Goodreads Bookshelf
On blogging and other writing
As an English teacher, one of the big things I want is to help my students become better writers. One of the things we emphasize is writing as a process. Left to their own devices, students often let themselves be satisfied by what are basically rough drafts. They get the words on the page and there they are, done. They are willing enough to correct grammatical errors, but when it comes to stylistic concerns or content, they can be very attached to their original conceptions. We try to develop a willingness to radically revise, to really seriously reconsider what they're saying, how they're saying it in order to develop their ideas more fully and present them better. We often require them to turn in rough drafts and engage in "peer editing," in which they act as friendly critics to one another, helping to improve each others' writing. Many English teachers require, encourage, or at least allow re-writes after the "final" draft, again, trying to encourage our students to see their writing as a process that's always subject to revision.
I mention this because it occurs to me that blogging--at least when it strives to be daily--seems to be all about the rough draft. I may look over my entry once before I publish it to correct errors or try to clarify something, but very often what ends up on the screen after I hit "Publish Entry" is my rough draft. A lot of it could, presumably, be improved by rewriting, by a willingness sometimes to cut things I've written, to add new things, to reorganize. Instead, a self-imposed schedule usually dictates that I work in a world of rough drafts. Now, as far as that goes, several years of more-or-less daily practice has, I think, made me pretty good at writing rough drafts, but presumably revision could improve my blogs.
Sometimes, I realize particular ways that an entry could have been improved after I receive comments from readers: some element is challenged and I realize that an idea was weak or that its expression was incomplete or that the organization didn't help my case, but the nature of blogging seems to dictate that it's too late; I might respond in a comment, but the original is what it is and probably won't be rewritten. I suspect too that often weaknesses in a blog go unremarked upon: unnoticed or, more likely, politely ignored or, in the cases or readers like my friend Kapoo, I've written on and on at length and my reader has either skimmed or given up.
Thoughts?
For clarification: I skim the longer entries until I find my name, or a
tasty recpie.
I must confess: I have skipped your longer posts, especially when it seems
to me after reading the first couple of paragraphs that your entry could
have benefitted from editing and reconstruction. That said, however, I
must add that your blog entries are always interesting and
thought-provoking. It is probably my lack of patience (and lack of time)
that results in my skipping the rest of the longest posts. And for that I
apologize; lack of patience is my besetting sin. Mea culpa.
i usually try to edit my blogs beyond rough draft, conscious of course,
that anything longer than five hundred words is unlikely to be read. It is
gratifying when a blog gets a multitude of hits but what really interests
me are the comments people leave.
I do basically the same as you do, and rare is the entry where stupid typos
don't creep in. If I see them after publishing them, I'll go back and
edit, but I don't always catch them. I also have the bad habit of
overusing a word -- I edit that to reword such errors.
Yeah. You right. Blogging is a rough draft world. I might change little
things I notice in re-reading but never make major changes after
publishing. That said, I love to edit. It might be my favorite part of the
process. Perhaps it's why I blog so infrequently, because I rarely like
what I put down at first and then, by the time I'm done with it, it's no
longer timely. *sigh*