Opinions on the Structure of Blogging/Journalism

  • There are certain ranges of length in writing I’m comfortable with. A couple of sentences, or enough to fill a simple syllogism. 2-3 (standard text, double spaced) pages, to fill a larger syllogism. Then about 7-9 pages. Beyond 9 isn’t something that really happens so I haven’t thought about it too much.
  • The more I plan to write something in particular, the more it doesn’t happen. The less I plan to write, the more I can write. If I plan to write on more than a couple of topics, I actually can’t write anything at all for a while. Except, apparently, stuff like this where I’m meta-ing, posting music where I don’t really need to use any “creative energy”, or reposts where I’m commenting on stuff that I don’t plan on having a higher purpose for. Keyword being planned, not higher purpose – I’ve been rereading some of my older stuff and it blows my mind how stuff which meant nothing to me before is so true/representative of how I think now.
  • Quality control in presented thought structure and points elaborated on feels largely variable. It is, at the very least, not planned on such a high level (I do small edits like sentence structure and word choice after the whole thing is done), because planning generally leads to the above described syndrome. A couple of the long posts I wrote had to be restructured by simple bullet points in notepad in order for me to actually finish a cohesive entry, but it felt unnatural. The most recent one that’s “worked” with a planned structure was my review of The Way of Men, but I wrote it mostly in freeform and used it only as “I have to get back on topic” guidance, as indicated by its ridiculous length.
  • Schaefer method is retarded. Any structure requirement is generally retarded or will become retarded.
  • Blogging and writing articles seems to be, either by emergence or design, for those who can write how an idea is shown and manifested in a certain instance. For instance, how the Batman shooting is part of a bigger problem about guns or parenting or the education system or whatever. I am not good at this, and do not intend to write articles.I like having an opening story where I jump off from. But afterward, I generally don’t care about it. I’ll use stories as necessary, but I always focus and discuss how it’s part of a bigger picture. In my style, I attempt to in every instance imply that I really could’ve used an infinite amount of other examples, it just so happened that this particular one was used because it was convenient. What most writers and journalists seem to prefer is the opposite. While they don’t exactly ignore the big idea, they do focus on how the thing at hand is important. Of course the big idea is important; that’s why it’s discussed and that’s why it’s talked about. But it always ends up being how we need to do that to solve this problem because its part of a bigger problem. The bigger idea is the justification, rather than the end. Do you see the difference?

    I couldn’t give a mass of two shits about the particular problem, but even if I did, how it’s part of a bigger problem is not fucking relevant to doing the problem at hand. Killer? Kill him. Theft? Disable him. Disagree with me? Fine, but unless your answer involves something you or I could do immediately in the given situation, your answer is invalid. Imagine, if in some alternate world or by magical and divine intervention, the people getting shot at in some situation were able to hear and see the media commentary from the future in real time. Do you really think that the columbine kids hiding under desks find your tirades for gun control amusing? Are the engineers at Deepwater Horizon being helped by your campaigns and protests about government oversight and drilling regulations? Yes, they are part of bigger problems. No, you do not talk about them in such a manner. Shit like this should be fucking obvious all the fucking time and many times it feels like I’m the only one who sees the emperor with no clothes.

    I wanted to use Trayvon Martin as one of my examples a few sentences back but (outside of the fact that talking about shootings three times isn’t very illustrative) I realized it was inefficient as fuck because people have politicized it to an unimaginable degree. It’s AAAAAAAAAAAALLLL about race. Let’s have that given for a moment because if you haven’t realized that Zimmerman isn’t white and is actually some cuban I’m not about to help you about that. Ignore all evidence against the justice for trayvon shit about how Zimmerman was actually beat up and fired in self defense. A man was in a neighborhood. Another man thought he didn’t belong there. FOR WHATEVER REASON a fight broke out. And someone died. Let us assume it was an unfortunate death and not a deserved one; the family and friends of the dead do make sense in their actions by going after the perpetrator. But all this HE DID IT BECAUSE OF RAAACIIISSSSMMMMM? Fuck the evidence. Fuck the situation. He’s a RACIIIIST and he killed someone SO DO. HIM. IN.

    See the parallel? This guy is part of a big idea, big idea is bad, therefore we must fuck this guy up. Not, part of a big idea, big idea can also be seen in these other instances, big idea is bad because insert reasoning here. I am very interested in individual instances as individual instances, and I am very interested in big ideas as big ideas. I’m not interested in this freak hybrid chimera that destroys both the instance and the idea by merging everything into this lynch mob slob of non-ideas. I can’t write short entries on news items because I’m often only interested in them for the sake of bigger ideas, and if I’m going to write on bigger ideas I need to write a long post.

    Individual instances of great importance only happen in my own life or in things I am immensely interested in that I do. Some cyclist wins the Tour de France, or my friend finally catches the fish he’s been hunting, or a family friend achieves some respectable position in some productive company? Fabulous. Plenty to write about. But if some guy somewhere I never knew in a place I know nothing about, gets killed? Or even if many guys get killed? This or that happens in national policy? Unemployment or pollution? I don’t give a fuck about how its unjust or its a corrupt system. I see 1) a system which will collapse and shit will happen soon for a rebuilding of the world (big idea), and 2) something to look out for and maneuver around/through (particular instance). They are events to respond to, not events to wallow in – external, not internal. There is emotion, but only in disappointment that it is not equivalent to an ideal philosophical model or a higher order of honesty, and frustration that I’m going to need to deal with shit. “Justice” and “Morality” mean nothing to me. It is stuff I like, and stuff I don’t like. Perhaps that is part of why I can’t write articles.

    Obviously for the individual instances I am interested in, I’d link these to big ideas like discipline. But even then it is not about acting on those same situations after the fact, it is for learning from those situations so future instances which are similar can be acted on with improved knowledge.


2 thoughts on “Opinions on the Structure of Blogging/Journalism

  1. Pingback: The Active Voice (Scrubs p.2) « All Else Is Halation

  2. Pingback: Ad Hominem Is Effective « All Else Is Halation

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s