In a college of journalism, you'd think the blog posts would have to be better researched, better articulated and better delivered. While the latter two are a matter of personal choice, the first - good research - becomes unnecessary. When I was in an engineering institution for my UG, I blogged so frequently and so much that people began to take notice: I was "the blogger". At that point, the things I wrote about had nothing to do with engineering and it is quite a surprise how there are many engineers who'd have trouble understanding Foucault or Nietzsche or Machiavelli. Consequently, I began to research my posts well, ensuring no wrong information got out - directly or as a matter of interpretation.
Here, at ACJ: one misstep and I'm screwed. Both honest and crazy intellectuals will pounce on the slightest of mispronunciations and attempt to secure an argumentative victory. I don't rant out facts and statistics like I used to not because I've forgotten them but because it seems as though just listening to those around me is going to vindicate half the fee-amount I paid. At first, all the hooked-up contentiousness seemed sensational. Now, it seems abjectly pointless. Even in institutions such as this, apparently, there are some people caught between the states of "good journalist" and "bad journalist". I could be one of them, but I must admit hypocrisy - my friends will observe - has not bothered me. Being against my journalistic cause as it may seem to be, I'd clarify that this is a different kind of hypocrisy. Yes, another kind.
Enough of that BS now. Picking up from where I left off: blogging in an encouraging environment seems to be weaker than blogging in a discouraging environment. From an engineering standpoint, that's only sensible: the work done by a system working between two states that have a significant difference in enthalpies is much higher than the work done by a system working between two states that have a small difference in enthalpies. However, that also entails the input to be greater (because a greater "quantity" of work needs to be done to increase the potential energy of the system to so-so much). Similarly, blogging in a discouraging environment is bound to produce greater results if only I'd persist with it (keeping the time-frame finite, the results are only going to be better than what they were during the period of encouragement - which should do).
I love thinking like how an engineer would about things: systematically, without any fuss whatsoever, always knowing full well that if something's wrong, I'm also going to know if or if not it's going to be in my hands to fix it. If it is, then I will. If it isn't, then I won't. The mathematics at work behind all this structure and formality ensures that if things are right in principle, the rest will fall into place. That's the invisible bridge that spans the distance between cause and effect. Science is the grammar when literature's the right reasons, and if you see the problem - any problem - all you have to understand is that you're looking at many invisible bridges waiting to be stepped on.
2 comments: