Friday, June 18, 2004

Notes from a non-addicted blogger

Stephen Dawson, of Australian Libertarian Blog, wonders

Is a Tim Blair or an Andrew Sullivan a balanced individual or an addicted blogger? I don't know either personally. But who cares (aside from them, themselves, and their loved ones)? All the rest of us benefit from their 'addiction'.

Duh. Does Dawson even have to ask? At the moment Andrew Sullivan seems to be writing about 9-10 items a day. And not short posts, either. Long, rambling posts, often unintenionally revealing of a man whose politicial life is unravelling and yet who feels a need to record it compulsively.

Of course, Sullivan is now a semi-professional blogger, so he he can do this all day. The question is, why would anyone want to? I wonder who actually benefits from, say, today's output, which includes Andrew's rambling ruminations on sexual attraction, and two additions to Andrew's now regularly updated enemies list of "conservatives I once eagerly went to bed with, but have now revealed their true colours by attacking me now that I've parted the ways with GW Bush over the gay issue." In case you were wondering, the additions are Jonah Goldberg, and his rather explicitly homophobic mother, Lucianne.

Anyway, Dawson's comment is precipitated by a piece in MIT's technology review, is blogging the new crack?, itself citing a New York Times story on a man who ruined a vacation with his wife because of his compulsive blogging.

Libertarians will never understand this, but some things are good for people to do, and some things aren't. And when blogging takes over your life, this isn't good. Indeed, it's pathetic. And other people are entitled to give you a reality check, yes, even to judge you.

All this is a roundabout way of saying that I'm proud to have a chronically late, infrequently updated, and largely unread blog. At least this way, nobody can accuse me of blog addiction.