Stardate 20040615.1118

(Captain's log): Kevin writes:

I'm hoping that the email I sent to you the other day regarding a recent event here in Norway at least warrants a response of some sort. I assure you that this event was as I described it, and that the media response was as I indicated as well. My thought was that if we can get it commented on to a certain tipping point, then there is a fair chance that some pressure can be put on the media here to address there own coverage of the event, and by proxy (and more importantly), the issues in general. I would like to make it a piece worthy of interesting discussion, that the Media as an institution here is quite blatant and overbearing in its influence of the public discussion, and that in context, this has implications in the free world as a sort of "irrational conclusion" of what we blithely call media bias. I've been having some fascinating experiences forwarding that line on some discussion groups... and it definitely generates interest.

I'm going to respond to this because it typifies one kind of email I receive quite a lot: the social activist announcement asking for publicity, and the followup letter more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger asking why I hadn't joined in the cause, hoping perhaps that I might reconsider Because It Is Really Important.

I suspect the main reason I get a lot of these is just because I do a lot of traffic, so an advertisement here would be valuable. But it's barely possible that it may arise from a pretty serious misunderstanding about the nature of my blog.

I am not engaged in any kind of social crusade, where I deliberately try to shine lights on The Things Which Are Important.

I do not see myself as part of any kind of movement. I do not engage in publicity campaigns. I do not help Get The Word Out. I don't put ribbon-icons on my sidebar, or make the background black for 24 hours, or engage in other similar gestures of solidarity. I never have and I'm not particularly interested in starting now.

I'm not trying to change the world. I'm not trying to influence public opinion. I'm not trying to "make a difference". Those things are totally orthogonal to the real motivation for this site.

USS Clueless is 21st century high-tech vanity press, and that's all it has ever been. It permits me to write and make my writings available to other people to read, because I like to write and because all writers like having readers.

Some people keep links to their "blog children" or their "blog parents". If I have a blog mother, it would be Sarah Bunting, whose site isn't even formatted as a blog.

If people have gotten into the habit of visiting here regularly, it's because what they find here cannot be found anywhere else. A given post may be long or short, profound or banal, informed or deluded, wise or foolish. But it will be mine and it will be unique and substantial. It will explain what I think about the subject, and why. The one thing it will not be is cookie-cutter trivial, something which could just as easily have been found on any of fifty other blogs, word for word.

It's entirely possible that I have influenced public opinion more than a negligible amount, and "made a difference", though I doubt it. I have no way to determine that. But if I have influenced others, the paradox is that I was only able to do so because I did not deliberately set out to do so. If anything I wrote actually did influence others, it was only because it was heartfelt and genuine and spontaneous, rather than being forced and calculated.

I write about things when, and only when, I have things to say about them and when I feel inspired to write. That inspiration is not something I consciously control, and when I try to write without it the result is invariably crap.

I don't make posts that say nothing except, "Go look at this." (Or "Go look at this, because it's Really Really Important That Lots Of People Know About It.") There are many other bloggers who do that, and it's an important and useful function some blogs perform.

There are no rules about what blogs must be or must do, except one: "There are no rules about what blogs must be or must do, except one: 'There are no...

I'm a "thinker", not a "linker". There's no rule that says I have to become linker-for-a-day just because It Is Really Important To Get The Word Out.

Other people Get The Word Out. I just write about stuff, and I never know what I'm going to write about on any given day until I suddenly find myself writing it. I'm usually just as surprised writing it as you are when reading it. It's not totally wrong to say that I'm actually the first reader of each post, rather than the writer of it.

When it comes to any given group's plans to Change The World, or to Make A Difference, I wish you well. But include me out of your plans. I want nothing to do with it.

I did not link to the thing Kevin wrote about in his previous email, and I will not be doing so. I don't link to any of the other Really Important Things I get sent mail about. (This was the only exception.) It has nothing to do with whether I approve or disapprove of it, or whether I agree or disagree about the importance. It is because I have nothing useful to say about the matter, and I don't link to anything unless I feel inspired to write about it.

Those are the only things which "warrant a response" on my site.

Kevin's feelings also seem to have been hurt by the fact that I didn't respond to his first email. I try to answer as much of my mail as I can, but it is flatly impossible for me to answer it all. My mail contact page makes very clear that some mail won't be answered.

All of my email "warrants a response" on the merits, but the practical reality is that it won't all get one.

Perhaps I should change the name of this site to "USS Vanity Press".