obligatory meta-comment on the medium

[nathanjw]

The presumption of the blogger is that anyone else is interested.

Is this sin of pride forgivable?

I don't know.

Comments

[alphacygni]

This would be why I can't bring myself to post in mine more than once in a blue moon.

And yet, I don't think anything negative about other people's blogs, and I enjoy being able to keep up with what people are doing because of them. Sometimes I skim over boring bits, but they don't know I'm doing it, no one is harmed, and even Judith Martin is probably happy.

And yet I'm convinced that some faceless looming chorus will see me blogging, and mutter, "Who does she think she is? What a brat." I'll perhaps get around to fighting this paranoia sometime after I fight the three or four other paranoias that are higher on the priority list.

In other meta news, livejournal's built-in spellchecker does not recognize the word "blogging".

[exponentialdk.livejournal.com]

In other meta news, livejournal's built-in spellchecker does not recognize the word "blogging".

Nor does it recognize "LJ".

As for the original question, when you post things in your live journal, you either post them primarily for yourself (no presumption) or primarily for others. In the latter case, it's like posting an article on your office door: it doesn't matter if anyone else cares. You care that they read it. That's enough, though your effort is wasted if nobody else reads it (whether or not they care :).

I like the LJ concept much better than the typical web log, on the grounds that anyone who has listed you as a friend has endorsed your journal. Not endorsed as in "this is good and everyone should read it," but "this is at least worth the disk blocks it's printed on."

On a related note, I suspect it is common to worry about one's journal when postings get no comments. But some of them stand just fine without comment, and some topics have no interest for some subscribers/friends/readers.