When it comes to blogging, I often wonder what people prefer to read--is it the in-depth, long-winded style entry with lots of personal opinions and some well-worn data? Or is the quickie post with a swell picture and a few pithy remarks better-suited to get you through your day?
Whatever one's preference, it seems like the quicki-fun pic o' the day gets more comments--comments make this blog go 'round--but they aren't as interesting as say, a nuanced review of a film that hopefully points out things that haven't been done to death already by blood-sucking scholars in their endless quest to drain the life out of popular culture.
The in-depth posts tend to get a few interested responses, unless of course it's a broadside taking a huge--and hopefully well-argued--series of unsparing but backed-up shots on a movie or performer but they don't have the popularity of the simpler, more being-at-work appeal. The former was done on Elizabeth Taylor: The Shrillness of You. That entry got lots of great pro-and-con comments from classic film lovers and it was fun--and cathartic--to do though too many of those "I dislike such-and-such a performer and movie" thing gets too quarelsome after awhile.
What do you, my dear readers, think? What do you like best about Hollywood Dreamland? What kinds of entries do you like/dislike? I'd put that widget beneath each post but I'd prefer an interactive dialogue. Constructive criticism is always welcome.
Georgia O’Keeffe (2009) Bob Balaban
1 day ago