As the handful of people who check in here with any regularity will no doubt have noticed, it’s been another week of slow posting. There are a bunch of reasons for this, but a lack of blog-able content hasn’t been one of them: Lee McCracken’s two posts on vegetarianism and humanism, Andrew Sullivan Peter Suderman’s [How did I get that one wrong?] take on the politics of meaning, Jack Miles’s Commonweal piece on the immigration dilemma, and this New York Times article on urban gardening are all on my queue, as is Rod Dreher’s request for a “list of ways the Republicans can save themselves” less ridiculous than Newt Gingrich’s. But all of that has been pushed aside by a busy week of writing, meeting with students, and – occasionally – trying to think about “real” philosophy, and now – just as I had planned to spend a couple of hours typing away – I’ve received an audio recording of a California Assembly Agriculture Committee hearing on raw milk that I need to listen to for my Doublethink article. But maybe things will lighten up one of these months.
I did, though, want to make a quick point about how hard it is to blog. I love to write, but I’m not someone to whom words come easily or – more importantly – constantly, and so I tend to be productive only in spurts. This is not, or at least not usually, the way to run a blog, though there are people – Prof’s. Fox and Deneen, for example – who do quite well posting only once or twice a week. The difficulty there is that it is hard to post this infrequently and still be sufficiently brief in what one says – and brevity, I think, is exactly the thing, or one of the most important things, that makes blogospheric writing so especially enjoyable. All of which is just a long way of saying that, two-and-a-half months into the endeavor, I still don’t know exactly why I’m doing this. So thanks for your indulgence as I try to get things sorted out.
Filed under: miscellany, personal
Recent Comments