One of the problems with this blog is its lack of focus. When someone comes up with a blog, it’s usually aimed at a specific audience with the intent of building up readership to some end. When you want to know about butterfly mating or the culture of Lapland, you find the appropriate blog and follow it along with all the rest who share your eclectic interests. (They’re both probably out there, but I didn’t take the time to look.)
What some might term a lack of focus or the blog equivalent of ADHD – my topics range from film to the Christian faith to MS to bike paths and beyond – I prefer to present as a diversity of views and interests. Sounds a lot better, more like a purposeful ideal than some form of mental deficiency.
Being that my intent here is primarily to exercise my writing muscle, as opposed to communicating some ulterior agenda (though I have many of those and choose to expound on them from time to time) the current format is perfectly fine.
That leaves the reader (yeah, both of you) with a conundrum. Is it worth following a blog that represents such a spectrum of interests? The thought had occurred to me to branch this one blog into several, one for each topic. In this way, I’d have a much higher chance of accumulating followers, alienating fewer along the way. After all, blogs are free… so far.
In the end (now) I decided not to do so for two reasons: First, amassing a following, as tempting as that might be to my frail ego, is not the point. Writing is the point. If anyone reads these scribblings, well, great.
Second, for those who are so inclined, the technology exists to consume only those topics of interest. I’ve tried to be good about assigning a category to each post. By selecting only those of interest – be they about MS or movies – you can browse those alone. The rest are there when your imagination chooses to go as far astray as mine.
Just thought I’d say, is all.