Metablogging

Ciarán O'Riodan blogs about how to blog, and his post is a good read. Most of it is solid advice, and I find there's little I disagree with; if you want to get a blog that's well-read by many people, then his advice is probably sound. So why am I posting this in my 'retorts' category?

Because I feel that blogging isn't something that should be taken too seriously. A blog is an outlet, a place to get your thoughts out; it is a bit of a combination between a column and the readers' letters section in a newspaper.

The writing style of a blog should reflect that; when I write a blog post, I don't care about what the truth is, I only care about my opinion. If I want to write the truth, I'll write a wikipedia article. If I want to read about the truth, I'll go and kill myself—because I'm not naive enough to think something like "the truth" exists in this life. And if I want to read a magazine-style article, how about I'll go buy a magazine instead of reading a blog post?

A blog post doesn't require references (beyond, perhaps, what you're replying to); a blog is a reference, one to the personal opinion of the author. If you think something is great, then as far as your blog is concerned, that something may be the best thing since sliced bread. If you think something is ugly, crap, and should be forgotten about, then on your blog it is. In more than one sense, blogs are like opinions: everybody has one.

That doesn't mean I disagree with most of what Ciarán wrote; on the contrary. Points 1 through 3, and 6 through 10, will help you develop a good writing style. I couldn't agree more on point 11, that you have to push for publication yourself; and it's certainly true that being aggregated is a good way to put your thoughts in context, and to expose yourself to a larger readership. But I vehemently disagree with his point 4:

It can take time. A good article-style blog entry can take six hours to write!

Not that I think writing a blog post should take no time at all—this particular one has been almost an hour in the making, now—but because I feel that, simply, articles, with all their references, scientific or other background, and whatnot, simply do not belong on a blog. A bunch of articles with an RSS feed is not a blog, plain and simple. So while I do agree that it can take time, I do think you're doing fundamentally wrong if your blog post takes more than, say, an hour and a half, to be written.

So, in the interest of being constructive, here are my own suggestions:

1. Don't think too much, just write. It may sound stupid, but the most important part about blogging is actually doing it, and not wondering about how or why.
2. Do reread if possible. While blog posts are usually read in a few minutes, they take much longer to write; it's easy to lose track of your line of thinking during that process, in which case you may end up with a completely incoherent post. That certainly is to be avoided.
3. Ciarán's argument that if it's worth doing, it's worth blogging about certainly holds merit, but I'd go one step further: if it's worth thinking about, it's also worth blogging about. After all, a blog is mostly a braindump, so why not?
   That's not to say every thought can be turned into a coherent blog post, and I have a bunch of half-finished unpublished blog posts on my local hard disk which I may revisit at some undefined point in the future; but the principle is there.
4. And last, but not least: don't care about what other people are doing. Your blog is your own, not someone else's; if you get an email that your content sucks, ignore it. If you get an email that you should be writing about something else instead, ignore it. You're not getting paid for your blog, are you?