Arianna Huffington talked about blogging about a month ago on The Jon Stewart Show. Of all the different explanations and discussions concerning blogging, I think I like her explanation best. She makes several comments I appreciate, including:
The difference about blogging is that it’s — as we say . . . first thought, best thought. Like, don’t over think it, don’t overwrite it . . . it’s a first draft of history.
Blogging is not about perfectionism. Blogging is about intimacy, immediacy, transparency, and sharing your thoughts the way you share it with a friend.
So, friends, I come to you now to bring up the conundrum of writing a book on blogging. Hmm, I say. I think the way she explains it is correct — blogging seems to be a “first draft of history” — typos and all. I can’t help but wonder about the marketing of this. I mean, bloggers would seem to be the ones truly curious about this book, but instead of releasing it as a pdf book, they chose to publish it on real paper. I have to wonder if they’re really reaching their audience.
BUT! I have a copy of Creative Nonfiction‘s “The Best Creative Nonfiction, Volume 1” which includes some choice blog posts. (I mean, they recently published “The Best Creative Nonfiction, Volume 2” that does the same thing.) If we’re now publishing the first draft of history (which is important, I’m not saying it’s not), then what happens to the 2nd and 3rd and 4th draft of history?
I suppose I’d like to see these posts retold later, you know? I’d like to see how the 2nd and 3rd drafts come out in comparison to the first. There’s no need to get rid of either–they both have validity, but I just want to see how they change. Obviously, typos would improve, but would reveal something about how we approach different audiences (ie from the internet readers to the book readers)? Would we change what we think? I don’t know, but I am curious to know.