks, but I have no illusions about the steepness of that mountain. That is a mountain that, without help from prominent Objectivists, I will be climbing alone.
But even an enormous following will not amount to a hill of beans if I do not have a firm grasp of the philosophy I advocate. (I regard myself as a seasoned veteran, but not an expert by any stretch.) And it is in correcting this problem that I happen also to see a way to avoid climbing the mountain alone. Unlike most other Objectivist bloggers, I do not take part in discussions at Objectivist forums. Unlike several, I have not taken courses at the Objectivist Academic Center. I may have to wait another year before I have the time to do the OAC, but I can start participating in forums now. I have noticed through lurking that these can provide good starting material for posts and that some forums offer the chance to interact with and become known to prominent Objectivists.
This last paragraph suggests to me an alternate strategy to the one I have taken so far. Focus on becoming more knowledgeable and better-connected as an Objectivist while thinking of the blog as more of a place to think than as a way to "get discovered". This seems to be the best way to proceed. I know that I am a talented writer. I suspect that I am an undisciplined writer. I am still a mostly unknown writer. I am not quite ready for prime time. Yet.
Whether or not I eventually write columns as Gus Van Horn, I can become a better writer as Gus Van Horn. I will continue blogging, but I will do so with my blog in its proper perspective.
-- CAV
