Loosely Knit Group, That Blogosphere Is

Yesterday, in implicitly discussing the teleological nature of the blogosphere, Colossus wrote:.

But it isn't about size, after all -- frankly I think her argument is nonsense. I'd hate to become a blog that can't discuss anything under the Sun. Consider these ten fine blogs which discuss everything under the sun, and tell me -- are they successful because they've specialized?

...Jane, I'm not pushing a product here. I'm not trying to differentiate myself so I can sell more godd*mn widgets. It ain't about the widgets. It ain't about the almighty traffic, it ain't about the godd*mn dollar. It's about doing something I enjoy and sharing it with others.

Maybe lightning will strike for me like it did for John Scalzi, and I'll sell a few books. But if it doesn't, that's OK, too.

So keep the marketing pitch.

Or, better yet, go write me something interesting and maybe I'll link to you.

I'm with Colossus on this one. I find the argument about creating a more "successful blog" to be a bit moot as it is a poor assumption to generalize "blogging" and what it's nature is based on the relationship of upper-tier bloggers to everyone else. I think this is where Colossus is heading with his thoughts.

Granted, this particular discussion is an argument focused on how lower-tier bloggers can increase their exposure to upper-tier, or mainstream bloggers, but I think the argument misses out on a whole facet that makes the blogosphere unique: namely that its diversity and bandwidth has the capability to really affect and drive dialog on issues of great importance. It's importance shouldn't be measured on how each blog individually influences debate, but about how it acts as an aggregate force. And what about bloggers like Colossus and me that don't care about traffic or breaking through into the mainstream clique? Do we have a place in this mess? I'm going to argue that we have a tremendous role to play, but by it's very nature, will remain under-the-radar.

When it comes to particular topics, there is a wide market for bloggers that specialize in that particular topic. There will always be a need for "expert opinion" from people that live and breathe the material they are writing about. For instance, if I want to understand something about the way the latest piece of the war is fitting into the global war on terrorism, I click over to the Belmont Club; for science, I don't think there is anyone more articulate than Anthony Perez-Miller over at Andúnië (full disclosure, I go to Andúnië for everything as Anthony is not only an exceptional writer, but also a close friend). These are just a handful of examples, however the point being that there are some exceptionally talented people that are putting free content out on the Web that helps us see through the lines in ways that those who are not trained in one particular topic cannot.

But most people fall into the catagory that Colossus, me and most other bloggers fall into: "Miscellaneous." That really doesn't make for a good buzz word, but it does contains a truth: blogging isn't about providing a service, it is more self-serving; a medium through which we better or sharpen our thinking on issues that we care about. Also, being unconstrained to a particular specialization, we are free to expand our writings by bringing a variety of different topics and opinions into context with others. Sometimes I tire of reading minutia and only care about how it relates to something bigger.

In my opinion, the perfect example of a blog of this nature is the highly underrated Astonished Head, authored and run by the eminently talented, but positively insane Ian Wood (Being that Ian graciously hits this site every now and again, I feel that I owe him a little bit of ass-kissing here). As a matter of fact, his style has heavily influenced my own in that Ian clearly thinks through multifacited issues, while writing in his own unique voice.

So, springboarding off that, Ian wrote a post a little while ago about the neccesity of the practice of rhetoric through the means of dialog:

One of the key components of a classical education in 5th-century Athens was rhetoric. The study of the verbal bow, the accompanying shield and quiver of arrows, and the techniques of their proper use allowed an educated person to spot the aforementioned bovine fecal matter when it issued forth from the mouth of a politician, an orator, a philosopher, or the local loudmouth at the baths. Such study served as a defense against infection by bad ideas and allowed for escape from poorly-constructed logical traps. In short, it equipped the student with much of the intellectual arsenal that he required to think for himself.

Those who argue today for a reduction or elimination of media bias, to be somehow carried out by the media itself so as to maintain its illusory independence, are the equivalent of a 5th-century Athenian arguing that anyone who made a speech had a duty to present only the undisguised truth and make no attempt to sway his audience with any rhetorical tricks.

I've written before about Plato's depiction of Socrates' mistrust of the written word. Part of this mistrust, I believe, stems from his belief that the written word deprived the reader of the use of a very powerful arrow in the rhetorical quiver: dialogue. Interlocution was a vital part of Plato's entire philosophical process and, thus, absolutely vital for the pursuit and discernment of truth.

He lived in an age when the almost all libraries were small collections of manuscripts privately held by wealthy patricians. The single public library at Alexandria held 750,000 scrolls at its height, a significant portion of which must have been duplicates because there weren't that many written works in the known world. The primary mode of information exchange--and thus, the primary method of intellectual influence--was verbal.

This is ultimately the roll that we peons at the bottom of pile provide. We are the ones that validate all the ideas and arguments thrown around by the bigwigs at the top. For example, if Glenn at Instapundit makes a lazy argument, he is going to have thousands of bloggers down below pounding him for it. Glenn may be a bad example in that he usually, whether you agree with him or not, presents a solid and concise argument. However, no one has felt this ripple effect harder than the once esteemed Andrew Sullivan. When Andrew, who was once a cheerleader for Bush and the War in Iraq, turned the other way faster than a Frenchmen during an invasion, the blogosphere lit him up. Sullivan's shift wasn't the result of gaining a better argument based on the solid reasoning of an opposing viewpoint. Instead, the ideas he once owned and argued for reversed for no logical reason apart from a personal vendetta towards the President. This was the sin he paid for.

Ideas and arguments trickle down; they are sliced, diced and then put through the fire and by the end, a solid argument will withstand the heat of the kiln. This is why assinine statements like "Its All About Oil" and "The Jews Were Behind 9/11" melt through the onslaught that goes beyond what the "experts" think. This is invaluable in democracy where what the "elites" or "experts" think is less relevant than what the entire constituency wants.

For me personally, I don't care to write about what I specialize in. I work all day long thinking about business and finance and, while I like what I do very much, it is not something I find interesting extensively writing about in my spare time (for now). I'm no "expert" at a lot of the things I write about; I know just enough to be dangerous. When I named this site TenFingers6Strings, and assumed its pseudonym, I thought I would be writing more about playing guitar and someday will get to it. But for now, the understanding of the war that we are currently waging is something that should be of the utmost importance--for everyone. I'm just doing my little bit to try and think my way through this damn thing. I don't post often enough to have any individual influence, but I just hope that a few people stop by and get challenged every now and again.

Anyway, this is a long way around saying, dammit, I'll write about whatever I bloody-hell want to....

...wearing a pink bandana.