The New York Times takes an in depth look at the psychosis of blogging, and I’m afraid to say that it cuts a little to close to home.
Where some frequent bloggers might label themselves merely ardent, Mr. Pierce is more realistic. “I wouldn’t call it dedicated, I would call it a problem,” he said. “If this were beer, I’d be an alcoholic.”
Well, maybe not that close to home. I mean I did manage to go for three whole days without posting when I was on my wet and rainy outdoor adventure last weekend. And I swear I was only shaking from the chill, not withdrawal. Really. I’m serious.
A couple of people have asked me recently how much time I spend doing this stuff and I sheepishly mumble something like “more than I should” or “too much.” But I also take comfort in the fact that there ain’t too much navel gazing going on here, and that every now and then someone lands in my in-box sharing their classroom blogging experiences or asking questions. I doubt that would happen if I was writing about the way it’s taken two weeks to clear the Wild Rose and weeds off this pitched slope behind our house and how it took four truckloads of mulch to prep it for planting this ground cover stuff that looks like a bad haircut and…you get the idea. And frankly, I don’t really get the blog as personal journal/daily travails thing anyway. I still like paper for that stuff.
But golly, you read the Times piece and you’d think that we’re all a bunch of self-obsessed geeks who climb into our closets with our laptops for a regular fix at the expense of our families, colleagues and even countrymen.
I really take exception to the last one.
Note: This seems to be one of those flaky Manila posts where comments don’t work. Click here to read Jeremy’s response.