Tried and True, the Self-Interview

Rather than take for granted the likelihood that visitors to this blog (if they ever do show up) for many months or more will be people who know me and want to show their support (or pity) for me, I've decided to throw together a quick icebreaker.  I chose the self-interview, a schizophrenic method popularized by a legitimately crazy person way back in my 10th grade speech class.  His topic was 9/11 - which made his reading of the interview transcript all the more uncomfortable - but I think I'm a light enough topic that the method can be revisited here.

Interviewer:  So, the first question I wanted to ask you (myself?) was, "Why start a blog?"

Donovan:  Great question.  My answer isn't fully formed, but know I want some practice writing on topics and in styles of which my professors/advisers don't really encourage.  Often, their scopes and interests are much too specific, and as I've stated previously I want to make some novel logical connections rather than cut deeper and deeper into familiar, specialized subject matter.

I:  You seem a bit uneasy with this whole interview process.  Would you like a glass of water, or an opportunity to speak freely without prepared questions?

D:  No, no.  (Clears throat)  I can feel the chemistry building.  Next question.

I:  Very well.  Do you have any credentials?

D:  I've completed two bachelors degrees at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis - a BA in biology through Purdue and a BA in religious studies through IU.  I'm currently working on an MS in biology at IUPUI, in which I split my time taking classes, teaching classes (upperclass ecology and freshman biology labs), and doing research (see: literally watching grass grow). 

I:  What visions do you have for this blog?

D:  At worst, it will be a writing journal which people will roll their eyes at when they accidentally stumble upon it.  At best, I would like to think that my sort of mid-range level of education and expertise puts me in a position where I can have conversations and write pieces in such a way that they aren't too pedestrian for academic elites but also are not so specific or technical that they fail to have more universal attraction.  It seems that folks on opposite ends of the educational spectrum often assume that they must choose how/what they read and write in a polarizing (or at least static) manner, while I hope to provide information and opportunities that could draw both toward the center.  Regardless, I've got an outlet to practice some of my writing and articulate the thoughts that are swirling around in my head.

I:  What are some example topics that you're considering bringing into the blog?

D:  The list is substantial, so I'll list just a bunch off the top of my head:  Things I learn/experience as a TA, recaps of articles/books I read and essays I write academically, urban ecology, environmental change, trees, religious history, classic films - esp. film noir, inspiring/intriguing/ridiculous things I hear in an average day in Indianapolis, and sights and stories from trips to nature preserves and parks.  Particularly in season, I'll surely try to force something about baseball into the mix, too.  There are many other ideas in addition, plus I'll be interested in following up on requests or sidebars that come up in the event of discussion ever happening.

I:  Riveting.  I think I speak for all future readers when I say that hopefully you'll be satisfied to stop defining yourself and the blog and just write the thing from now on.

D:  You took the words right out of my mouth.

Rules I Intend to Break

I'm not sure what all the rules - written or unwritten - of a good blog are.  I know there are lists and guides out there to direct me, but since they can be contradictory or written in styles/on blogs which fail to keep my attention I feel I should just do my own thing and slap a disclaimer on it.

So, in the interest of full disclosure:

1) I don't guarantee that every post will be on the same topic.  In fact, I intend to bounce around.  The term philomath captures the essence of my attitude (philo="loving"; math="to learn").  For some reason, it is in my nature to resist specialization.  Probably because I'm easily bored.  I like fresh questions and answers.  With few exceptions, every class in high school interested me so much that I aspired to study it.  Any given week, I wanted to be a writer, an economist, a chemist, an historian, or a journalist.  Just before college, my latest intellectual captor was biology.  So I got a degree in it.  Then, as soon as I started to get more serious with a Masters program, I decided to tack on a religious studies degree too.  I've spent good money and some of my best years refusing professional pigeon holes.  My blog must be well-rounded or I will let it die.

2) My interests are in numerous topics, yet I'm not going to come at them with excessive political or otherwise opinionated force.  That's not my style.  If I feel strongly about something it will show, but in most discussions with 2+ opposing sides I'll start somewhere near or on the fence, preferring to let the learning process unfold organically.  If I'm inclined toward a certain position on a heated issue, I intend to ask questions first, then seeking answers from outside contributions or my own research.  In the fortunate case that the questions I raise are of interest to others, I hope those with good info will share their findings and feelings.  My lack of dogmatism should be seen as an open door policy - ideas should be developed beyond my endeavors.  I would much rather moderate a discussion than alienate people by assuming an overpowering attitude that I don't even have.

3) Especially with more practice and ideas, I will want to bring my wide ranging interests together in interdisciplinary manners.  I often get chuckles and comments about the fact that I've pursued scholarship in both scientific and religious studies.  The idea that religion and science are utterly incompatible is a perspective I've witnessed from rigid sympathizers of each, but I refuse to start off with the staunch belief that any two subjects at seeming odds cannot be reconciled, at least in part.  I'm optimistic that the language and ideas of any contentious subject can be used to better understand the supposedly contradictory discipline.  Thus, while any given post may be overwhelmingly devoted to forestry, or urban ecology, or Buddhist ethics, or film noir, or baseball, or my teaching experience, or any of countless other subjects, I'll be most satisfied when two or more of my interests can be brought into conversation somehow.  Hopefully, with an influx of new ideas my range of interests will continue to grow, and by connecting ideas and putting unfamiliar/uninteresting subjects in more palatable terms, I can influence some new interests in others and welcome their perspectives.

4) At times, I will probably write exceedingly long blog posts.  Conciseness is a skill which I intend to develop over the course of time.  If you're still with me, you're aware that I've got my work cut out for me.  Part of what I hope has gotten you this far is my use of numbering and meaningful emphasis (italics and underline) on major points of interest.  If I see where it is helpful and applicable, I'll try to break up anything that looks like a ramble into a list form with stylistic emphases.  I'm coming at the blog, initially, from a fairly selfish angle.  I have a lot to gain in this forum.  I have underdeveloped ideas and connections in my head, and I'll be sharing the writing exercises through which I make sense of these loose ends.  I communicate better in writing than oral debate, at least for now, so I'm trying to play to my relative strengths.  Hopefully - especially when I'm presenting a review of facts - I can make the writing economical despite its length, giving you more information per unit of reading effort.  It is my sincere hope that others will come to find some value or opportunity to speak as well in the contexts I provide, but I won't approach blogging like a job with a certain target audience.  I'd love to see well-informed discussion, but rather than write for particular people in this setting I'd like to achieve some variety or universality of ideas and perspectives by making it more generally interesting and accessible.

That should be a fair place to start.  Other than maybe a more straightforward description of the author, more foundational stuff will follow only as necessary.