For an introduction to doing some housekeeping around a blog, I really liked what Past in the Present said in a post just the other day.
“One of the interesting things about a blog is the fact that it’s organic. It grows along with its writer, and as you feel your way through it, you’re able to go back and make adjustments from time to time.”
I couldn’t agree more. I would also add that the act of blogging itself is organic.
As opposed to the static nature of the book and/or article, blogging is not necessarily a terminal act. Sure, one can go back and write something to adjust a statement made earlier in a book or article (or even make a statement to counter that which was mentioned), but the book still stands on its own. Without a “hyperlink” or “living addendum” made obvious to a reader who takes the book alone and takes it for its face value, the original statement(s) made by the author in the original work still stand. Without knowledge of the change, the reader is going to read what the author had to say and perhaps interpret meaning in what was said.
In a blog, however, there is really no need for interpretation. The author (as long as he/she is still around and blogging) is present and can be asked for clarification of a point made in, for example, a post. The ensuing dialogue should provide further clarification of points as if it were a stream of consciousness. In some sense, blog posts may represent the blogger thinking out loud, therefore representing an effort to think through a particular subject. The exchange between reader and author that follows the post should be seen as organic or flowing and not stagnating in a pool of interpretation over the meaning of the author’s words.
Cenantua's Blog 
JW
February 10, 2009
The best bloggers I’ve read over the years have the thickest skins. Steve Gilliard, for example, out of NYC. Gilliard took no prisoners, disdained any type of award, spoke his mind with courage, and, with courage, would tangle in honest manner with anyone who saw otherwise. He tragically died just a couple of years ago at a very young age, of congenital health problems.
On the other hand, there’s the blogger Colonel Pat Lange (retired), of Virginia. A man with much to say, he has the skin of a hemophiliac where criticism is concerned. Contradict his narrative, however courteously, and you’re 86’d. Which is to say, I was 86’d. I can’t even recall why (it was a few years ago), but well remember that his overreaction was unbecoming an otherwise interesting guy. Perhaps his attitude had something to do with a career spent either taking or receiving orders. Anyway, it was a shame. But if I can’t respond, I will not read. Leastwise, not on a regular basis.
cenantua
February 11, 2009
JW, Actually, I think we need to shift the way we think in terms of dialogue in the blogosphere. I think some people read posts and make comments without thinking that the author of the post is thinking through a topic, philosophically, for example. The slip into emotion is something that might not necessarily have to occur, though even as we think through a topic, emotion can still become a factor in the exchange.
JW
February 10, 2009
Of course, that should have read, “either taking or giving orders”.
Sherree Tannen
February 11, 2009
Hi Robert,
Yes, a blog is organic in nature, and both the blogger and the reader are thinking out loud, more or less, which sometimes results in a new idea. (Not always, lol, but sometimes. Not all thinking out loud that is done on the Internet is instructive or constructive–Interesting, yes. Constructive, well…..Still, it takes a certain type of courage and dedication to write a blog, so write on! Also, I find the men and women from the academic world who are willing to test the waters of the blogosphere courageous, too, and possessing a certain level of confidence, maturity, and humor. If you have spent your life studying Lincoln, for example, and you put your work out in the public domain, and can take a short comment like “Lincoln s#@*%!!! in stride as all the reader has to say, and then laugh and maybe even try to understand why the reader has that particular point of view, you are certain of who you are and of what your work is all about, it would seem to me )
cenantua
February 11, 2009
Hi Sherree,
Yes, it is interesting to see the manner in which scholars and historical memory in popular culture collide. I am understanding more and more why some academians don’t take the plunge into the blogosphere as several probably don’t want to deal with the emotionally-filled comments that will likely flow as the result of a post. I’m sure that some don’t care to become entwined in the exchange on emotional level as well. It compromises professionalism in the practice of history.
JW
February 11, 2009
Emotion and reason are the stuff of humanity. When a blogger solicits comment, he/she invariably invites them both into the mix.
That’s where a thick skin comes in handy. Or am I mistaken?
cenantua
February 11, 2009
Yes, the thick skin comes in handy
cenantua
February 11, 2009
Oops, sorry JW, got cut off…
… but does one need to assume something in the author’s post and immediately jump to, perhaps, anger? I’ve run across a couple instances in which readers interpret meaning in the post without calling for clarification. Or, in the process of calling for clarification, a reader takes swipes or interjects emotionally filled comments that reflect the absence of reason. I wonder how many times we all revert to a more primitive state in environments such as the blog, when in real life face-to-face encounters we wouldn’t dare jump to that level nearly as quickly. Humanity is impacted in environments such as these.
JW
February 11, 2009
I suggest you spend a couple of weeks perusing the blogs Hullabaloo, or FireDogLake, or Crooks And Liars. Wag a civil tongue in disagreement, and you’ll bring down a storm. But keep it civil, and the moderators of those blogs immediately become your protectors.
You seem to think that a dialogue consisting of pure reason is do-able. It isn’t. If it was, the war of southern aggression would have been averted in 1861, after southerners had taken to heart the collected writings of Abe Lincoln.
cenantua
February 11, 2009
Then, it would seen that there would be even more reluctance than I would imagine among academians daring to enter into practice in the blogosphere.
JW
February 11, 2009
“Reluctance”? Sure, that will always remain an individual call. Although the academics of the blog, ‘Lawyers, Guns, and Money’ might dissuade any pedant of their reservations.
It brings to my mind the truism regarding my ancestors who landed decades ago in San Francisco: “The cowards never started (west), and the weak died along the way”.
cenantua
February 11, 2009
Thoughts on the “truism” aside… I wouldn’t say that those in academia who opt not to blog are cowards. Rather, they simply aren’t interested in engaging in the types of exchanges that might be had in blogging history.
JW
February 12, 2009
OK, you got me there. That cited truism is my comfortable conceit (talk about parochialism, eh?).
But I never did say academics who choose not to blog are cowards. I said only it was an individual call. Which of course it is.
To reiterate: no blogger can invite comments and hope to divorce reason from emotion, any more than he or she can see into the future. A blogger can either roll with their reader’s punches, or gut the point of having solicited discussion in the first place. Gut the point, that is, by 86ing courteous people who contradict them, or who slightly disagree, or who stray (however tangentially) off their talking point. Bloggers like that are a dime a dozen, and never establish a decent readership, because they are ultimately little more than scolds.