Very well then, I'll admit it: I am currently under the tutelage of Addison & Steele. It is a bit amusing to see the location of their writing given at the top of each 'post': "From my apartment," or "From X coffee shop," or "Y's Chocolate Shoppe." It is so similar to listing the name of the forest or town at the top of a travel blog post.
Can any modern reader not feel some envy at Addison & Steele's success at having interesting conversations with interesting characters in the shoppes? If you put these authors into a time machine, and inserted them into the average Starbuck's outlet today, what would they think? Surely they would see 300 years of civilizational decline right in front of their faces.
In post after post these authors comment on what makes for pleasant conversation between good-natured people. And they describe the failures, too.
Should a blogger try to emulate their good-natured and polite conversations in those shoppes? Yes, when the blogger is face to face with a real person in a chair. But what about when the blogger is writing?
The 'medium is the message', after all. Writing is different than talking. Writing and reading is a conversation between two minds; the two individuals do not know each other, nor do they pretend to be each others buddies.
In contrast, talking takes place between faces and personalities. It is great when two people, face to face, put each other at ease, and win each others goodwill, and then go on to share conviviality, rather like dogs disporting with each other at the dog park.
But if the written word did nothing more than imitate the spoken word, wouldn't it be missing a real opportunity to 'add value'? Wouldn't the written word simply devolve into an exchange of routine pleasantries and platitudes? Where is the challenge, the getting to the (sometimes grim) truth of the topic of conversation? Would anyone learn anything?
Still, there has to be an upper limit to the bluntness of a writer. The reader is still a human being. Perhaps, when I have finished Addison & Steele, I will have evolved to a kinder and gentler writer. Certainly long-suffering readers have complained that I was too frank and blunt, at times. Very well then, I confess my guilt.
But some of the discrepancy results from much of the internet readership confusing a blog with the personal trivia of Facebook or the low-key chit-chat of a television studio. They seek smooth, inoffensive distraction and escapism. But a writer is not supposed to have the amiable, cheery personality of a chubby TV weatherman. Blogs should emulate -- in an abbreviated form -- the best of what the world of books has to offer.
Can any modern reader not feel some envy at Addison & Steele's success at having interesting conversations with interesting characters in the shoppes? If you put these authors into a time machine, and inserted them into the average Starbuck's outlet today, what would they think? Surely they would see 300 years of civilizational decline right in front of their faces.
In post after post these authors comment on what makes for pleasant conversation between good-natured people. And they describe the failures, too.
Should a blogger try to emulate their good-natured and polite conversations in those shoppes? Yes, when the blogger is face to face with a real person in a chair. But what about when the blogger is writing?
The 'medium is the message', after all. Writing is different than talking. Writing and reading is a conversation between two minds; the two individuals do not know each other, nor do they pretend to be each others buddies.
In contrast, talking takes place between faces and personalities. It is great when two people, face to face, put each other at ease, and win each others goodwill, and then go on to share conviviality, rather like dogs disporting with each other at the dog park.
But if the written word did nothing more than imitate the spoken word, wouldn't it be missing a real opportunity to 'add value'? Wouldn't the written word simply devolve into an exchange of routine pleasantries and platitudes? Where is the challenge, the getting to the (sometimes grim) truth of the topic of conversation? Would anyone learn anything?
Still, there has to be an upper limit to the bluntness of a writer. The reader is still a human being. Perhaps, when I have finished Addison & Steele, I will have evolved to a kinder and gentler writer. Certainly long-suffering readers have complained that I was too frank and blunt, at times. Very well then, I confess my guilt.
But some of the discrepancy results from much of the internet readership confusing a blog with the personal trivia of Facebook or the low-key chit-chat of a television studio. They seek smooth, inoffensive distraction and escapism. But a writer is not supposed to have the amiable, cheery personality of a chubby TV weatherman. Blogs should emulate -- in an abbreviated form -- the best of what the world of books has to offer.
Comments
Blogs don't all have the same purpose though. Some are chit-chat and that is fine as well. Yours, obviously, is often philosophical. Well, that's the only part that I find of interest, given that I don't have an RV to maintain.
Here is a critique though which I am boldly offering here. The current post all hangs together. You develop the intent throughout but often you jump from a philosophical beginning to another subject and I have difficulty understanding the application. When I read the comments, they tend to be about the literality of the piece and so I conclude I am correct that the important philosophical comments you made are not getting through.
I've struck up interesting conversations with people I have met briefly. No names are exchanged. They are often revealing and personal as we both know we will be going our own ways. That is a bit like a coffee house conversation, I would guess. Face-to-face with friends always puts the relationship on the line. Everything we say either builds the relationship or tears it down. Often we have to sacrifice brutal honesty for the sake of the friendship. That's OK too though you may not agree. Sometimes true affection for another person requires keeping one's mouth shut a bit. Live and let live.
Seems almost like it should be the opposite, right?
Those sentences sound like they come right out of Addison & Steele! Have you been cheating? (grin)
If I change topics completely in a post, I put a line across the screen to let the reader know.
But usually I start off pontificating on some general point, and then give an example from my life and travels. Or the other way around.
If seeing the connection between principle and example is a little difficult, well, that is OK. It might have taken me some effort to see the connection too, and that is what made it interesting to me, and partially explains why I chose to write about it.
http://biggeekdad.com/2011/11/the-three-little-pigs/