Navel Gazing
February 20, 2004
Not only does Heather dislike the environment — “we shouldn’t sacrificed our standard of living,” she said — but she also has strong feelings about my blog. This was enough to start a heated conversation on MSN last night.
Heatha: your blogs are intimate for you, nobody else
Tudor: you can’t sense … intimacy?
Heatha: no, not at all
Tudor: how strange you are ….
Heatha: your blogs all read the same. the same type of style. there is no depth. you gloss over subject matter to make way for a few catch phrases
Catch phrases? Lack of depth?! Outraged, I moved my fingers over the keyboard with angry and brilliant eloquence. “QEROPUSD ;KLJWETROPIU 13b 4!!#@$,” I typed.
It took me a couple of startled seconds to calm down and retype my message. “No, I don’t think I overuse clichés,” I wrote somewhat more civilly. She was forcing me to explain my writing, and I don’t think I sounded either convincing or genuine.
I tried to explain to her that writing for the web is significantly different from any other type of writing, and thus it requires a new approach and a new style. People skim through webpages without actually reading them, and even then some fuckers will still complain about boredom. The only way to keep readers happy, I argued, is to use a simple, journalistic style.
And yes, it takes both style and effort to take complex, personal stories and to crystallize them into a single, uncomplicated entry. It also takes restraint and understatement, and I’ve been struggling with these concepts ever since I started my blog. I don’t want to tell people about my life — I want to show them what’s happening with vivid imagery, and thus give them something concrete to hang on to.
It’s easy to write sentimental platitudes, but sometimes it’s nearly impossible to create a crisp image using nothing more than words — that’s why I sometimes cheat and use a camera.
But even though I had all these explanations swarming to escape through my fingers, last night I only managed fumble my words when talking to Heather. “It’s all about style,” I wanted to shout, but that sounded too cliche.
Posted by Tudor at 11:20 PM in Writing & the Media | TrackBackThe nature of a blog begs for some continuity doesn’t it?
Posted by: Jason on February 21, 2004 at 09:31 AMYou’re always weaving the same narrative, yes, but each episode has to be its own clearly articulated thing. I’m not sure if continuity is as important as clarity (though is certainly helps).
But you’re right in a way. The first tip given by A List Apart is “write for a reason.” In other words, there has to be some way of structuring the narrative to give it some coherence, flow. At the same time, readers may join the story at any random moment, thus destroying the continuity.
Posted by: Tudor on February 21, 2004 at 09:53 AMSo the same style / depth is not necessarily the fault of the author, but the reader / contributor.
Posted by: Jason on February 21, 2004 at 10:16 AMPerhaps heather likes structure too much, and a blog, especially your blog, can’t offer her the linear narrative structure that a book, or piece of formal writing does. I agree with Jason, it’s not your fault, and there really is nothing to ‘defend’ as such.
Posted by: Borrelli on February 21, 2004 at 11:39 PMI see a constant style as the artist’s voice. If you don’t like the voice you can stop listening, but it’s useless asking Kafka or Hemingway to start writing like different people.
Yes Mike, it’s interesting that you compare a blog with a structured, linear narrative — I think you’re on to something here.
The expectations someone brings to a piece of work ultimately influences their evaulation of that work. Thus, if people expect a blog to run like a linear (predictable?) narrative and it doesn’t, then the dissonance between the real and the expected causes problems …
Posted by: Tudor on February 22, 2004 at 04:34 PMPerhaps structured and linear is synonymous with comprehensible. And the things that are non-linear are just … well, plain chaotic shit.
I don’t think people just expect a blog to run like a linear narrative; I think people expect life to run in a linear fashion. It’s nice to know that the laws of physics remain the same day after day— that there is some continuity.
But religion born out of our great non-linear existance? By taking all the WTF-isms in life and uniting them in some cosmology? … until people find it oppressing / depressing and turn to existentialism.
Those bastards. ;)
Posted by: Jason on February 26, 2004 at 02:24 AM