The ‘Agony and the Ecstasy’ Dept.: A weblogger whose work I follow recently published some somewhat cryptic comments about reforming his approach in response to some perceived criticism about his weblog persona. To my gratitude, when I wrote him wondering how it might bear on what I’m doing here, he amplified privately to me not only to reassure me but to give me the blow-by-blow. Turns out there’s this phenomenon in which webloggers who read one another regularly enough allude (usually critically) to one another’s posts in a kind of call-and-response dance across the weblogging universe. Certainly, there’s alot of room for interpretation, but my friend’s email to me — full of links to these other bloggers’ posts — makes it clear he hasn’t just been being paranoid or overreading them. There’s just too much circumstantial evidence and temporal coincidence. He’s keeping his sense of humor about it, because as he points out his respondents are such clever writers.
I’ve been blissfully ignorant of this undercurrent in the weblogging world, partly because FmH is more about the world than the world of weblogging. I’ve never joined the cliques — you know, commenting on what the major weblogging players, referred to by their first names only, are saying or feeling. And partly, it’s because I don’t read the A-listers enough to see any correlation between any aspersions they may be casting and anything I’ve posted, even if they are there…which they probably aren’t, because they probably don’t read me, regularly if at all, either (I don’t study my referral logs very obsessively…). In fact, I have enough trouble keeping up with explicit mentions of FmH, like the recent one I noticed and responded to in Lynnette Millett’s Medley or the nod I got in David Anderson’s Metaforage. It seems many webloggers who’ve been at it long enough, each in our own way, are struggling with how thoughtful we are, or ought to be, in our work. I see it as a part of the maturational process for the weblogging medium. My friend’s email to me sees this same struggle reflected in the oft-noted recent trend of many quality bloggers to attenuate or suspend their posting activity. (Hopefully some of the more creative ones are “woodshedding” and not just hanging up their holsters.) That was what my exchange with Lynnette was about:
I feel my weblogging is more “on” when I can give you my own take on things, and most
of the posts at FmH to which readers respond are those, rather than the ones I excerpt or
point to without exposition. I sometimes barrage you with alot of frantic webclipping,
and I often feel I’d rather slow it down and be more thoughtful.
But — who was it who said something like “The perfect is the enemy of the good”? — I like how I’m doing this well enough, and it’s to be hoped you do too.
What I’m after here boils down to asking you this: if you’re out there reflecting on what I’m doing here at FmH, any cryptic animadversions are going to go right over my literal-minded head. Please let me know directly. I welcome your constructive criticism about content, form*, or even personality [grin]. And though I appeared to agree with another weblogger (whom I quoted over in my sidebar as saying, “If
anyone’s offended by anything on this
site then please do notify me
immediately. I like to keep track of
those times when I get something
right”), my reply will probably not be arch or coy. And, to you, my esteemed and anonymous weblogging colleague who it seems recently went through the long night of the blogging soul, consider yourself appreciated and supported, if I may so presume…
_______________________
*In fact, you’re welcome to explore the code for this page and tear it apart critically, if your HTML skill is less brain-dead than mine is [grin].
Addendum: Thought I’d share what another friend, and trusted critic, said about the above post after its initial appearance earlier tonight:
This evening’s post and extended thoughtful description of a somewhat
personal interaction seemed outside the general bounds of your site. It
smacked of a much more outwardly personal site than you have been running
(at least it’s not a webcam of your office). This is not necessarily bad,
though your personal-ity and thoughts and philosophies are painted more
interestingly (and maybe objectively) through your blogged items.
