I find it somewhat difficult to critique my blog writing. The form, if done right, is so different from any other medium of writing. Blog writing, the way it has been defined to me in various courses, should be sincere. It should be close to a stream of conscious. In other words, a blog should be a forum somewhat resembling your inner thoughts being published. If I use this as the measure of how well I wrote, then I am satisfied. I feel like my blog was an accurate representation of me and my own thoughts. Therefore, I feel like it was accurate.
Although it may seem backwords, I think my first post, after revisions was my best. The essay on place was something that just lent itself to my style of writing. In my opinion it's the type of prompt that lends itself to the medium of blogging. When I was sitting down to write about place, it was a very organic process. Since the post wasn't something that I really had to structure or research, it was almost like a free write where I could just let everything I feel about my favorite spot just kind of dribble out into the blog. So a rough draft is almost how I feel a true blog post should look. It shows transparency. It lets readers in on the process. The small blunders, (I'm sure there will be a few in here) kind of make the blog real and relatable. But if I take a step back from my concrete view of what a blog should be all about, then the revised version takes the cake. I think the cleaner version with a little more clarity in some spots was the quality of work expected of a decent blog.
I was also pretty pumped about my report on OU recycling. I went out on a limb a little bit and used Ed Newman as a vehicle to drive the report. This is something I employ a lot in my magazine journalism courses. I often rely on a central figure to act as a narrative arc. In this case, as soon as I met with Ed, I couldn't resist using Ed as my vehicle. His energy was hard to ignore, and he had so many compelling quotes that I didn't have the heart to not include in my report. I think this affinity for quotes is also a result of my news writing and feature writing pedigree. In the end the decision came when I had the realization that no one could tell the story of campus recycling better than Ed Newman. He is ground zero for the operation. He is passionate about what he does, and everything comes through him. He could also explain the big picture better than I could. As a result, I decided that he could tell the story better than anyone so I would just let him. So I tried to jam a lot of quotes in to allow this.
On the opposite end of the spectrum was my dam post. Without characters like Newman, and not being able to rely on my own thoughts or experiences, I was left to do some serious research. This is where I started off on the wrong foot. My initial research was weaker (for lack of practice) than I wanted it to be and I was left with so many holes. I think the post in general just didn't lend itself to my strengths so my effort came out uninspired.
It seems then that my strong posts were ones that I got to use my writing strengths to execute them. My weak posts then, were the ones that I didn't prepare for or didn't give myself a chance on. I lack of resources for good material would be at the root of most of them. As a body of work though, I am definitely satisfied with my blog. I think I finished with a decent blog trying to communicate the spirit of Bucky Fuller and as far as an expoloration into the world of environmentalists and their practices, the project was a success. I learned quite a bit about the subject matter through the format and I also learned about the power of a blog as a medium to present a very diverse set of postings, factual and reflective alike. And of course we saved some paper!
Back to blogging...and running.
15 years ago