I recently took a sabbatical from blogging for a trio of reasons: first, to mount a full-scale reading assault on Kevin Vanhoozer's Is There a Meaning in This Text? which represented a substantial allotment of cognitive dedication to say the least. Second, to ponder deeply the implications of media ecology upon any blog writing generally and mine particularly. Third, to establish significant breathing room between posts to allow thoughts to coalesce and mature. This point is really a subset of the second and a necessary consequence of taking that second point seriously and considering its ramifications.
Prior to the late 20th Century, the time between thinking a thought and publishing that thought (in any format- specifics are not of import at this point) was broader and allowed for dialogue between an author and his editor (acting as critic) as well as a thoughtful wrestling between the author and his or her text before the text's submission to the reading world at large. This allows an author to reflect upon implications of her text, the illocutionary and perlocutionary force of passages within her text, the issue of whether she has shown responsible attentiveness to her sources, and a multitude of other such considerations which are often neglected in the world of instant publication and posting. My aim is to live with some of the ideas I'll be writing about for a season and grapple with all of the aforementioned issues by extending the time spent formulating the ideas I'll be dedicating to writing.
In light of this, my plan (if it can be dignified with that title) is to post less frequently but at greater length. Brevity may be the soul of wit, but let's face it: it's difficult to capture any idea and do it justice with less than 10,000 words. This doesn't mean I will never again post any snide machine gun strafings again (perish the thought!) but they will be few and far between, methinks. As with so many other things, we'll see how that pans out in real life, but after a thorough reflection I'm committed in head and heart to this methodology and excited to grow through the discipline it will require. Cheers!
Prior to the late 20th Century, the time between thinking a thought and publishing that thought (in any format- specifics are not of import at this point) was broader and allowed for dialogue between an author and his editor (acting as critic) as well as a thoughtful wrestling between the author and his or her text before the text's submission to the reading world at large. This allows an author to reflect upon implications of her text, the illocutionary and perlocutionary force of passages within her text, the issue of whether she has shown responsible attentiveness to her sources, and a multitude of other such considerations which are often neglected in the world of instant publication and posting. My aim is to live with some of the ideas I'll be writing about for a season and grapple with all of the aforementioned issues by extending the time spent formulating the ideas I'll be dedicating to writing.
In light of this, my plan (if it can be dignified with that title) is to post less frequently but at greater length. Brevity may be the soul of wit, but let's face it: it's difficult to capture any idea and do it justice with less than 10,000 words. This doesn't mean I will never again post any snide machine gun strafings again (perish the thought!) but they will be few and far between, methinks. As with so many other things, we'll see how that pans out in real life, but after a thorough reflection I'm committed in head and heart to this methodology and excited to grow through the discipline it will require. Cheers!
No comments:
Post a Comment