If you had to choose between being able to write a blog (but not read others’) and being able to read others’ blogs (but not write your own), which would you pick? Why?
I suppose there is a third question: what if everything you write is never read?
Either way, whether I was to just write or to just read, or to write and never be read, or to read and never be able to respond, each has an apocalyptic quality about it that suggests we live in a vacuum of isolation, forever to be alone in our thoughts.
I suppose writing is a more direct form of communication (to reading), depending to whom the written piece is for. Often in these prompts we are encouraged to pitch to a particular audience, and however self-reliant we are with respect to our words, it helps. Because we acknowledge that we are not alone.
Maybe that democracy of writing, and being read, that free speech, which allows for responses, depends on an authority that has a prescribed format, just like our very own ‘The Daily Post’ with it’s prompts. For if we were not able to read those where would we be: probably each fragmented into our little worlds.
‘A Morton’s Fork is a specious piece of reasoning in which contradictory arguments lead to the same (unpleasant) conclusion.’*
I suppose the contradiction is that we are witness to communication but not able to participate, which denies us meaning, which is a frustrating, unpleasant conclusion to the problem.
If I were to pick out a solution, it would be to prompt myself. That way I supply the challenge, that compensates for an empty inbox. And to imagine that everyone else does the same: that is write their own prompts. That way we can bypass ‘The Daily Post’s’ prompt (of restriction) and find a way to meet in some other cyberspace. Nothing less than mutiny!
<a href=”https://dailypost.wordpress.com/dp_prompt/mortons-fork/”>Morton’s Fork</a>