The Art of Bloggery

Well I did create this a few months ago with a view to making this a regular habit, and, as you may notice below, it didn't exactly take off.

So, Shaun. You're going to have a self-evaluation. You haven't slept all night and are currently eating jam on toast for what is the first time in YEARS. You're listening to the radio on your TV, for fuck's sake. What's wrong with you, and why have these circumstances led to your blog-revival?

Well. It was chance. I clicked someone else's blog and saw odd and angry musings and it irked me. So I decided to make more of my own, just to spread a little more rational and lovely and self-assured giddiness.

But you can't just be wallowing in how amazing you are?

Whilst it's something I do do often, not this time. In fact, I'm going to moan about the nature of blogging itself.

Now, don't get me wrong - it has its uses and it's had its success stories. Diablo Cody's screenplay for her story was picked up by Hollywood and now takes form in a little-known picture called "Juno". Perez Hilton is probably more of a celebrity than half of the vacuous slags he writes about (though I fear dwelling on that ape will lead me into a furore).

But it's the sheer volume of people out there assuming their opinion matters that irks me. "BAH! HYPOCRISY!" I hear you cry. Well, indeed.

I am the product of a generation that insists that Have Your Say and Social Networking must integrate and be thoroughly represented in all walks of life. Audience interaction with the shaping of music has long been documented since the rise of talent-shows; movies are under constant bombardment from the likes of IMDb; TV regularly pays attention to forums in search of feedback. All forms of complaints, feedback, advice, suggestions, enquiries and vitriol are conveyed now on the world wide web and it's not entirely a bad thing.

However, what it has put paid to is the sense of composure one was instilled with. There is a screen to hide behind and there are many who abuse that - the number of crimes, "flaming" and creation of fake identities (not necessarily in a sinister, lecherous way) has paved the way for this public interaction to be a whole lot less real.

But back to the composure point. You'll probably be familiar with the stereotypical "Points of View" busybody who, 30 years ago, will have been able to make a few droning phonecalls to a narcoleptic Terry Wogan only to be reassured that "we are doing something about it. ta."

Do I have a romanticised view of the past? I think in a sense all people do. There is always going to be an embrace of familiarity and nostalgia because change is unfamiliar and frightening. But does that mean I lie awake at night an insomniac because of the prospect of 3D video games? No it does not. (OK, I confess, I wish 3D would bugger off, but that's for another blog (if I get around to it))

Back to my point. There is a zeitgeist, I feel, that people genuinely believe that their opinion is important nowadays. Why is this?

There has been a surge of political opinion and critical ones too - ones that were formerly given to the likes of well-educated and informed devil advocates, beseeched upon them with trust that they knew what they were talking about. Nowadays, you pick up any newspaper/magazine, or click any web page, and the majority of columnists are celebrity guests.

A trivial example of this I encounter regularly is the monthly Sky magazine that falls through the letterbox. Now, being part of the Murdoch franchise it's inevitably going to be packed with mind-numbingly simplistic journalism and facetious nonsense, but, it's divided rather neatly into tiny morsels of arts, sports, film, drama, and so on.

However, my eyes fell upon the 'comedy section' which has rather generously been given to a Mr. Russell Kane.



Oh. Well what has he won? I assume a lot, despite the glaring handicap of never-having-heard-of-him. Get this, he was Newcomer of the Year in 2004 to the Laughing Horse [of course]. And erm, that's it.

Ah well maybe it's a populist decision then, they're hardly going to land Eddie Izzard for the gig are they?

Erm. He hosted Big Brother's Big Mouth for a week in 2007. He was on Live at the Apollo once.

SO HAS BLOODY EVERYONE.

Now, call it journalistic envy if you will but can you fucking blame me? The reluctance to blog and to even begin my forray into journalism traces back to this, this very iota of jealousy and cynicism. What chance do I have when even the smallest of positions are thrown carelessly to the vaguely-famous and flimsily-talented? I mean no disrespect to Mr. Kane, other than to say that my brief glimpses of him on my television portrayed him as a wannabe Russell Brand - a kind of endearingly energetic yet essentially irritating loud person whose immature approach to humour (see: Russell Howard) is inevitably going to appeal to the impressionable masses (oh, the bane of my life) because he's saying things loudly, which I don't want to say, because I have integrity and decency.

Well back on planet me, I've applied for a job in a 'McCoy's' this week.

UN. FAIR. GULF. OF. SUCCESS.

You may be asking "well, Shaun, you don't seem to be trying very hard" (asking? that wasn't a question, Shaun.) and it's a fair enough observation to make. But does anyone any more? In this field that I want to take part in, anyway. Fame is ready on a plate, just drop your reputation (and preferably your knickers with it) at the door. Just be bland, mouldable, attractive and naive. That's all we ask.

Well I'm sorry, but I'm not. But boy do I wish I were.