My Personal Thoughts

Colin raises the issue of the "personal" nature of blogging in his "other" blog.

That's one thing that's bothered me about our attempts to define a blog aesthetic. We've at least toyed with idea that blogs are "personal," and I don't agree. Some are, and some aren't. The dictionary defines personal as "private." I would define it as "of an intimate nature." Whether a blog contains personal details seems irrelevant to me as to whether it works.

Many interesting ones DO have an informal tone -- but that's not the same thing. I like blogging because I feel less constrained to filter and manipulate the voice of my inner self -- so what I write is often closer to the voice in my head than most other written work, which is edited for tone and audience. That is some of the most "personal" writing I do, but I don't write about personal things much. Except late Thanksgiving evening, high on turkey.

So while I admire my colleagues like Brett and Bill who are so free with the details of their lives on their blogs, it ain't me. In fact, if I did try to give more personal facts, my writing would sound more constrained because I would feel uncomfortable.

It all comes back to authenticity. If the authorial voice rings true, because it seems to genuinely reflect the writer, then the blog is more appealing. Compare Dooce (a cool person I'm probably too nerdy to hang out with) with Wonkette (a total facade, in my opinion). So how do we define authenticity?

To borrow from a Supreme Court justice discussing porn: "I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it." We may have trouble consciously differentiating the true from the trumped-up, but we can sniff it out in an instant.

Maybe lack of authenticity has a place -- after all, many people, not just horny men, like Wonkette. But do you really believe you're getting the "REAL" woman? No, you just don't care. But if Colin started being overly personal, it probably wouldn't work as well, because he's a person, not a persona.