And, as I’m writing this, I’ve already thought of something I’d like to write about the Shirley Sherrod story that I probably won’t be able to find time to write about until sometime next week — when it’s not likely to be news anymore, and almost nobody will be talking about it. I’d probably be better off just linking to what everyone else has (and will) write about in a couple of digest posts.
And I find myself asking, what’s the point? Is there a point in me writing what most people can and probably have read somewhere else? Is there a point in just posting a link and a blockquote? (Again, something most people can and will read elsewhere before they find their way to this particular blog?) Is there a point to me writing an extra thousand words or so — as I have many times — in the course of even trying to find an angle or an insight that’s even just kinda sorta unique? When it comes to blogging, is there value to just being a voice in the choir? Does it help?
Lately, I’ve also experience deja vu upon reading about a story or topic that’s caught fire, that I wrote about weeks or even months earlier. (Sometimes I attempt to resurrect those posts from oblivion, by linking to them in a new post.) I’m reminded of the philosophical question, “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”
Is there a point at which having something to say is really having nothing to say? Is it the point at which it’s already been said over and over again? Does only become something to say when a somebody says it? Or is it nothing to say when a nobody says it?
Is there anybody out there?