Who doesn’t like homemade stuff? From the stick figure drawings that decorate our fridges to the knitted mittens and crocheted tablecloths our grandmas give us for Christmas. Almost never flawless, these items are still of far more value to us than their often prettier or more stylish counterparts in stores across the country. I myself have often received gifts (mostly from little siblings) of three-inch scarves barely long enough to warm my big toe, hats with either the head-hole sewn shut or both ends gaping open like craters (these last DO make nice neckwarmers…a proposition usually greeted by the maker with smiles and declarations of “See, that’s exactly what I made it for. I thought it would work better that way. Bet you thought it was a hat didn’t you? Haha.”) Of course I have always loved and cherished these gifts, evidences of the time and care my siblings have lavished upon me. I have no problem with that at all.

But when we grow up are we not to put away childish things? In our country of instant gratification, Walmarts, shopping malls, internet and factories, it is far too common that adults can do no better than those adorably useless trinkets we smiled at from kids. It’s not quite as cute when you receive from adults two-foot table-cloths that you have to graciously pretend were meant to be placemats, or lopsided curtains that you cringe to see adorning your windows but would offend the gift-giver to take down.

Handmade gifts are great, but we really ought to learn how to make them. We’ve all seen the intricately complicated masterpieces of lace or yarn that have been passed as heirlooms through generations gracing tables with their swirls and families with their histories. Most of us can agree that homemade gifts can be more meaningful than store bought ones, but we should make the effort to see that they are useful and practical too. As I said previously, I am as much at fault as the next person. I’m horrible at knitting, crocheting, sewing and most of these other lost arts. And I’m ashamed of that fact.

So here’s to all those moms and grandmas who love arts and crafts, and here’s one more person that wants to join the group. I don’t want to merely pass on heirlooms. I want to start some of my own. Find some needles, dig up some patterns, let’s graduate from the realm of headless hats and neckless sweaters.

Like most other arts it will take time and practice, but it can be done. And this doesn’t just apply to knitting and sewing…there are tons of arts that are being swallowed up in this demanding commercialized culture. Cooking, canning, drawing, painting, writing, journaling, or making music to name a few. And men (if you’re still here) some of these work for you too and I’m sure there are other things that apply to you as well…wood carving for instance. Put those knives to some use.

From Wednesday night to Friday afternoon a couple weeks ago, I worked almost exclusively on a paper proposal (abstract) for my History Colloquium class. It was the sort where you have to have your topic, sources, thesis and supporting argumentation—your paper in all but implementation—already decided and articulated in your abstract. I hadn’t done any work on it until Wednesday. Resultantly, much caffeine and stress ensued, and only four hours of sleep until Friday night.

But wait (as they say), there’s more! When I got home after turning in the abstract, the document was still up on my desktop, and as I scrolled back through it with great satisfaction, I realized that my last-minute margins adjustment to 1″ from the 0.79″ default (stupid, OpenOffice) had seriously rearranged my bibliography indentations. I didn’t end up failing the assignment, but regardless, it caused me no small mental agitation.

Which ultimately led me to recognize again something about how God deals with us in our self-importance. I say recognize again because this is a pattern I’ve observed before, but seem to forget without God’s occasional humbling reminders. Almost like I’m a fallen son of Adam or something. God blesses my endeavors much more than I deserve, given how often I am lazy or unfocused—not exactly working heartily as unto the Lord. But often, as I scramble to salvage the consequences of my own irresponsibility, I give no time to prayer and Bible reading. I neglect those around me. And in God’s mercy, I get flattened. Two verses in closing:

“For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.” — Hebrews 12:6 (ESV)

“For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death.” — 2 Corinthians 7:10 (ESV)

This and Nathaniel’s post on audience have got me thinking and somewhat re-working my approach. In fact, this is an attempt at a short to medium post that puts forth a thought for consideration. Now there is, of course, an appropriate way to strategize and target your audience. That’s what this post is about. But targeting your audience doesn’t mean broadening your appeal¹ so much as knowing your audience, like Nat said, and producing good content.

As should be apparent, this is really just a good business model — it applies to blogging almost informally. Companies like Apple, Inc. understand this.² Apple has a niche market and focuses on content that resonates within this group, to the extent that Jobs has what is termed a “cult following” [warning: link contains some language]. After all, Macs just work. Nevertheless, Apple is also a good example of a company that expanded its focus to great advantage (read: iPhone).

Conversely, Microsoft wants the whole market — go big or go home. Call it biting off more than you can chew, taking in too much territory, or whatever; but Microsoft tries to cover a broad range of user needs, hardware manufacturers and platforms, and comes up short on the quality front. Not content to focus on what it does best (using the term generously), Microsoft is constantly competing with Sony, Apple, Google, Gmail and Linux. And — whether it’s gaming consoles, hardware, media players, operating systems, communication services or search engines — you get a lineup of products doomed to eternal second place.

I could regale you with talk of BSODs, driver headaches and viruses, Windows ME and Vista, but the goal was merely to demonstrate what I mean by “the myth of relevance.” Just getting the most customers or the biggest audience is not an end unto itself. A streamlined, focused business model and quality control builds and retains a loyal consumer following. Spyderco is a good example. With only 30 employees and direct input from owner/founder Sal Glesser, there is a personal attention to quality and focus on customer relations that makes a Spyderco owner feel included, as it were. One wants the same sort of connection with a blog audience.

Finally, one more application: churches. There are, sadly, a lot of churches that would cut off their doctrinal arm to be “relevant.” They are the seeker-friendly, spiritual-milk, easy-believism variety. As Pastor Terry Tollefson is fond of saying, if the young people aren’t coming, break out the pizza, guitars, low lights and couches. Preach what people like to hear. Tickle ears. Unfortunately, they — just like the girl with mismatched shoes (one Converse and maybe a fur-trimmed boot is about right), striped leggings, outlandish hair and the “raccoon” style eyeliner — are pitching an indiscriminate appeal for attention. But attention is not an end to itself. You want the right kind of attention, the right kind of publicity. To quote Pastor Doug Wilson in a related vein, “Young Christian people should seek to become the kind of person that the kind of person they would want to marry would want to marry.”

Churches should want to attract people because of the strong preaching of law and condemnation in tension with grace and love, the unity, fellowship and accountability. The robust doctrine of Psalms and liturgy. The corporate-ness of Christ’s body. If someone is repelled by any of these things, that’s the way it should be — that’s the only hope for them. Diluting the truth until no one feels convicted is doing no one any favors. Taking the potency from worship and the doctrine from the songs is what, in other venues, would be called false advertising.

The church, properly functioning, shows people where they stand in relation to the body of Christ. When this is not done, people either discover spiritual meat at some point and have no taste for it, or settle into a warm, fuzzy, God-isn’t-about-guilt version of Christianity. (Just as long as I don’t have to do anything uncomfortable, like loving unlovable old people in nursing homes or confessing sins or letting grudges go.) On rare occasion, they realize they aren’t getting fed and look for a body to keep them accountable, words they can chew on — the Word himself.

So then, what I’ve called the “myth” of relevance is the notion that attracting attention, broadening appeal or increasing numbers is anything to aim for. At best, you will raise lukewarm interest in your lukewarm product. At worst, you will fill the Church with people who wouldn’t be there if they knew the way is narrow, and deter those who would only be there if they did. If I have spent time and digital ink on this last point, it’s because I’m serious. In any of these applications, there are some people to whom you don’t want to be relevant, and especially when it concerns the sanctification of Christ’s bride.

But, as always, that sanctification should flow out through all our endeavors, even our blogs. And yes, as a short to medium post, this is a fail. Oh well, semper reformanda and all that.

Who is my audience right now? My friends and family.
How will that audience change? Word of mouth.
Why will people talk? Because I’m writing good things for my audience (or will).

Sure, it’s not bad to write about stuff because you like it and nobody cares. It just doesn’t do that much (except maybe make you happy). I personally would like to have some other people reading what I write and caring about it.

So I must write for the audience I have. That’s the only way to change and grow our audience it seems to me.

I write because I have things to say. Probably I think these things are not immediately obvious or thought about by everyone. Or perhaps some things are merely simple reminders or a fresh view on something.

I write publicly to share. To share my thoughts, to provoke contemplation and discussion.¹

I write to practice. One can often become discouraged comparing themselves to those they admire (for me, famous bloggers who write well like John Gruber, Anil Dash, etc. Not that I’m particularly a fan of those two, but it’s a culture and medium I like). But of course, one only becomes better at an art by doing it, and so I am here.

I write because I think what I write is worth reading. I don’t write copy. I write content (or try). No content = no post (with minor exceptions). Even if I do just “come up” with posts instead of them coming to me.

Why a blog? It’s linear. It’s a story. It’s a continuous outlet. Unlike some other types of publications, there is one thing it’s not, though: predictably published, something I like. It may have a pace, a predictable rhythm of sorts, but not a schedule per se. It’s a bit more freeflow that way.

I write because I want people to read what I write. I want them to laugh or think or be sad. I want them to be affected. Isn’t that why everybody writes, to affect? Even if it’s a textbook, the idea is to change by adding knowledge and know-how. What are blog comments then? Responses. And (see the footnote), if I disable comments, people who really feel strongly about what I have written might take up the pen themselves. It’s about effect, or at least it should be, more than comments or page views. If it has no effect, what is its worth?

And thus I want some readers, because that means people who keep coming back to hear what I say, and thus can be affected. Therefore, I should be worth it. Like I said before, no content, no post.

As per Merlin Mann’s description of a good blog, I think the posts will mostly be about technology and spiritual/life issues, things which I think about somewhat often. The relevant quote:

Good blogs are the product of “Attention times Interest.” A blog shows me where someone’s attention tends to go. Then, on some level, they encourage me to follow the evolution of their interest through a day or a year. There’s a story here. Ethical “via” links make it easy for me to follow their specific trail of attention, then join them for a walk made out of words.

And there’s just a little bit more. I shall do my very best to write good, thoughtful posts.

Good blog posts are made of paragraphs. Blog posts are written, not defecated. They show some level of craft, thinking, and continuity beyond the word count mandated by the Owner of Your Plantation. If a blog has fixed limits on post minimums and maximums? It’s not a blog: it’s a website that hires writers. Which is fine. But, it’s not really a blog.

I don’t know what they will all specifically be about. I guess I’ll just have to note things along down the way, come up with ideas, and write. Even if it’s garbage at first.

That is all. (Oh yes, and expect a post or few in the next 13 days. If not, send somebody to dispatch me.)

Thoughts on this subject have been mulling around for some while in the deep recesses of my brain, but they really came to a head this weekend. I was up in Moscow visiting my brother hanging out in Bucer’s (of course) and I got in to a discussion with Matthew’s roommate, friend, and Austen-lover Isaac Madsen. Through the course of the discussion he pointed out how much he disliked authors like Charles Dickens and Elizabeth Gaskell, but loved Jane Austen. Perhaps his reasons for disliking them are different than mine, but I know that I have always enjoyed Austen better as well. (I don’t as strongly dislike Dickens though, and I actually enjoy Gaskell). In my opinion, the greatest difference is one of flavor.

Dickens and Gaskell (to a lesser degree) flavor their works with tragedy, sorrow, pain, suffering, despair and overall bleakness. Austen, while tinting her pieces with hints of grief, really has a much more positive and upbeat view of life to the point of possibly bordering on the sentimental. Sentimentalism is something which I have come to strongly dislike. Whether it be manifested in the flowery artwork of Thomas Kinkade or the cheesy WWJD bracelets I just can’t stand it.

Here, I think is Austen’s pitfall. She tends to write in a rather fanciful style. Pleasant, enjoyable, romantic, sweet? Yes. Realistic? Not so much. I do not mean to discredit her as a writer and I fully admit to being a Jane Austen fan. BUT, I can get too much of her. I can overdose on her dream-like fairy tales. When the characters have to face no worse tragedy than being uninvited to a ball, being snubbed by the prideful rich, being forced to endure the ridiculous proposals of men they do not love…what is there to relate to? Granted there are occasionally real difficulties to overcome, but nonetheless, one cannot help feeling there is something lacking to her “reality.” Every once in a while, one can enjoy getting away from the mundane routines of life, forget the petty trials of the day and immerse oneself in the romantic world of Jane Austen, but it is not without fault (despite what Isaac may say).

However, back to the original subject: why is Austen better than Charles Dickens? Dickens tends to fall into the other ditch…and not just a little bit. He plunges whole-heartedly, almost gleefully into misery and despair. He delights to portray the lowest strata of life in their worst garments. He paints characters in such bleakness and sorrow as to destroy any fanciful notion of hope remaining in his poor reader. Is this just? To be sure, the world is a fallen place and it has it’s share of tragedy, sin and darkness, but such despairing and tragic stories are not what I consider pleasure reading. I will admit to Dickens having his moments of light, just as Austen had her flashes of reality. I can honestly say that I enjoy “A Christmas Carol” and some parts of his other works, but on the whole, one cannot help feeling oppressed and depressed by the gloom which characterizes the greater part of his books.

All this to say, Austen is a phenomenal writer, but with a tendency to slight sentimentalism, which in too large a dose can be overbearing. Dickens, probably a good enough writer in his own way, is too much gloom, depression and darkness to be seriously healthy reading. So, is there a middle ground?

In my own opinion, Les Miserables by Victor Hugo is an excellent example of reality mixed with romanticism, despair and tragedy mingled with hope, goodness and beauty. Elizabeth Gaskell is far nearer this medium than Dickens, especially in her excellent book Wives and Daughters. Austen is only slightly misplaced and there are many other authors who strike a good balance.

The purpose of this post is not to tell you not to read certain books or to read other ones, but really, my point is that to be a really good work of art (in any sense of the word; book, painting, etc) there must be an expression of sadness, sin and evil…otherwise the observer has nothing to relate to. But there must also be an element of hope and redemption which Dickens missed in so much of his work. This is necessary to the good piece of art work, because it tells our story to us. It does not deny sin and suffering, but declares to a fallen world that there is hope. Even a picture or a book with no intentional Christian message, by portraying this dichotomy of sin and redemption, paints the gospel story with more clarity than a Precious Moments “love your neighbor” scene or a plastic Jesus nightlight.

Our goal is to pick up the publication pace a bit—hopefully eventually up to at least one post a week (more would be cool, too). I think taking on a couple more writers would ease this task, but I also think Matthew and I would need to step up contributing a bit, too (which may become easier in the summer after I’ve graduated high school). In the long run, our goal is to get some notice. Not really to get famous, but more to have conversations and a small community and also just to get out what comes out of our fingers and toes. It’s also a personal blog, and I want it to stay that way. It’s just some friends who like to write.

So, on to the meat of the thing. Seriously, we don’t mind people that are different than us, in fact having someone who differs somewhat from our opinions might be quite cool. We do have a few basic requirements, though:

• You are a true Christian; you believe the Gospel and don’t have any beliefs that altogether contradict it
• You are a competent writer; you don’t have to be extra stupendous, just able and willing to be creative
• You don’t mind our particular Christian beliefs, like Covenant theology
• You are willing and able to contribute regularly (take a look at the dates of previous posts to get an idea of what ‘regularly’ is right now)
• You are currently between 12 and 32 years of age. It’s not that we don’t like you if you’re older than that, it’s just that we want to run a blog written by young men and women.

Interested? Contact us. Tell us a bit about yourself if we don’t really know you. After that, probably as long as you meet the requirements and we’re all comfortable, you join us. If it’s all good after a month-and-a-half, you’re official. Think of it as an internship (LOL).

Six months after you’re officially on, you can become a partial blog administrator, if you so wish (and we’ll leave the opportunity open for any time). After maybe, say, a year and a half, we might offer you full adminship, which gives you a whole lot of power, which means we trust you a whole lot. And if you don’t want to become an admin, that’s fine too. Just offering.

March 20, 2010: We are no longer seeking new writers but we leave the possibility open for the future. And… we have three new writers! Anna Hurley has already introduced herself and I’m guessing the others will follow suit in due time. Thanks, ladies and gentleman.

I want to say my inspiration comes from Jason Kottke and Seth Godin. There’s probably some other stuff in there, too. I know Jason’s mostly an editor now in the sense that he doesn’t create most of his content, but rather points it out and comments on it. But some of his earlier stuff was more personal. And he points out such interesting stuff.

Seth Godin is a marketer. A genius, I’d say. He seems to spout a continuous stream of good stuff on his blog. And it’s not cheesy. I don’t know that he’s a Christian, but he has an ethic that really appeals to me as a Christian: hard work, innovation, courage, and that sort of thing. And his posts usually aren’t all that long.

So, I think I have some stuff to say worth saying here that I could put in a somewhat similar format. The question is, with Matthew not posting an equivalent amount (not necessarily a bad thing), am I going to be posting too much? (For what? Fairness? Equality? My own good?). That’s the question I wish to ask Matthew and all you who read this.

What say you?