Audience growing

I was heartened this week when my wife said she was going to start reading my blog, as this brings my total readership up to 1. That may not sound like a lot, but, in percentage terms, it is enormous.

I used to think people had to be conceited to think that others would want to read their random thoughts on a daily basis. Some people work for years to publish finely-honed books of fact or fiction; bloggers spend thirty minutes or an hour a night writing essays and think they deserve an audience. On the other hand, they are partially justified by the fact that they have an audience. How conceited must I be to publish a blog that no one actually reads? Do I think that what I am writing is so valuable that it needs to be available for the public, as though someone is one day going to discover it and realize its value?

Actually, the truth is that I started this particular blog on my own web server, just because I had things I wanted to say and no obvious place to put them. I didn't think I would use it much, but I found I wrote in it compulsively. When I had to take my server offline, I wanted to continue the blog, so I decided to move it to a public server. Even though I write primarily for myself, though, I have to admit that I am interested in having an audience -- not with the aim of making money, but just because I want to share my thoughts. The irony of writing a public blog with almost no audience is never far from my mind.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Science and Philosophy, Part I: Hume and Popper

I've been listening to a lecture series on philosophy recently, and, even though I haven't gotten past the Greeks yet, it has reminded me of a number of issues that trouble me about science. I want to take the opportunity to express my concerns here. Along the way, I will probably oversimplify philosophy a great deal -- not on purpose, but rather because I have only a simplistic understanding of it. I welcome responses to clear up my misconceptions. One of my issues with science is the famous idea of Karl Popper that it can never establish positive claims, only falsify wrong ones. The history of this goes back to David Hume, the 18th century Scottish sceptic. He shook up the philosophical world by claiming that science could never prove anything through induction -- that is, drawing conclusions about physical laws based on observations. The classic illustration is the sun's rising. Even though the sun has risen every day for our whole lives, and for countless human l...
Read more

Country Music

I noticed a long time ago that there isn't much difference between the sound of country music and rock music nowadays. If I'm surfing my radio and I come to a station playing jazz, classical, or rap, I recognize it right away; but if I come to a country or rock station, I often can't tell which it is until the song is half over. Country songs often have screaming guitars that would fit equally well in a hard rock song, and only a minority have a recognizably country instrument such as a fiddle or a banjo. All the same, no one could listen to a country music station for more than a few minutes without realizing that it is definitely not a rock station. What are the differences? There are some stylistic differences. Country songs are more likely to have a boogey beat or certain western-sounding bass lines. They also tend to be more formulaic: if you can't predict how a country song ends, you probably don't listen to much country music. But those things aren...
Read more

My privileged life

I have just read the article Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Level , and the comments, and the follow-up and its comments.  The author claims that straight white males (SWM, for short) don't like being told they are "privileged," so he is going to try to explain their advantages in terms they understand.  He then very condescendingly compares their lives to playing a game on the easiest difficulty level, whereas people in other categories have it harder, and black lesbians are playing on the hardest level of all. I understand that this is a metaphor, or an analogy.  I understand that it is not supposed to be a perfect model of reality.  There are, however, several reasons why I think it is a very poor and misleading metaphor. First of all, using the gaming-difficulty metaphor implies that SWMs have an easy life.  No one plays at the easiest level unless he is a total noob, and only college students with lots of time on their hands play at the hard...
Read more