What makes for quality in a blog?
**********************************************************************************
I am new to blogging. As I learn to do it, here are some thoughts on evaluating what I do. I welcome your feedback.
1. See the above quotes. Eleanor Hodgman Porter, author of “Pollyanna,” and J.R.R. Tolkien, author of “The Hobbit” and “The Lord of the Rings,” map the dangerous boundaries of writing about current events. It won’t do to pander to pollyannish tendencies we all want to feel. On the other hand, we face the temptation to cater to the seductions of drama-making.
2. It doesn’t hurt to be aware that as events develop, they can unforgivingly fail to comply with the diktats we sometimes create for them. We do well to preserve our humility.
3. The late American Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld once explained the situation of bloggers, or at least something close. He spoke of the difficulties with gathering security-related intelligence, deploying a tongue-twister that was so well done that Scientific American quoted it in an article about debates on evolutionary theory. Whatever his professional success or failure (see under the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars), as you see above, Rumsfeld showed himself an incredibly talented creator of a tongue-twister! It is worth memorizing. Imagine springing this on your friends at the pub. It’s those damnable unknown unknowns that should keep us humble.
4. A Substack writer whose work I read often and appreciate,
@Ehudneor, got me thinking. He wrote a note in response to my recent post on Netanyahu suggesting that my post was “nothing but ‘but Bibi.’” I disagree with him, but that is not the point. The critical point is, how do I know I successfully wrote more than a screed against a failed leader? I believe I am correct in my assessment, but that self-justifying sense of my righteousness will not do. It reminds me of a story that may be apocryphal. In the 1950s, two larger-than-life personalities dominated the dovish Leftist MaPaM party. They were Meir Yaari and Yaakov Hazan. Hazan was a fierce ideological polemicist. At one point, the MaPaM Central Committee debated an issue into the night without resolving it. (It is hard to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a Marxist pin, after all.) They resolved to continue the debate in the morning. Hazan appeared the next day and made the legendary announcement: “I was up all night thinking about our debate, weighing the points others made against the points I made. Finally, I concluded that I was right!” Hazan’s ideological over-confidence is a permanent fixture among our leaders, Left, Right, and Center. Let’s face it: it also plays a role among us, the citizens who fight the wars and pay the bills. Does it plague bloggers who want to evaluate their work?5. Ehud challenged me on whether my writing has more profound meaning than just at the level of slogans (“but Bibi”). He suggested that it did not. What are the standards by which we can know whether someone is writing a piece of value or simply blowing off steam? Don’t get me wrong. Blowing off steam is OK, so far as it goes. However, if that is all a writer presents, they become predictable, and I lose interest. In my writing, I hope to keep the steam-blowing to a modest level. I don’t think avoiding it is emotionally credible because so much of what calls out a response in us is outrageous.
6. Understatement won’t cut it when we describe October 7th or antisemitism in the West. But with the steam, there needs to be content that provokes thought. For the record, whatever steam I released in that recent blog, I was trying to spread the idea of political ponerology, the concept developed by Andrzej Łobaczewski about how people with pathological personalities rise to power. Given the array of pathology at or near the top of so many political systems (Trump, Putin, Sinwar, Xi, Kim, and so on), I think Łobazewski wrote one of the most significant documents of his time. I failed to clarify my goal for some readers, and I thank Ehud for bringing it to my attention.
7. Another evaluation tool is judging in terms of a long-term goal.
set out to chronicle our lives in her “Letters From an American” blog. I don’t always agree with her, but her work is magnificent on two levels. She is creating a valuable resource for future historians, illuminating aspects of our lives that we may not have considered. I don’t yet have such a goal, although it may develop over time.I welcome responses. How would you advise a blogger to evaluate their writing?
Thanks for this. I am relatively new to blogging and I appreciate your point that if a writer is too predictable they aren’t adding value. It’s important to make sure you have a point worth making.
A shorter version of this is the oped advice I was given when I first started writing for the Canadian Jewish News. 1. Have a point. 2. Get to it.
Of course one advantage of Substack is I’m no longer restricted to 550 words. But that can be a disadvantage too, if you aren’t careful.
A list of good points to remember.
When writing and Surprise,Surprise in our daily conduct too.
Thank you.