<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Blogging as performance art</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.todayiwrite.com/journal/blogging-as-performance-art.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.todayiwrite.com/journal/blogging-as-performance-art.html</link>
	<description>(the psychology of writer's block)</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:35:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: hollyjahangiri</title>
		<link>http://www.todayiwrite.com/journal/blogging-as-performance-art.html/comment-page-1#comment-33</link>
		<dc:creator>hollyjahangiri</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:33:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.todayiwrite.com/blogging-as-performance-art.html#comment-33</guid>
		<description>I found your comments on blogging quite interesting. I think you&#039;re very close to identifying one cause (or cure) for writer&#039;s block, there. I do some of my best writing online, where I can get the immediate gratification of reader feedback. And yes - attention. Many years ago, I realized I was something of a &quot;performance writer.&quot; I&#039;m not one of those writers who can honestly claim &quot;I write only for myself.&quot; That&#039;s what diaries are for, in my opinion. I write for myself and for readers. Take the readers and their feedback out of the equation, and writing&#039;s just no fun anymore.

But blogging&#039;s interesting. As you noted, it&#039;s not &quot;fixed in stone.&quot; It&#039;s fluid and changeable. I used to feel guilty doing extensive revisions, back in the days before word processing - guilty for killing trees, marring that perfect sheet of paper with less-than-perfect words, etc. I&#039;d carefully think out what I wanted to say, write it down, and that was that. The good thing about that was that it imposed a certain amount of discipline, to think before committing words to paper. The bad thing was, it didn&#039;t allow room for the ideas to evolve and change over time. Then, too, it&#039;s possible to overthink things, to where the final result is well-written, but not half as fresh or fun to read.

Blogging&#039;s interesting in another way, though, too. I have yet to find my &quot;voice&quot; on Blogger, because I have this perception of there being millions of random people around the world reading it. Even though I can edit to my heart&#039;s content, they&#039;ll know - they&#039;ll see the imperfect draft I was so eager to post and share with them. Will they like it? Hate it? Or worse, be bored to tears? (I can take constructive criticism, but I don&#039;t like being responsible for drive-by yawnings.) By contrast, on Writing.com, my online journal is accessible only to &quot;50,000 of my closest friends.&quot; Now, realistically, only about 50 people read my journal on Writing.com,  and maybe about 10 out of those random millions have ever stumbled onto my Blogger site. I know the numbers, because I have a counter installed there. Interestingly, the counter - the knowledge that my audience is somewhat more limited - makes it easier to write to them. Most do comment, so I feel I&#039;m writing to friends - or at least to a friendly, receptive audience. It&#039;s not at all important that they agree with me or love what I have to say, but it is important to me to know they&#039;re reading, and to read what they&#039;re thinking about what they&#039;re reading. It&#039;s the ones who don&#039;t comment - at all - that leave me feeling unable to write. I don&#039;t know what they want. I don&#039;t care if the comments are negative - I really don&#039;t. The only negative comment that ever gave me something approaching &quot;writer&#039;s block&quot; was along the lines of &quot;Oh my God, this is the most boring thing I&#039;ve ever read. If I pay you, will you stop, please?&quot; I&#039;m ashamed to say that actually worked for about a week - until the check from dear old &quot;Anonymous&quot; bounced, and I felt free to post again.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I found your comments on blogging quite interesting. I think you&#8217;re very close to identifying one cause (or cure) for writer&#8217;s block, there. I do some of my best writing online, where I can get the immediate gratification of reader feedback. And yes &#8211; attention. Many years ago, I realized I was something of a &#8220;performance writer.&#8221; I&#8217;m not one of those writers who can honestly claim &#8220;I write only for myself.&#8221; That&#8217;s what diaries are for, in my opinion. I write for myself and for readers. Take the readers and their feedback out of the equation, and writing&#8217;s just no fun anymore.</p>
<p>But blogging&#8217;s interesting. As you noted, it&#8217;s not &#8220;fixed in stone.&#8221; It&#8217;s fluid and changeable. I used to feel guilty doing extensive revisions, back in the days before word processing &#8211; guilty for killing trees, marring that perfect sheet of paper with less-than-perfect words, etc. I&#8217;d carefully think out what I wanted to say, write it down, and that was that. The good thing about that was that it imposed a certain amount of discipline, to think before committing words to paper. The bad thing was, it didn&#8217;t allow room for the ideas to evolve and change over time. Then, too, it&#8217;s possible to overthink things, to where the final result is well-written, but not half as fresh or fun to read.</p>
<p>Blogging&#8217;s interesting in another way, though, too. I have yet to find my &#8220;voice&#8221; on Blogger, because I have this perception of there being millions of random people around the world reading it. Even though I can edit to my heart&#8217;s content, they&#8217;ll know &#8211; they&#8217;ll see the imperfect draft I was so eager to post and share with them. Will they like it? Hate it? Or worse, be bored to tears? (I can take constructive criticism, but I don&#8217;t like being responsible for drive-by yawnings.) By contrast, on Writing.com, my online journal is accessible only to &#8220;50,000 of my closest friends.&#8221; Now, realistically, only about 50 people read my journal on Writing.com,  and maybe about 10 out of those random millions have ever stumbled onto my Blogger site. I know the numbers, because I have a counter installed there. Interestingly, the counter &#8211; the knowledge that my audience is somewhat more limited &#8211; makes it easier to write to them. Most do comment, so I feel I&#8217;m writing to friends &#8211; or at least to a friendly, receptive audience. It&#8217;s not at all important that they agree with me or love what I have to say, but it is important to me to know they&#8217;re reading, and to read what they&#8217;re thinking about what they&#8217;re reading. It&#8217;s the ones who don&#8217;t comment &#8211; at all &#8211; that leave me feeling unable to write. I don&#8217;t know what they want. I don&#8217;t care if the comments are negative &#8211; I really don&#8217;t. The only negative comment that ever gave me something approaching &#8220;writer&#8217;s block&#8221; was along the lines of &#8220;Oh my God, this is the most boring thing I&#8217;ve ever read. If I pay you, will you stop, please?&#8221; I&#8217;m ashamed to say that actually worked for about a week &#8211; until the check from dear old &#8220;Anonymous&#8221; bounced, and I felt free to post again.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

