why we write

so it looks as though andrew sullivan had decided to put his blog on hiatus for a while. good for him, and for us -- he's been a bit, shall we say, wobbly lately on that whole consistency stuff. he can be hard to take, and i say that admitting that i tend to agree with him from time to time.

for me, andrew sullivan was one of the reasons i decided to start blogging. i'd liked his work at the new republic and knew something of him when he moved to the internet. i remember reading him and thinking "hey -- this guy isn't any smarter than me, and he's not a better writer than me, so why don't i give it a shot?"

but the first idea was a long-form weekly "magazine" that i thought would be like slate, and for a while, it was. but that kind of lost its momentum, so i decided to start a blog -- which i won't link to here, because of privacy concerns. but suffice it to say that it, too, lost my interest. i think the momentum is pretty high, but my interest in it has waned.

why? because ... well, i don't know. i tend to get bored very easily. i think it's something from which many members of my generation tend to suffer. i get bored with cars, houses, clothes, cities ... it takes a few years for that to happen, but it happens. a lot.

so i started this site. i don't know who reads it; i don't know that i care who reads it either. there is something to be said for writing. you're either a writer, or you're not. i think i am, or at the very least, i have the internal dialog that makes for interesting stories, and i can put them down on (digital) paper pretty well.

why do i write? it's that dialog, to be true, but it's also this never-satisfied desire to express myself. it's one of my biggest strengths -- and biggest weaknesses. i know this because we're going through "reviews" at work, in which we get judged, reassigned and hopefully given a piddling wage increase to reflect our hard work.

never mind that our stock price is soaring, and has been for the past nine months. never mind that the concept of "christmas bonus" consists entirely of "your bonus is -- you get to come back to work next year!" never mind that i do the work of someone in a much higher pay grade.

none of that matters. this review process is designed to get me to work on "improvables" -- and to keep up the charade that a massive global corporation gives two shits about my personal development.

i don't mean to be negative. but the concept of "reviews" seems odd to me, in the same way that organized fun does -- if i'm doing a good job, my supervisors ought to be able to instantly recognize that and offer incentives accordingly. that's what the business side of the corporation does, through discounts, sales, etc. if a product isn't moving quickly, it's discounted. if it is moving quickly ... well, i'm not sure what they do. i'm not on that side of the business. but suffice it to say that those in charge of such things have acute knowledge of such things, and pull the gears and levers accordingly.

it's not a concept that carries over to the employees.

so in my "review" i am encouraged to toot my own horn, which i do ... but when i point out what i think are my shortcomings, i get a much better, more visceral reaction from my supervisor. she's surprised that i can point out my failings so directly and honestly.

well, why shouldn't i? shouldn't we all? i think most people know where they're weak, where they can improve, where they fall short of expectations, both of society and themselves. i think most everyone has a conscience that is never shy in reminding us when we've done less than our best, or screwed up yet again, etc.

i know that i blather on. a lot. i need lots of positive feedback, and need to feel that i'm loved (especially by attractive young women). i need to make people laugh. i need to make people understand how damn smart i am.

wrap all of those insecurities up, make them wear a tie and/or sportcoat four days a week ... and you've got a potential train wreck in a corporate setting. it's as if i have to constantly remind myself that i'm at a soulless corporation, not a comedy club or college dorm. and i'd say that about 80 percent of the time, i'm successful in remembering that.

it's that 20 percent that damns me, or at least keeps me from advancing.

on the other hand ... who wants to advance in such an environment? do i want to be middle management? would i want it if i had it? or would i get bored yet again? from what i can tell, in a large company, management is management -- the specifics of the department you manage don't matter, because there are things that managers just do, regardless of division, department or team. and those things i'm not sure i could stomach.