I’ve always had a sort of respect for bloggers, wondering how they create such cogent pieces in such short time, how they always know exactly what to say, how they commit to it. I’ve always wanted to blog, but never thought I’d be able to create a blog that others would read. The reason I thought this is because my writing process is slow…it’s a marathon of sorts and I don’t consider my quick writing to be good writing.
But then I realized something just now after reading Sullivan’s piece once again.
The imperfectness of blogging is what makes it so unique, so beautiful. Blogging gives us a better picture of what writers are thinking of, rather than a façade they may put on in revised essays or novels. THAT is why it is interesting to read.
But this also reminds me that there’s a time and place for blogging and then there is a time and place for everything else. For example, if I’m going to write an academic essay, it doesn’t matter what I personally believe, but rather what argument I have founded on sound facts. Sullivan’s piece helped me to realize that blogging is wonderful for immediate expression of thought, but that’s about it.
Since we’re doing our re-purposing project, this brings me to think about the genre I am re-purposing my piece as. I’m taking an academic piece on the financial crisis of 2008 and turning it into an Op-Ed that would appear in the likes of the Wall Street Journal or the Economist. For this…the way in which I blog will not be appropriate for the manner in which I write my Op-Ed. For example, I’m not going to blurt out how the financial crisis has affected my family, but rather the devastating effect it has had on families nationwide. See the difference? The focus goes from the ell-encompassing “I” to the societal “we”.
The major problem I find with this project is that it’s a daunting task to create some sort of economic argument when I’m not a true economic expert…simply a Macroeconomics student. At least I can find some comfort in the fact that the guy that taught me most of what I know (Mankiw: the writer of my econ textbook) was a top runner to become chairman of the Fed. So I like to think that I have some idea of what I’m talking about. I must, however, keep in mind that my manner of writing for the Op-Ed will be almost nothing like the writing I do here.