An anonymous reader has announced that s/he will no longer be reading this blog because "the narrative arc has stalled." Goodbye, and godspeed, anonymous friend.
There are lots of good reasons not to read this weblog. It is small in scope, and its author is inconsistent, judgmental, haphazard, and has many blind spots and personal flaws. She's fixated on personal growth but keeps faltering on her own path, and she's indecisive about how much to share. I've been trying to decide whether 'a stalled narrative arc' is a fair criticism. I don't think it is.
The question has been interesting to ponder, though. Because I'm pondering it on two levels: one -- does a successful (or meritorious, if you prefer, because 'successful' is such a loaded term) personal weblog HAVE a narrative arc? If so, how do the authors do that, without being contrived? I still haven't managed to do a good job predicting out which events in my life will later become significant and which ones will shine bright for a short time and then fade away and disappear. How, then, do I foreshadow and underscore and build tension to the meaningful moments in my life? I mean, do your friends have narrative arcs? When you hang out and have coffee with a good pal, do you ever get up from the table saying, "Damn, I'm out of this friendship, because the narrative arc has stalled." The closest I might come is to implore someone who has been perseverating endlessly to drop out of school or quit their job or break up with the girlfriend, to fish or cut bait already. Sometimes the narrative arc of life stalls.
But I suppose good bloggers can create a satisfying sense of motion and continuity out of the planned and unplanned moments of life. I think it's fair to say that sometimes I do that here and sometimes I don't. Dooce does it better than any blog I've read, and Stephanie Klein does a pretty good job, too. What Dooce manages, and where Stephanie Klein falters, is to convey continuity and spontaneity in an authentic way, without appearing contrived, without suggesting veils and editorial spin. I mean, the whole project of blogging, especially with the audience those two have, is contrived. You sit at your keyboard and you feel like ranting or whining or daydreaming and the sensible, cautious part of your brain says, um, yeah, you can't say that on the Internet. I think the most interesting weblogs are the ones where people post that stuff anyway. And it's a fair criticism of this blog to say that I don't, always. I have three or four posts I've written in the last week that I haven't published, just because they felt risky for one reason or another. And I know that the risky stuff is the most interesting.
On the second level, if we assume a personal weblog (and a life) needs a clear narrative arc to be worthwhile, is it fair to say that mine is stalled?