I was thinking of not so much the internal pressure to set things down on paper, but the desire to communicate something. If we weren't trying to say something to other people we'd none of us go through the blood sweat and tears of getting published by someone else or ourselves.

I do agree that I often don't know what I think till I write it down, and that I'm thinking it out for myself a lot of the time. Maybe I'm just lazy about thinking things through properly in the real world, but it still seems to work better and read better and make more sense in fiction.

Emma

<Added>

Cross-posted with Jools!

Yes, I see what you mean. But for me I do still think that my first line of communication is purely with myself. Especially with the poetry - I'd keep on writing that if there was no-one else in the world to read it at all.

And I think that goes for the blog too - though of course that's done initially in a public arena, so is essentially different. I do it to mark my days and (strangely) to show to myself that I do really exist.

Funny indeed how all my writing is that - a way of saying: yes, I'm here. This is me. I heard one writer say once that whenever they wrote, they did it for their "ideal reader" somewhere out there. I nodded wisely at the time, but had absolutely no clue what they were going on about.

Which just goes to show that we all have different, but equally valid, reasons for doing this weird squiggles on paper stuff.

)

A
xxx

Just to put the other side, and in the interests of balance:

- The reason I don't blog about writing is that the stuff which I know people would be interested in - the discussions with my agent and publisher, days when I feel less than happy with the job, days when I think I've achieved something really good, brilliant news, anecdotes about writers I've met - I mostly consider too private to share. The information that I do feel I could share, on the other hand, would be dull dull dull. Some of this may be to do with my basic personality, though; I'm not a great one for spilling the beans about any area of my life, as those who know me well would confirm. (The plus side of this character flaw is that if you tell me a secret, you can be 100% sure I'll never pass it on )

- Another aspect of not-blogging for me is that I hate to analyse writing I'm doing while I'm doing it. It puts me right off my stroke. I blog on voles, not books, because I want to look outwards from my private reading and writing, to other parts of my life. I need to do this or I think I would implode.

None of this is in any way meant to dismiss those who do run a writing blog. I've said before that I especially enjoy Sarah Salway's, and it's always a treat to come across info about writers I admire. All I'm doing, Emma, is explaining why a writing blog isn't for me.

Though I do think a web presence is vital for a writer. I get a lot of emails from readers via my ordinary site.

Kate, your reasons are much what mine are, though so much more clearly formed. What people would want is precisely what I wouldn't want to tell, for my own or my professional good health. And yes, Sarah Salway's blog is great.

I did think at one point that when I get to the stage of doing more readings/workshops etc. I might have more material. But now I think that those aspiring writers/bookshops staff/readers would be being my material, and I'm even less willing to use others than I am to use my self. The Great Reading Public is going to have to be satisfied with the news page of my website for a while longer. And yes, I know it doesn't get updated very often...

Anne, I know what you mean about checking up on whether one exists or not. I've gone through some quite sociophobic phases, but thinking the world didn't know I existed wasn't a nice feeling. But paradoxically, I've found the little bit of exposure I've had with TMOL really very disconcerting, and probably made me more inclined to hide my real self.

I suppose one thing is that almost none of my close real-life friends are online types - most of them don't use email. So when I imagine people reading my putative blog, it isn't people who I have any real-life image of, apart from a handful of WWers.

Emma

The Great Reading Public is going to have to be satisfied with the news page of my website for a while longer.

I've only had my website for a year and I don't often update the news page, but I've had ten pages' worth of comments so far (I copy and save the emails, however short, to a Word document). As a reader, I'd feel more excited at getting a personal email off a writer I liked than at being able to read their blog, even if I was able to leave a public comment and even if that comment got some response.

Blogs can be wonderful to write and to follow, but I truly don't think you need one to establish your presence as a writer.

Although blogs of course are a valuable writing genre in themselves and, in that case, do very much establish one's presence as a writer.

A
xxx

I've just this minute picked up a delightful email via my website from a reader in Australia - only 25 pages in, but loving it, will get in touch again when he's finished - so I'm feeling that even my marketing face has some potential for human contact!

Kate - I hadn't thought of saving them all in a document instead of hugger-mugger in my webmail inbox. Good idea. Do you save your replies, too?

<trots off to grapple with it as diversion from story she really ought to be getting on with...>

Emma

Although blogs of course are a valuable writing genre in themselves in that case, do very much establish one's presence as a writer.

That's true, of course, but with only 24 hours in the day and fewer than that of good writing time it's a question of deciding where your priorities lie.

I guess the key is to ask oneself stringently why one's doing the blog, and even more so now there are so many more about. 'Establishing one's presence' may be desireable, but you need to offer potential readers more if they're going to keep hitting it. I notice one of Miss Snark's criteria is 'focus' and I suspect successful blogs do what they say on the tin, and what they say has to be something particular. It's a rare one that's so funny or inspiring that you tune in just to see what they're saying next: most of them have to be about something.

Emma

Fair point, Anne. I suppose it depends on how you see yourself as a writer: basically, I see myself as a Novelist full stop - I don't extend sideways much in any direction!

<Added>

Emma: no, I don't save the replies. I suppose I could, though.

I don't extend sideways much in any direction!

Me neither, except in physical fact, alas, when I've been working too hard and the only legitimate distraction is the coffee jar and the biscuit tin!

Emma

I don't generally write about my writing in my blog.
it was started as a way to allow me to vent about feelings re: new motherhood and also to allow friends further afield to read my weekly column.
Now generally I write about anything and everything with occasional writing gems here and there.
I don't think they are necessary. But I like mine.

I do have a proper webpage too, and get the very occasional email from people looking forward to reading the book which is lovely.

Yes, I agree, Claire. Though I do also get a fair amount of responses on my blog about the various books.

A
xxx

Interesting thread.

I read somewhere recently the "one writes to be understood". Definitely some truth in that, methinks - even if we ourselves don't know what we're trying to say until it's written!

Well, I started doing my blog ahead of the publication of Taking Comfort. Basically I was motivated by panic. I thought I ought to be doing something. I needed some kind of online presence. A blog was attractive because it was free. I find it harder and harder to write it though, for the reasons that Kate and Emma have mentioned.

When, in the early days, I did make the mistake of recording my genuine feelings - about the apprehension and anxiety of checking proofs - in a humourous way (I thought) I got into trouble with the publisher. You see, my humour was misinterpreted and The Times, on the look-out for dissent in up and coming MNW authors published a piece saying I was not happy about over- editing. Not what I had been saying at all. The blog piece was a mock-rant by an overly stressed writer worrying over the addition of commas when he didn't want commas. I put in things like 'Don't they understand that the lack of commas is the whole point!!!??' Well, it was an exaggerated joke that back-fired on me. The Times ran the article with a straight face and it generated correspondence from the Society of editors and proofreaders. I retreated into my shell and deleted the whole blog. It was only several months later that I was encouraged to start it again.

I think people might be interested, for example, to know the differences between working with MNW and Faber. But I am never going to go public on that. It's something I might chat about, but not record in an everlasting medium. At the moment my blog is pretty crap! But Nik has tagged me, so that at least will give me something to write about.


<Added>

My blog piece about the proofs had me hiding behind the sofa with a walkie talkie while my wife in the kitchen was looking at the proofs and relaying the comments to me. It amazed me that everyone took this at face value!