On not being a "good" theo-blogger

The last post reminds me of how true it is, what I say in the sidebar. This is not a place where, by and large, I put up polished work. It is a place where I put up things that are coming out of my head mostly as I write them, or within a few days. The roughest never get posted -- they're too fragmentary and I like to at least have a complete thought out. The Derrida bit just now is a piece of hashing out for an AAR proposal -- something that would never go in the proposal, let alone the paper, but had to be written, and therefore went on the blog because I had the time.

It strikes me that "good" theo-bloggers don't do this, but I never started this thing to be good at self-publishing. I started it to get a spot where the writing could go other than random scraps of paper or text files. It is, as Hall says, an extension. A place outside my body where a function of my brain can undergo rapid-prototyping. Sometimes what comes out has undergone more development, and looks halfway decent and usable; sometimes it gets better than that. But I'm not aiming for this to be a place where I'm always correct, or always proud of what I have to say or the ways I have of saying it. I'd like it to be a place where I'm always correctable.

Of course, I also don't do a damn thing to improve my audience here. Which doesn't help the correction factor -- many eyes make all bugs shallow -- but it's not like all the stuff here is palatable to a general audience. Meh. It is what it is. It is also what I have been along the way.