Andrew Sullivan purports an interesting perspective on blogging. Some statements seemed to resonate with me as someone who is trying to become a blogger instead of just a traditional academic argumentation author. He concludes that blogs are
“more free-form, more accident-prone, less formal, more alive. It is, in many ways, writing out loud.”
This seems initially liberating. What a treat to escape the harsh criticism of an editor or a professor and to just write what you pleased instantaneously… and then you can say whatever you want and it doesn’t really have to be all that correct because there is an apparent symbiotic relationship between the blogger and the reader. Say whatever you want! It’s liberating! Except… it is on the internet. Forever. And ever, and ever, and ever, and you cannot delete what you said in your moment of a lack of emotional control.
Whoa, whoa, whoa there Andrew Sullivan. I was just thinking about how great it would be to shake the traditional format of writing for a liberating form like blogging. No thanks. As a political science student heading out into the field of law and eventually politics, nothing seems more unappealing than posting a political rant on the internet that can be pulled up on my campaign trail. The argument that blogging is a free open space of chaos does not entice me from leaving the safe, patient research of a traditional argument. I need to be able to hold to my commitment of my argument, and nothing about an in-the-moment tirade sounds like a good idea. Blogging to me seems like posting a drunken picture of yourself on Facebook at a party with a red Solo cup in one hand and a fifth of Southern Comfort in the other while dancing on a table. Sounds like fun at the time… until your job application gets denied.