Comments on: The TRUTH Behind Bloggus Interruptus!

By: Rick

Rick — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:06:49 +0000

Aw, shucks, Peet … thanks.

By: Peet Gelderblom

Peet Gelderblom — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:28:28 +0000

You don’t have to blog many times a week for us to stay interested, Rick. Just write something interesting whenever you feel inspired. We’ll be grateful if you do, and we’ll miss you when you don’t.

Counting comments is a lousy way to evaluate your posts, by the way. The best ones often leave your readers speechless.

By: Rick

Rick — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:47:42 +0000

Bill, thanks. To paraphrase Stan Laurel, I used to be stupid, but I’m better now. Interestingly, I still get people steadily checking in, even after two weeks. Which indicates that Tommy is probably right: RSS means never having to obsess about getting posts out again. As God is our witness, we shall never go blogless again.

By: bill r.

bill r. — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:45:38 +0000

I’ll be honest, Rick — your absence had me worried, so I’m thrilled to see you back. And I know exactly how you feel. I think we all do. I think the key idea is to not be too obsessive about our blogs, as you pointed out. After I finished my October posts, I thought “I ain’t bloggin’ about shit for at least TWO WHOLE DAYS!” And then I started worrying if that was too long, which then caused me to worry about the fact that I had nothing to write about. But something happened to me, too, which is that I saw A SERIOUS MAN, and suddenly found that I DID have something to write about, and I wanted to write about it, and suddenly, out of the blue, and for maybe the first time in the two plus years I’ve had my blog, I don’t feel much pressure to write something just to write something. Why this breakthrough occurred now (and how long this healthy attitude will last) I don’t know, but it’s a nice feeling. So what I’m saying is, glad to have you back, buddy!

LONG PARAGRAPH!

By: Rick

Rick — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:45:10 +0000

Thanks, Pat. I’ve not seen Antichrist; movies with names like that don’t play all that well in towns with names like Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

By: Pat

Pat — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:47:28 +0000

Rick – “Bloggus Interuptus” is all too familiar to me – I’m lucky to get one post up every two weeks, if that. And I can relate to everything you’ve said here. I’ve seen many more films this year than I’ve taken the trouble to blog about (I still haven’t posted a review of “Antichrist” a week and a half after seeing it.) But I enjoy your posts whenever they arrive, and I’m looking forward to whatever you write about that film you rediscovered and loved.

By: Rick

Rick — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:17:28 +0000

The blockbuster thing is good to do once in awhile, Daniel. Sometimes I get burned, though: they tend to be hot-points for controversy, which I don’t mind, but I like to write stuff that takes a measured view of a movie. Very few films are all one way or the other, all good or bad, but with a high profile release, positions can get hardened. The best recent example I can think of is the Basterds … if you didn’t just flip out over the film, you must hate it. Conversely, if you flipped out over it, you were labeled a fanboy. Not fair to folks who are in the middle, or on the really, really like side.

By: Rick

Rick — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:12:22 +0000

Tommy, I think you’re right: I use an RSS reader as well. Just gotta remember to check it …

By: Daniel

Daniel — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:31:07 +0000

Anybody who claims to not feel the same way you do on a regular basis is lying – or a really fortunate and amazingly-motivated blogger. It’s one thing to have the time to write, quite another to be able to take that time and write something brilliant. My posting has gone down lately both due to lack of time and acceptance of the same realization you had. I haven’t consider closing down shop entirely, but certainly I’ve tried to make myself only feel “obligated” to write about what personally moves me. Sometimes it’s fun to write about the latest blockbuster just to get in the water with everyone else, but I don’t get nearly as much personal satisfaction, or feel as if I’ve grown in any way, as when I write something I consider deeply personal, or at least something that’s made me thing about something in a new way.

In other words, writer’s block should only be consider writer’s block when you’re really moved by something and still can’t write about it. You just hadn’t seen anything great in a while, that’s all. And maybe this movie that touched you recently will fade as you don’t write about it over the next few days, which is fine, too. Maybe it wasn’t as moving as you thought immediately afterwards.

Anyway, the more I’ve realized that I should write for myself and not my “audience” (whom I love, of course), the more fulfilling it’s been. What Randy is getting at; kind of the Roger Ebert’s Journal model.

Oh yeah, and what Tommy said, too. Don’t worry about coming to find us all the time. Technology these days keeps me apprised of everything you’re doing here as you do it, however frequent or infrequent that is.

By: Tommy Salami

Tommy Salami — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:36:18 +0000

I felt the same way a while back. Nowadays you don’t need to post every day. Most readers use an RSS reader, or get the blog emailed to them. If they don’t, suggest that they do. That way you can write when the mood hits you and not be concerned.