HR writes: I was delighted when I found your articles on WorldNetDaily. I like the way you express strong Christian conservatism with wit and erudition. Your work is a rare combination of solid values, bold style, and intelligence. Good job, and I hope we hear a lot more from you.
Frankly, I’m not so sanguine about the blog. I think your gravitas is on the line. My concern is that you’re going to undermine the reputation you’re earning as a thoughtful, educated, conservative writer. The more I hear about [list of recent blog subjects], the less I’m able to take seriously your writing elsewhere and on other subjects.
What do you all think? Obviously, there’s around 650 visits a day, so people are reading this, but that’s not even 5 percent of those who read the column at WorldNetDaily alone. I started this blog as a means of providing some personal connection to my readers since deciding to drop the Mailbox after the vast majority of hate mailers and critics were scared off. I certainly enjoy blogging, but not so much that I think it’s worth sabotaging the column over.
I have some sympathy for HR’s opinion. It’s always easier to have a high regard for a writer when you know nothing about them except their more or less polished craft. I happen to know a few SFWA pros I used to read as a kid, and while they’re great people, by and large, they just don’t appear to be the same sort of higher beings that I once considered them. I make no claims to having much in the way of gravitas – my friends would laugh at that, especially since Wildboyz is a pretty reasonable approximation for our collective approach to Life, the Universe and Everything – but I can see how the difference between my columns and, say, Maureen Dowd’s might give one that impression.
“Dude, that’s a lot of black mamba!”