About an year of blogging – a review

Its been about a year since I started blogging and more than a month since I wrote my last post. This is a good time to take a fresh look at my blogging experience. I started blogging out of a desire to “do something about the state of the world”. Since that sounds too close to some of the very things I detest, I should explain. I believed (and still do) that much of what is wrong with the world is a result of a few fundamental ideas. That people in general are good, but the fundamental ideas they hold are bad. Long ago, as a child with no explicitly formulated philosophy, I had realized that what went on under the name of politics was a farce. That the particular policies or objectives that political parties (or their leaders) were attempting to achieve had no fundamental significance, that they did not affect me – and by extension, anyone else – in any significant way. While I did not then understand why this was so, I was convinced that politics – as it is practised today – was futile. When I first read Atlas Shrugged, I was shaken. Not by the ideas that Rand expressed, but by the fact that I had missed them all along. By means of a story in which I could clearly sympathise with the protagonists, I was led to reject almost all of the fundamental ideas generally held by people. By the time I started blogging, I was convinced that Rand’s ideas were right and that they explained a lot of what was wrong with the world. That understanding these ideas and applying them was the only meaningful way to do something about it. As such, I decided to write in a very deliberate and well-considered style, not commenting on day-to-day issues or events but on fundamental ideas underlying those events. That meant that I could not hope to be prolific. I set a target of about one post per week and until last month managed to write a little more often than that on average. In terms of the effect, however, I am less than satisfied with the amount of traffic and comments that I have managed to draw. At a time when Rand’s ideas are being smeared much more regularly than they were before (atleast that is the impression I get), I do not think it is particularly effective to write merely on fundamentals, especially given the fact that traffic is directly linked to the regularity and the frequency of posts. Moreover, I am quite busy with work now and am finding it difficult to spend the time required to write well-considered posts. I think that combining substance – fundamental ideas – with context – how they apply to events in general – can be a more effective way to communicate, especially given the radical nature of the ideas I hold.

Therefore, starting with this post, I am going to employ a different style of writing. Instead of thinking about a particular topic I wish to write about for some considerable time and then expressing my ideas in as concise and logical a form as I can, I am going to start writing on whatever I think is worth writing and then “let my thoughts flow”. That is, I am not going to spend much time considering the structure or order of the ideas I express, other than to ensure that my writing is grammatical and not particularly incoherent. That is anyway the nature of the blogging medium and using a medium against its nature cannot be an effective thing to do. Whether blogging is a good way to express fundamental ideas at all is a valid question, but I wish to find that out for myself. The important thing at the moment is to ensure that Rand’s ideas are taken seriously instead of being dismissed without consideration and I think that the “flowing”  style of writing posts can help. I look forward to writing much more often than I have so far and if that means less substance and more context and flow, so be it.


3 Responses

  1. HI KM

    I have been reading your post for more than 6 months now.

    I wanted to take this opportunity to tell you that you always make a good point. I may not always agree with your conclusions, but the way you write it is easy for me to see why you came to the conclusion you did.

    There is one thing that strikes me in your writing. I am left with a feeling that you expect people to behave rationally most of the time. It seems that the rationality assumption may almost be prereqisite to answer some of the questions your pose.

    From my perspective there is nothing right or wrong about this perspective. it is just another perspective and a logical one at that.

    Hope I made sense.

    Keep the good stuff coming.


  2. Prasad,
    Thanks for the comment. I will be glad if you can take the time to comment especially when you disagree.

    It is not that I expect people to always behave rationally. I know from experience that they don’t. I am not claiming that I always act rationally either. Most (if not all) people have their weak points, where they may allow themselves to be swayed by irrelevant things. It is just that I believe one should always attempt to behave rationally. Moreover, I only address myself to people who hold rationality as a virtue.

  3. Thanks for the detailed response.

    Your last statement is most telling. Your content is tailored to perfectly fit to Target Audience you defined.

    Keep the good stuff coming.

    Best Regards

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: