David Hoffman, at Concurring Opinions, asked yesterday whether the blawgosphere is stagnant.  Being an accommodating sort of fellow, I answered.  Man, you would have thought I told him his Momma was ugly.  David, backed up by Gordon Smith of Conglomerate blog, took my comments very personally.  Of course, both are law professors (which explains the thin skins).

As any competent lawyer knows, if you ask the wrong question, you get the wrong answer.  Read through the post and take particular note of the blawgs mentioned as exemplars of the blawging world.   Then consider the sophistication of the various modes of blawging, models and groupings, etc.  For the uninitiated, you would have thought that blogging was done by a handful of geeking kids who grew up to be lawyers in their garages.  But as David’s post shows, the individuals and groups that started (apparently sometime around 2002, generations in webtime) up early have grown into conglomerates of their own.

They speak of stats and models.  They talk about group versus individual.  Oh my, how did something so free become so constrained, and how did these pioneers become so entrenched and protective.  No, they don’t see themselves that way at all.  The old immigrants never admit to being immigrants once they learn the language, when they can start complaining about the new immigrants not being as worthy as they were.

But here’s the rub.  Neither the blogs cited as examples, or the blogs in their blogrolls, reflect a dynamic of growth, new ideas, openness or recognition that the blawgosphere is an ever-changing community.  There are, naturally, exceptions.  I read their blawgs (well, some of them, at least), and have been struck by how inbred they are.  Note, by the way, that I do not speak specifically of, or direct my point to, Concurring Opinions.  I write this because David takes this so personally and I don’t want him to get a complex.

So let’s make a few points crystal clear.  While the new guard of blawgers may be new to the blawgosphere, we are not new to the law.  Indeed, many of us have a whole lot of experience, and much to say and add.  If we’re writing about trial strategy, would you rather hear from someone who has been blawging for 5 years but has only tried 10 felonies, or someone who has blawged for 5 weeks but has tried 50 felonies?

Next, what’s our purpose.  The old guard (the class of 2002) has pigeon-holed blawgs, and therefore tries to shove new blawgs into their holes.  I have no idea what motivated them to start their blawgs, but I defy their attempt to pigeon-hole.  Perhaps the most damning response I received to my comment was that my blawg was modeled after theirs.  Ouch. 

My blawg may have aspects that look like theirs, but I assure you it wasn’t modeled after anything.  I never put that much thought into its look, or its target audience, or what types of posts received the best stats.  My blawg is organic.  I write what I choose to write.  It changes from day to day, and often within a day.  Some posts are serious. Some are goofy.  Some are for defendants while others for lawyers.  Some are just plain rants, having nothing to do with the law.  It’s my blog, and I can write about any damn thing that interests me.  Nobody makes you read it.  My audience doesn’t drive my blog.  My business plan doesn’t drive it.  I’m at the wheel. 

Some of the new guys have modelled themselves.  They do the weekly column thing.  Maybe I’ll do that someday, but I doubt it.  I’ve done new cotent.  Did you se my interview with Paul Bloom of Avvo?  No else had a talk with him, yet when the Old Guard wrote extensively about Avvo, nobody mentioned this post.  The New Guard, on the other hand, wrote quite a bit about it.  Why?  Because they love me?  Because I’m “one of them?”  Nope.  It was just for the content.  

The Old Guard views blawgs in a business paradigm.  I don’t.  It just isn’t that complicated for me.  Apparently, the Old Guard expected blawging to be a financial end game in itself, providing a full time job with substantial revenues.  If that’s their purpose, great.  But I haven’t placed, or sought, advertising on my blawg, so don’t tar me with that brush.  Perhaps someday I’ll grow to need some cash from my blawg, but not today.  Don’t assume that the motive of monetizing the blawgosphere is universal.  If it was, I’d work much harder on branding and image, instead of putting my time solely into content.

By the way, Dave is right when he says that my sidebar (the part with the videos) is a little too cluttered.  The fact is, my blogging program is pretty low rent and it’s hard to do a lot of the things I have come to realize that I would like to do.  But I put those “bells and whistles” (as David called them) in because I thought they were funny.  We need more humor to ground us, particularly given the nightmares criminal defense lawyers deal with daily.  So, I plug them it where I can.  It could certainly look better, but once again, it’s all about the content.  At least I have them if you’re inclined to watch.

One of the most odious comments was to attribute motivation to blawgers: Lawyers blawg as a marketing tool.  While that may be true for some, I don’t appreciate the projection of someone else’s motivations.  I write because I have things to say and want to express my thoughts this way. 

Before blawging, I was a frequent op-ed and editor-letter writer for certain associations who needed stuff written for their presidents to sign their name to.  I enjoyed doing it, and was able to crank out solid work.  But I was limited by the association’s position and interests, and wanted to say more.  I see about a dozen things a day that I want to write about, and have to really limit myself to a few to get things done.

When I started, it was a shoestring operation with no particular goal in mind.  I wanted to write, and I had no idea whether anyone would read it.  As it turned out, in the slightly less than 5 months that I’ve been doing this, my posts are read about 400 times a day.  It’s not as good as Eric Turkewitz at New York Personal Injury Law, but I don’t think it’s too shabby.  Is the blawgosphere stagnant?  Not for me.

When I cruise through the blawgs every morning, one point keeps jumping out at me.  I see links to subjects in the Old Guard blawgs on posts that I did first, or better, or differently.  Sometimes I know that they are aware of my posts, because one of the Old Guard has left a comment here.  Yet they will only link to one of their own, as if nothing new has happened in the blawgosphere since 2002.  I link to their blawgs.  Why don’t they link to mine.  I find new blawgs out there, and write about them or welcome them.  Why don’t they recognize new blawgs? 

David Hoffman asked me if I sent him an email when I s
tarted Simple Justice to let Concurring Opinions know that I exist.  No, Dave, I didn’t.  It never dawned on my to go begging for love.  That wasn’t my purpose, but I can understand why, given your business model, you ask.  Find me if you want.  Read me if I interest you.  Comment if you have something to add.  Or ignore me if I do nothing for you.

I’m just here to write and add my thoughts, for whatever their worth, to the body of thought that floats around the internet.  It gives me purpose beyond making a buck.  But there are others, like me, who are new to the game and who welcome our “naive” approach to blawging.  While the New Guard may not have a new model (as you guys feel compelled to frame the vision), we are nonetheless new in our openness to the old the new alike, lack of paradigm and exuberance (perhaps irrational) in doing something we want to do for no good reason other than the fact that we want to do it.

I’ve tried to cover a lot in this post, but have left much unsaid.  This of course leaves me vulnerable to being picked apart by the carrion who want to prove that the Old Guard remains the most worthy.  Whatever.  That’s the point.  We don’t advertise our wares, because we’re not selling anything.  Read us if you want.  If we have something to add, great.  If not, then continue to ignore us.  I’ll still read the Old Guard blawgs, with their big readerships, their pedantic tones and the links to only their brethren, to see what they contribute to the dialogue.  Those Old Guard blawgs that I find boring, or so bound by their politics that they amount to little more than a circle jerk with their fans, will do fine without me. 

But you asked the question, and I gave you my answer.  I’m sorry that you don’t like it, but then you should have asked a better question.  Now that I’ve said my piece, I assume you’ll put Simple Justice back on ignore and we’ll all go on with what we were doing.  You can make a blawg buck, and I’ll just write.