My last posting demonstrates that some of the best writing that occurs at this weblog occurs within the comments rather than within the posting, itself.
Still continuing the theme of how much to share online. When does sharing stop and uncontrolled dumping of self begin.
There was a point made, and a good one, that if you can write in a manner that is coherent than both the reader and the writer gain from the experience, regardless of the content of the writing. If your emotions are so strong, the rage so heavy, the fear so overwhelming, the despair so great that you can no longer communicate in any meaningful manner than the sharing becomes confusing to the reader and ultimately a betrayal of self online. The writer regrets the written. If you write something you regret having written than you’ve crossed the line. The content doesn’t matter as much as the end result.
So, how far does one take the coherency? One can write of emotions from an intellectual viewpoint, and the writing can be rich. However, at times the intellectualization of writing flattens the peaks and fills in the troughs of our experiences, our feelings.
The cluetrain folks were mentioned in the comments so let’s consider them for a moment:
I read David Weinberger or Doc Searls and they have a wonderful way with words, but there is an intellectualism at times in their writing that makes me uncomfortable with my own weblog postings. Does this make sense?
However, I read Chris Locke when he is in rare form and I feel that one can pour out your inner self and it becomes art, and it becomes literature, and it becomes something ultimately rewarding to the reader and the writer.
The question continues…