I take great pride in the fact that I don't whine or cry about silly things on the internet. Or really anywhere, actually. I am terrified of being one of those types of guys.
That makes it very hard to write about myself or my writing on this blog. I've false-started a few times on here the last couple weeks because I started sounding too whiny and 'pay attention to me' and that's just not my style. I roll my eyes when other people do it, and I won't contribute to the slow erosion of masculinity that we see all over the US now.
So, to circumvent this issue, I will present, instead, bullet points. This will allow me to cut right to the point without the emotional lubrication that my provocative vocabulary can offer to my emotional weaknesses.
Here goes:
- I've been posting almost every day on my multitude of blogs, and have enjoyed the process, probably much to your personal detriment
- I've already been trolled once for my self-promotion, and as usual, it was a nearly-incomprehensible manner; honestly, being trolled is a good sign
- I'm amazed how busy I am now, and I'm concerned about the status of a couple projects I have in early stages; nothing to report about them unless they actually get off the ground
- I'm sometimes tempted to talk about my in-progress fiction on here, but I never think that's a good idea; it works for some writers, but not for me; there are certain things in my brain that I never talk to anyone about, for fear that they might have feedback on it, and stories are among those, now; I had more than a few stories that were workshopped to death back in college, and I'm never doing it again
- I've, over the last few weeks, unshackled myself from being one of those oversensitive twats that claim that they have to have exactly a particular environment, or they just can't write; I've purposely made myself write some of these posts in less-than-ideal environments, and there was only one that, physically, I couldn't do; I always disliked this quirk about myself and other writers, and I'm glad to have murdered it
- this has also, and I just realized this, to find that I can write without boozing; I've been a little concerned about that for over a year, but it's coming together, and the rusty old fiction gears are finally turning again, and I've birthed my first good science fiction idea in years in the last couple weeks
- going to check out the Chernobyl diaries today; there's a whole lot of great fiction that has sprung from what happened in Chernobyl, so I'm eager to see Oren Peli's take on it
- been traveling a lot, and I enjoy the expansion in perspective that forces; I don't like being pushed out of my routine or comfort zone, and this is a way to make that exercise fun and enlightening
- really pissed off a buddy with a post I put up the other day; has me questioning where to draw the line between life and art; I love writing, but it's not worth fucking up friendships
Questions for other writers
- where do you draw the line in including your life and your friends' lives in your non-fiction?
- how much do you discuss your in-progress fiction?
Questions for the rest of you knuckleheads
- any feedback on the blog posts?
Thanks for reading!
Blaine
Buy my book!
On sale now!
20120525
20120523
Blogging About Blogging
It's been interesting writing every day again, and I must say that I've enjoyed it, and I've been pleased by the feedback. Traffic has ticked up nicely, and new opportunities have been borne of the efforts.
One of those opportunities can be found over at the Galaxy Next Door gaming site. Give it a read, and I hope you enjoy it. I'll be writing a column for them every Wednesday, and it seems like a pretty good fit thus far.
That will replace my Wednesday updates here. I'm not going to be actively promoting this blog anymore, but I will still be updating it. I'm guessing it may be lots of brief updates throughout the week. I'm not sure. I'm intentionally not having a plan for this space anymore, so that I have at least one blog that has no pressure or expectations attached to it. I know that sounds silly, but I like the idea of having a space in which I'm not looking at numbers or refining my craft. Though I'll still be looking at numbers because I'm obsessive about numbers and I think in numbers, and numbers rule my world in ways that would make you ask me to stop having sex at you.
That is all. Check out the new column and comment away over there!
-Blaine
20120511
What The Avengers Did Right (part 2)
Where was I? Oh yes.
So, this one time, I was trying to write this entry on my netbook (remember those?) while in bed. It was so funny.
I'm back on the mega 19-inch laptop, and driving in comfort. This is the greatest not-really-for-a-lap-laptop ever. It's great for everything but portability, even if I do lug it up to my in-laws every time we visit (portable SWTOR, yo.)
But I digress ...
So, previously on Self-Indulgence Manifested, I rapped a bit about the films that led up to The Avengers, except for Thor, which was so middle-of-the-road that it somehow escaped my acerbic droppings. Now, since I'm a full week late, let's talk about the actual film.
First, let me start by explaining something about the writer and director (yes, Zak Penn also somehow got his name attached to the screenplay, but there is no way that the dumbfuck who excreted the script for X-Men: The Last Stand and the equally stanky 2008 The Incredible Hulk had more than a passing involvement here. Well, I guess he has a lot to do with the excellent show, Alphas, so maybe he suddenly learned that characters and story is integral to a decent script. Whatever.) Joss Whedon is the greatest creative mind of the last 20 years. No shit. I can prove it, too.
Take a moment and go watch the TV series, Firefly, and then the film conclusion, Serenity.
See? I told you!
Joss Whedon has mastered several key things over the years: playing characters off each other, showing not telling, and timing. He was already pretty good at this when he started the Buffy series years ago, he got really good in the later Buffy/Angel years, perfected it on Firefly, backslid somewhat on Dollhouse, and then made the greatest superhero film I've ever seen with 'The Avengers.'
Yes, yes, Batman fans, I know your boy, Nolan, made the best superhero film ever when he made Dark Knight, and yes, there's gonna be a better one this summer when Darker Knight: Knight Harder comes out, but let's be real here for a moment. The Dark Knight is a great film, no doubt, but I really can't watch it all that often. For one, Christian Bale, when he's doing 'the Batman voice,' sounds like he's having an orgasm while a kidney stone is stuck in his urethra, and really, I don't think the film is all that enjoyable. It's a great film, but I just don't love watching it. It's dark as hell, and I need relaxation now more than ever. The Dark Knight isn't relaxing, but I'm so glad that I've seen it, and that I own it on Blu-Ray. So I can watch it about once a year or two.
The Avengers, on the other hand, is fun without being idiotic. That's a rarity these days, in an age in which every 'summer film' has to cater to the lowest possible denominator (thanks for that, Michael Bay), and the closest we ever get to edgy anymore is yet another fucking Tim fucking Burton film (series of dark, silly image sans narrative coherence) that's all black and goofy and dark and whatever and ... zzz ...
The Avengers is the Kobe Bryant of summer action films. It doesn't give a fuck. It's going to take this whole goddam mess of Marvel characters, and whatever else Disney wants to dump on it, and it's going to win the fucking championship. This film, in 2+ hours, held a clinic for all the preceding films on how to do it right.
Even Captain America was interesting, and he's the most boring comic book hero ever.
While yes, I still mourn the disregarding of the excellent portrayal of the Hulk from Ang Lee's film, the Hulk here is as great as established cannon will let him be. Tony Stark is even better than in his own film. Thor was fun. I was actually startled by how compelling Black Widow and Hawkeye were.
However, the strength of these characters and their arcs was how well Joss played them off each other. Yes, the action was amazing, but the best scenes were when these characters were just interacting (except for one god-awful massive argument scene that is mercifully brief). It takes guts and mad skillz to make dialogue interesting in a film like this, and Joss makes it look perfectly natural.
A lot of credit goes to the actors, too. They play these scenes with grace, and look like they're really having fun.
I thought Mark Ruffalo was perfectly cast, by the way.
The best things about this film, though, was the pacing and the timing. The pacing of the film was spot-on. Lately, I've come away from one film after another feeling like I just got a clip show of the highlights of the beginning of an interesting story. When I finished this film, I felt satisfied. I felt like I'd seen a full story, and none of it felt rushed or abbreviated.
The timing within each scene itself aided that tremendously. Many people give Joss a lot of credit for being great with dialogue, and while that's true, I think his ability to time not only lines, but actions and moments, is his best in-scene ability. Think back to the most enjoyable Hulk moments in this film, and you'll know what I'm talking about.
Joss Whedon handles structure better than anyone, which is what ties all this together. He's able to see the, literally, the 'big picture,' but he's also able to zoom way in, break a scene down, beat for beat, and have every moment count for something. I think the audience picks up on that, and is then more than willing to buy in for the whole ride.
I railed about 'character arcs' a lot in the previous entry, and as I alluded to before with my Kobe Bryant analogy, there is more done in this film with six character arcs than in any one previous 'Avengers character' filn, except for, maybe, the first Hulk and the first Iron Man.
OH! BY THE WAY! NO STUPID-ASS SHAKY CAM WITH EXTREME CLOSEUPS! NOT EVEN DURING ACTION SCENES! I COULD ACTUALLY TELL WHAT WAS HAPPENING ONSCREEN! I imagine this aided in my enjoyment of this film, as opposed to, I dunno, The Hunger Games, which was ruined by the camera work.
In closing, this is purely great storytelling, and I can't think of higher praise for a film.
If you haven't seen it, do so, and let me know what you think. AND STAY THROUGH THE CREDITS!
If you have, what'd you think? On top of that, what'd you think of it relative to the preceding character films? How has your favorite Avenger fared so far? What do you want to see in the future from this franchise?
This has made me all the more excited for Shane Black writing and directing the next Iron Man film.
I have no idea what I'm writing about next here. Any ideas? Whatever it is will be here next Wednesday (but check out my other blogs on the other weekdays!)
Thanks for reading, and please leave a comment!
-Blaine
Buy my book!
So, this one time, I was trying to write this entry on my netbook (remember those?) while in bed. It was so funny.
I'm back on the mega 19-inch laptop, and driving in comfort. This is the greatest not-really-for-a-lap-laptop ever. It's great for everything but portability, even if I do lug it up to my in-laws every time we visit (portable SWTOR, yo.)
But I digress ...
So, previously on Self-Indulgence Manifested, I rapped a bit about the films that led up to The Avengers, except for Thor, which was so middle-of-the-road that it somehow escaped my acerbic droppings. Now, since I'm a full week late, let's talk about the actual film.
First, let me start by explaining something about the writer and director (yes, Zak Penn also somehow got his name attached to the screenplay, but there is no way that the dumbfuck who excreted the script for X-Men: The Last Stand and the equally stanky 2008 The Incredible Hulk had more than a passing involvement here. Well, I guess he has a lot to do with the excellent show, Alphas, so maybe he suddenly learned that characters and story is integral to a decent script. Whatever.) Joss Whedon is the greatest creative mind of the last 20 years. No shit. I can prove it, too.
Take a moment and go watch the TV series, Firefly, and then the film conclusion, Serenity.
See? I told you!
Joss Whedon has mastered several key things over the years: playing characters off each other, showing not telling, and timing. He was already pretty good at this when he started the Buffy series years ago, he got really good in the later Buffy/Angel years, perfected it on Firefly, backslid somewhat on Dollhouse, and then made the greatest superhero film I've ever seen with 'The Avengers.'
Yes, yes, Batman fans, I know your boy, Nolan, made the best superhero film ever when he made Dark Knight, and yes, there's gonna be a better one this summer when Darker Knight: Knight Harder comes out, but let's be real here for a moment. The Dark Knight is a great film, no doubt, but I really can't watch it all that often. For one, Christian Bale, when he's doing 'the Batman voice,' sounds like he's having an orgasm while a kidney stone is stuck in his urethra, and really, I don't think the film is all that enjoyable. It's a great film, but I just don't love watching it. It's dark as hell, and I need relaxation now more than ever. The Dark Knight isn't relaxing, but I'm so glad that I've seen it, and that I own it on Blu-Ray. So I can watch it about once a year or two.
The Avengers, on the other hand, is fun without being idiotic. That's a rarity these days, in an age in which every 'summer film' has to cater to the lowest possible denominator (thanks for that, Michael Bay), and the closest we ever get to edgy anymore is yet another fucking Tim fucking Burton film (series of dark, silly image sans narrative coherence) that's all black and goofy and dark and whatever and ... zzz ...
The Avengers is the Kobe Bryant of summer action films. It doesn't give a fuck. It's going to take this whole goddam mess of Marvel characters, and whatever else Disney wants to dump on it, and it's going to win the fucking championship. This film, in 2+ hours, held a clinic for all the preceding films on how to do it right.
Even Captain America was interesting, and he's the most boring comic book hero ever.
While yes, I still mourn the disregarding of the excellent portrayal of the Hulk from Ang Lee's film, the Hulk here is as great as established cannon will let him be. Tony Stark is even better than in his own film. Thor was fun. I was actually startled by how compelling Black Widow and Hawkeye were.
However, the strength of these characters and their arcs was how well Joss played them off each other. Yes, the action was amazing, but the best scenes were when these characters were just interacting (except for one god-awful massive argument scene that is mercifully brief). It takes guts and mad skillz to make dialogue interesting in a film like this, and Joss makes it look perfectly natural.
A lot of credit goes to the actors, too. They play these scenes with grace, and look like they're really having fun.
I thought Mark Ruffalo was perfectly cast, by the way.
The best things about this film, though, was the pacing and the timing. The pacing of the film was spot-on. Lately, I've come away from one film after another feeling like I just got a clip show of the highlights of the beginning of an interesting story. When I finished this film, I felt satisfied. I felt like I'd seen a full story, and none of it felt rushed or abbreviated.
The timing within each scene itself aided that tremendously. Many people give Joss a lot of credit for being great with dialogue, and while that's true, I think his ability to time not only lines, but actions and moments, is his best in-scene ability. Think back to the most enjoyable Hulk moments in this film, and you'll know what I'm talking about.
Joss Whedon handles structure better than anyone, which is what ties all this together. He's able to see the, literally, the 'big picture,' but he's also able to zoom way in, break a scene down, beat for beat, and have every moment count for something. I think the audience picks up on that, and is then more than willing to buy in for the whole ride.
I railed about 'character arcs' a lot in the previous entry, and as I alluded to before with my Kobe Bryant analogy, there is more done in this film with six character arcs than in any one previous 'Avengers character' filn, except for, maybe, the first Hulk and the first Iron Man.
OH! BY THE WAY! NO STUPID-ASS SHAKY CAM WITH EXTREME CLOSEUPS! NOT EVEN DURING ACTION SCENES! I COULD ACTUALLY TELL WHAT WAS HAPPENING ONSCREEN! I imagine this aided in my enjoyment of this film, as opposed to, I dunno, The Hunger Games, which was ruined by the camera work.
In closing, this is purely great storytelling, and I can't think of higher praise for a film.
If you haven't seen it, do so, and let me know what you think. AND STAY THROUGH THE CREDITS!
If you have, what'd you think? On top of that, what'd you think of it relative to the preceding character films? How has your favorite Avenger fared so far? What do you want to see in the future from this franchise?
This has made me all the more excited for Shane Black writing and directing the next Iron Man film.
I have no idea what I'm writing about next here. Any ideas? Whatever it is will be here next Wednesday (but check out my other blogs on the other weekdays!)
Thanks for reading, and please leave a comment!
-Blaine
Buy my book!
20120509
What the Avengers Did Right (part 1)
Real quick - I'm hoping to crank out something writing-related here every Wednesday and maybe something a little extra on Fridays.
The Avengers, leading up to the theatrical release, became a very big deal in my house among the male populace. My son and I sat down and watched every film that leads to this film, so that we could be ready for opening night.
It is odd, when looked upon from afar, that so many explicitly heterosexual men get extremely amped up about dudes in tights, especially given the bigoted & religious attitudes in the United States.
However, not all superhero films are created equal, and I seem to disagree sharply with the general populace about what makes a great superhero film.
I really enjoyed Ang Lee's 'Hulk,' but thought the second one, 'The Incredible Hulk,' was a rather generic exercise in 'going through the motions.' In Ang Lee's film, Bruce Banner has an incredibly complicated set of relationships with his father, his girlfriend, and himself. We see him work through these and confront issues, and we really take the time to let Bruce sort out what it all means. It's a thoughful and moody film that harnessed the visual medium wonderfully.
The second film was a series of tentpole action scenes with some dialogue in between. The Bruce Banner in this film has none of the complexities of the man in the first film. In this continuity, he inflicted everything on himself, which makes him a very different man. The biggest problem with the film, though, is that Bruce doesn't really have an arc. He's the same guy at the end of the film that he was at the beginning. We don't see any kind of struggle, we don't feel anything visceral about this character.
My feeling is that in a superhero film, the most interesting hero is one that needs to be heroic to overcome his circumstances. This is what separates him/her from 'us.'. They need to be able to do something that is impossible for any of us, and that ability is something that needs to be earned. They can earn it through the struggle to achieve it, or they can earn it by struggling to control it.
Look at Tony Stark in the first 'Iron Man.' His arc is fantastic. He starts out as a wealthy, entitled jerk-off that symbolizes everything that's wrong with the 1% in this country, but when faced with an extraordinary problem, finds that he feels compelled to fight for what's right. His transformation is a riveting and inspiring tale, and that carries all the way through to the completely shitty-ending final battle.
As a note, if you have your hero 'win' by accident, it just sucks. Nothing annoys me more that not having the hero earn the win. That 'right place, right time' shit is okay in real life, because it's what we're stuck with, but let us see our hero kick some ass, please.
And, Captain America sucked. Just flat-out. Yeah, there's an arc there, but it's not a compelling one. Maybe Steve Rogers isn't a sympathetic character? I don't know. I just never bought into or cared about his character, and his arc wasn't one that I found believable or compelling. His relationship with the super-hot gal from 'Pillars of the Earth' was kinda interesting, I guess.
What happens in that case is that I come away from the film feeling like not much happened in the two hours I spent watching it. Yeah, I know several plot points happened, but the character still feels flat and unrelatable, and my time and money just got wasted.
Congrats, Joe Johnston, you just made the first bad film with Hugo Weaving in it. Hugo Weaving is money, man. How do you fuck that up?
Pistol-whipping the Captain America film is a blog entry unto itself. While the film did, unequivocally, shit the bed, this is not the time or the place. That will come some other time.
Ultimately, I felt that film fell into the same trap as the second Hulk flick, in that it was a series of tentpole action scenes that were briefly interrupted by dialogue. It was boring.
At the same time, these films just make a shitload of bank, and you can't argue with return on investment.
Nothing, however, prepared me for what would happen when the studio allowed the greatest creative mind in Hollywood to write and direct 'The Avengers'.
What was your favorite of the films leading up to 'The Avengers?' How would you rank them? How'd you feel about each of them?
I'll continue this with part 2 on Friday.
-Blaine
Buy my book!
The Avengers, leading up to the theatrical release, became a very big deal in my house among the male populace. My son and I sat down and watched every film that leads to this film, so that we could be ready for opening night.
It is odd, when looked upon from afar, that so many explicitly heterosexual men get extremely amped up about dudes in tights, especially given the bigoted & religious attitudes in the United States.
However, not all superhero films are created equal, and I seem to disagree sharply with the general populace about what makes a great superhero film.
I really enjoyed Ang Lee's 'Hulk,' but thought the second one, 'The Incredible Hulk,' was a rather generic exercise in 'going through the motions.' In Ang Lee's film, Bruce Banner has an incredibly complicated set of relationships with his father, his girlfriend, and himself. We see him work through these and confront issues, and we really take the time to let Bruce sort out what it all means. It's a thoughful and moody film that harnessed the visual medium wonderfully.
The second film was a series of tentpole action scenes with some dialogue in between. The Bruce Banner in this film has none of the complexities of the man in the first film. In this continuity, he inflicted everything on himself, which makes him a very different man. The biggest problem with the film, though, is that Bruce doesn't really have an arc. He's the same guy at the end of the film that he was at the beginning. We don't see any kind of struggle, we don't feel anything visceral about this character.
My feeling is that in a superhero film, the most interesting hero is one that needs to be heroic to overcome his circumstances. This is what separates him/her from 'us.'. They need to be able to do something that is impossible for any of us, and that ability is something that needs to be earned. They can earn it through the struggle to achieve it, or they can earn it by struggling to control it.
Look at Tony Stark in the first 'Iron Man.' His arc is fantastic. He starts out as a wealthy, entitled jerk-off that symbolizes everything that's wrong with the 1% in this country, but when faced with an extraordinary problem, finds that he feels compelled to fight for what's right. His transformation is a riveting and inspiring tale, and that carries all the way through to the completely shitty-ending final battle.
As a note, if you have your hero 'win' by accident, it just sucks. Nothing annoys me more that not having the hero earn the win. That 'right place, right time' shit is okay in real life, because it's what we're stuck with, but let us see our hero kick some ass, please.
And, Captain America sucked. Just flat-out. Yeah, there's an arc there, but it's not a compelling one. Maybe Steve Rogers isn't a sympathetic character? I don't know. I just never bought into or cared about his character, and his arc wasn't one that I found believable or compelling. His relationship with the super-hot gal from 'Pillars of the Earth' was kinda interesting, I guess.
What happens in that case is that I come away from the film feeling like not much happened in the two hours I spent watching it. Yeah, I know several plot points happened, but the character still feels flat and unrelatable, and my time and money just got wasted.
Congrats, Joe Johnston, you just made the first bad film with Hugo Weaving in it. Hugo Weaving is money, man. How do you fuck that up?
Pistol-whipping the Captain America film is a blog entry unto itself. While the film did, unequivocally, shit the bed, this is not the time or the place. That will come some other time.
Ultimately, I felt that film fell into the same trap as the second Hulk flick, in that it was a series of tentpole action scenes that were briefly interrupted by dialogue. It was boring.
At the same time, these films just make a shitload of bank, and you can't argue with return on investment.
Nothing, however, prepared me for what would happen when the studio allowed the greatest creative mind in Hollywood to write and direct 'The Avengers'.
What was your favorite of the films leading up to 'The Avengers?' How would you rank them? How'd you feel about each of them?
I'll continue this with part 2 on Friday.
-Blaine
Buy my book!
20120504
Post-Colonoscopy Word Dump
soundtrack - new-ish Asteroids Galaxy Tour - 'Out of Frequency' record
I had a colonoscopy yesterday. Just making sure there was no cancer in my butt. There wasn't. At one time, we had reason to think that there may be a chance there was some cancer up in there, but after several steps, we assured that there is not.
I will say that the whole thing was a very interesting and memorable experience. I'm not sure how much to say, since I often sound holier-than-thou when it comes to dealing with potential crises. I guess I'm just kinda 'zen' about things that are non-work-related. I dunno. I was a little nervous about the colonoscopy aspect of it, since I don't have a great love for the current state of the medical industrial complex, plus I'd never been 'put under' before, and wasn't wild about surrendering so much control to someone. Blah blah blah.
Enough about that.
So, I've decided I'd like to do some blogging again, but I want to refine my process before I really jump back in. What I've found is that my old approach, which is the blunt, imprecise imposition of my views upon the unwilling horde was neither practical nor terribly rewarding. While I'm quite certain as to the veracity and solidity of my opinions, there is the perception that even though they're mine, they're still just 'opinions,' and little more. While I find that I have little appreciation for this attitude, it has given me cause to reexamine why I would want to even continue blogging.
I've often found that blogging is akin to a masturbatory session that ends very badly, but nets little more than a shrug from its unfortunate witnesses. All three or less of them. And two of them are automated searches from eastern Europe.
So why even post here anymore? Well, I haven't in months. I wanted to shift my attention to my more literary pursuits (the Endless Wars sequel), plus work got real busy, and oh yeah, Star Wars: The Old Republic came out.
The main thing, though, is the time commitment. I'm not someone who just throws any old shit up here (despite how it may read). I really put effort into it, and I labor over what I present to you. Both of you.
So, yeah, what I need is a refined process and demonstrable return on investment. Frankly, the opportunity cost is not to be underestimated. I work a very demanding, stressful job, and my off-hours are precious to me.
Yeah, the easy answer is, 'shut up and move on with your life,' but there's a lot of aspects to blogging that I enjoy. Some great discussions have come out of my posts. Blogging is a worthwhile writing exercise. There's also the potential monetization aspect to consider.
I'm thinking about trying out a refined version of something I tried a few years ago. Post every day M-F, but have a variety of topics, each of which is assigned to a particular weekday. So, like sports would be Mondays, technology would be Tuesdays, gaming would be Wednesdays, and so on. I'd probably also have a different blog assigned to each one. The entries would be shorter than I usually squeeze out, since I probably suffer from some of the 'too long, didn't read' thing that plagues us nowadays.
We'll see. I may build it all out this weekend.
What do you think?
Blaine
Buy my book!
I had a colonoscopy yesterday. Just making sure there was no cancer in my butt. There wasn't. At one time, we had reason to think that there may be a chance there was some cancer up in there, but after several steps, we assured that there is not.
I will say that the whole thing was a very interesting and memorable experience. I'm not sure how much to say, since I often sound holier-than-thou when it comes to dealing with potential crises. I guess I'm just kinda 'zen' about things that are non-work-related. I dunno. I was a little nervous about the colonoscopy aspect of it, since I don't have a great love for the current state of the medical industrial complex, plus I'd never been 'put under' before, and wasn't wild about surrendering so much control to someone. Blah blah blah.
Enough about that.
So, I've decided I'd like to do some blogging again, but I want to refine my process before I really jump back in. What I've found is that my old approach, which is the blunt, imprecise imposition of my views upon the unwilling horde was neither practical nor terribly rewarding. While I'm quite certain as to the veracity and solidity of my opinions, there is the perception that even though they're mine, they're still just 'opinions,' and little more. While I find that I have little appreciation for this attitude, it has given me cause to reexamine why I would want to even continue blogging.
I've often found that blogging is akin to a masturbatory session that ends very badly, but nets little more than a shrug from its unfortunate witnesses. All three or less of them. And two of them are automated searches from eastern Europe.
So why even post here anymore? Well, I haven't in months. I wanted to shift my attention to my more literary pursuits (the Endless Wars sequel), plus work got real busy, and oh yeah, Star Wars: The Old Republic came out.
The main thing, though, is the time commitment. I'm not someone who just throws any old shit up here (despite how it may read). I really put effort into it, and I labor over what I present to you. Both of you.
So, yeah, what I need is a refined process and demonstrable return on investment. Frankly, the opportunity cost is not to be underestimated. I work a very demanding, stressful job, and my off-hours are precious to me.
Yeah, the easy answer is, 'shut up and move on with your life,' but there's a lot of aspects to blogging that I enjoy. Some great discussions have come out of my posts. Blogging is a worthwhile writing exercise. There's also the potential monetization aspect to consider.
I'm thinking about trying out a refined version of something I tried a few years ago. Post every day M-F, but have a variety of topics, each of which is assigned to a particular weekday. So, like sports would be Mondays, technology would be Tuesdays, gaming would be Wednesdays, and so on. I'd probably also have a different blog assigned to each one. The entries would be shorter than I usually squeeze out, since I probably suffer from some of the 'too long, didn't read' thing that plagues us nowadays.
We'll see. I may build it all out this weekend.
What do you think?
Blaine
Buy my book!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)