How Meta Can You Get: Blogging about Blogging

This weekend I was listening, thinking, and talking a bunch about blogs. I write this post at the suggestion of Ernie, who suggested that my relatively new entrance into this world affords me a freshness of view that the venerable bloggers out there don't have. I don't think so, and this build-up makes it sound like I have thought about blogging with discipline and thoughtfulness. No such luck. But I'll write it anyway, because that's how I am.

Here's what I've noticed about the blogs out there, and what I've decided I like. There seem to be a bunch of blogs that are mostly pointers to other spots on the web. There are pointers with bits of commentary. There are feature writers, who start with a link and then comment on it, adding thoughts of their own and thoughts of others that might turn out to be connected. There are navel-gazers, who write mostly about the stuff in their own heads, without much linking. Of course there are blends of these.

My reaction: I'm not very interested in the pointers, except for a very few. If you're just pointing, there's no human voice, and I can probably just Google around and find the same articles. There's a cool-hunter aspect to the linking -- BoingBoing has pointed me to lots of interesting places that I wouldn't have thought to look at -- but I don't get that excited about abdicating authority for finding things that interest me to someone else. I value the pointers with the bits of commentary more: the commentary gives me a sense of the author, and therefore helps me value the external link a little more, to decide whether I want to bother to go read it. And sometimes the commentary is enough for me. I like the feature writers a lot -- like ethicalEsq? or Professor Bainbridge -- although I value conciseness in posts and tend to skim these and say "cool -- I'll check this out when I have more time" a lot. And I have a real fondness for the navel gazers, which best describes my own blog, I think.

From a blog I want first and foremost an honest voice. I want a glimpse of daily life, the feeling of how it is to be the author. I like a bit of a theme -- Michael Toy thinks about faith a lot, and I like the way he describes his struggle, and ex-drunk is working on staying sober, and IA is keeping his sense of humor at the skyscraper lawfirm he's at, Bekah's telling it like it is in law school. I come to trust these folks, and by their writing live imaginatively through some experiences really different from mine. And I come to care about them, so although I return to hear more about those experiences, I delight in the little glimpses of the other parts of their lives.

I want clear writing -- fresh, brave, unlabored. I think I like brevity, although I enjoy longer posts too. I want regular updates. I don't want snarky political commentary, generally, although I read a little now and then. I don't particularly want legal analysis -- I get to read that enough, thanks -- although sometimes it's well done and appreciated.

Just tell me what you know, tell me what you're worried about and what you're doing and thinking. Tell me stuff only you know -- your thoughts, your reactions, your experiences -- because I can find out the rest for myself on Google, most likely right from the mouths of the experts. Maybe it's your link that will direct me there, but that should be because it's gotten you thinking or mad or puzzled, not just because you linked there without showing me why it should matter to me. I'll try to do the same. [And apologies right now for failing, in all the ways I have failed and will fail.]

Comments

[Crawford Kilian]

I'm a relative newby too, and had similar thoughts as I explored the genre. See my post "Metablogging" at http://crofsblogs.typepad.com/ckbetas/2003/07/index.html

Since writing it, I've belatedly realized that we all evolved from the "pointers to other spots" -- I now call them "hunter-gatherers."

[David Giacalone]

Hello, Sherry,

Have you noticed that there are pithy Comments and Feature Comments?

Back in mid-September I tried (tongue-in-cheekily) to come up with nominclature for the various kinds of weblog formats [check out
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2003/09/13#a266 ]. Of course, at that time, I was still willing to use the ugly little four-letter word "blog," but it is exactly the evolution to things other than being merely litle pointer logs that makes the word so inappropriate.

Peter Merholz, who first shortened "weblog" to "blog" said "I like that it's roughly onomatopoeic of vomiting. These sites (mine included!) tend to be a kind of information upchucking." http://www.peterme.com/archives/00000205.html Well, Peter, we've come a long way from that humble format. On Oct. 10, I added an Afterthought to my posting on Blogger Jargon, about creating a Language Legacy, and I'd be interesting in your thoughts you might have on it. http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2003/10/01#a307

Back to your essay: Just as very few people with busy jobs actually write weblogs with "features" or mini-essays, very few people with busy jobs actually read such features (or get back to them later). The weblog with brief commentary will probably be the most prominent format and users will find the sites that best suit their needs and interests. Like you, I want to hear a personal voice behind the information being imparted -- without that personality, I'm not likely to return.

The more that I think of it, trying to fit such a broad array of formats into the single terminology "weblog" doesn't make much sense. Having easy-to-use website software, that happens to be frequently updated and to use reverse chronological postings, is simply not a very coherent concept around which to draw conclusions about format, usage or impact. It's like trying to draw conclusions about all telephone calls or all tv shows.

[glenn]

Very good post. I will say that I agree with you on most points. I have gone on record many a time declaring my abhorrence for Politi-blogs and love for Navel-Gazing (I call them Everyday) blogs.

Since you're relatively new beware of falling in love with your hit counter. It's a sad, sad addiction. I check my at least 10 times a day. I've noticed that my mood affects my writing style and when I get moody & introspective my hits go down. When I'm moody and funny they go back up.

I'm pretty moody :)

[Beanie]

Gazing at one's navel while writing about law school...good thing I can touch type. :)

[caleb]

It's the seeing through someone else's eyes I go for. Gives me delusions of power. I try to write the way I want to read-- big content, few words. We are all busy people here, I imagine.