For the Worse
I've written several times before, and I still believe very firmly, that everyone ought to have a blog. (I'm not flexible on this.)
The reason is meta-cognition. Yes, I'm aware that most blogs are and will continue to be exercises in self-indulgence on the part of the person writing them. That doesn't matter; the value doesn't lie in the content, or in the size of the audience, but in the act of writing.
When you commit it to paper, it's not what you think, it's what you can defend. It's what you can explain. And even if you do nothing else than put your own thoughts into works, the very act of writing about your own thoughts makes you more aware of them and forces you to articulate them.
I'm not saying anything new here. Most of the dreaded blogs about blogging on the Internet discuss these points at length. But I think a case (and a reasonable one, at that) can be made against this line of thinking.
I know lots of people who won't blog because they're sternly against putting their own ideas out there for people to criticize. They're firmly situated in their convictions and have absolutely no interest in debating them with a bunch of strangers online.
If you believe in something, then dammit, you should believe in it, and push forward as hard as you can. There's always the risk that you'll end up crawling so far up your own butt that you lose perspective on things. But if taking your ideas online, for public scrutiny, is going to instill in you so much self-doubt that you lose sight of your own vision, then there are probably very compelling reasons not to let your opinions out into the open.
I work very hard, each and every day, to not be head-over-heels for my own ideas. Me, I think it's healthy to force yourself (and allow others) to question what you think you know, no matter how you go about trying to do it. But perhaps I lack conviction. And maybe that's a fault of mine that's largely responsible for those bouts of time in my life when I feel as though I've lost my way.
The reason is meta-cognition. Yes, I'm aware that most blogs are and will continue to be exercises in self-indulgence on the part of the person writing them. That doesn't matter; the value doesn't lie in the content, or in the size of the audience, but in the act of writing.
When you commit it to paper, it's not what you think, it's what you can defend. It's what you can explain. And even if you do nothing else than put your own thoughts into works, the very act of writing about your own thoughts makes you more aware of them and forces you to articulate them.
I'm not saying anything new here. Most of the dreaded blogs about blogging on the Internet discuss these points at length. But I think a case (and a reasonable one, at that) can be made against this line of thinking.
I know lots of people who won't blog because they're sternly against putting their own ideas out there for people to criticize. They're firmly situated in their convictions and have absolutely no interest in debating them with a bunch of strangers online.
If you believe in something, then dammit, you should believe in it, and push forward as hard as you can. There's always the risk that you'll end up crawling so far up your own butt that you lose perspective on things. But if taking your ideas online, for public scrutiny, is going to instill in you so much self-doubt that you lose sight of your own vision, then there are probably very compelling reasons not to let your opinions out into the open.
I work very hard, each and every day, to not be head-over-heels for my own ideas. Me, I think it's healthy to force yourself (and allow others) to question what you think you know, no matter how you go about trying to do it. But perhaps I lack conviction. And maybe that's a fault of mine that's largely responsible for those bouts of time in my life when I feel as though I've lost my way.