Big changes, people, big changes!

I’ve been informed that my blog title is no good. I guess this doesn’t come as a major surprise — I had a hard time thinking of anything in the first place. But I guess I have to agree with the person who informed me of this, that the title does basically nothing to draw anyone to the blog. In addition, to be honest, the current title sort of falls on the ears with a dull thud.

I’d be interested to know if anyone out there ever bothered to track down the source of the blog’s title. Everything you need to do so is in the About page. The new title will get more explicit explanation, something I need to do more of. Whether it has been apparent or not, part of my enjoyment of writing here has been laying down various pointers towards a common project. To be explicit now: that project is being the church — see my inaugural post. In the future I plan to be more explicit, but I’m reserving to myself the right to at least hope that those who can put together on their own connections between this post on Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza and sermons and my first post (for example) will get more out of reading my blog than even I knew I put there.

At any rate, I need a title that will more explicitly signal the blog’s content and draw some more interest and interaction. While I work on finding one, the blog will stay here, but we’ll spice life up with some twists on my failed title. Enjoy!


9 Responses to “Big changes, people, big changes!”

  1. 1 periphery January 26, 2009 at 11:51 am

    The current title does NOT fall on the ears with a dull thud.

    I think your desire for people to make inter-post connections and investigate background and context is undercut by the fact that this is a BLOG, not an exercise in postmodern historiographic meta-fiction. You can’t make heavy demands on the blog-reader (like asking them to look up a poem).

    See Andrew Sullivan’s article “Why I Blog.”

  2. 2 withastone January 26, 2009 at 3:44 pm

    The article is very illuminating for me. I definitely have a lot to learn about this genre, and I don’t operate this blog in anything like the way Sullivan describes operating his. I don’t publish very quickly and a decent portion of what gets put here is worked on over time.

    No more heavy demands, readers! And I’ll see what I can do about some more spontaneity. Other suggestions/critiques are welcome.

  3. 3 periphery January 30, 2009 at 2:30 am

    So what’s the deal, are you rotating titles forever or did you not like “theo-ethical interrogations”?

  4. 4 withastone January 30, 2009 at 9:15 am

    I was planning on rotating until I settled on something. So far, “theo-ethical interrogations” is better than any other ideas I’ve had. I may just go with that. What do you think?

  5. 5 periphery January 30, 2009 at 12:06 pm

    Yeah, it’s by far the best. You need to do a close reading of the stone poem on your about page – that would make a sweet post in and of itself, plus it would have the advantage of making your blog more user-friendly and less badass-alienating.

  6. 6 periphery January 30, 2009 at 12:07 pm

    I don’t mean your blog alienates badasses, I mean it alienates because of it’s badass, “I don’t need to explain my references” aura.

  7. 8 rosessupposes January 30, 2009 at 7:34 pm

    I kinda liked conversations with a stone. I liked calling you A. Stone. 🙂 But I’m one of those academics who like clever titles before I like explanatory ones. So theo-ethical interrogations is much more explanatory, but it sounds like a subtitle to me more than a main title.

  8. 9 rosessupposes January 30, 2009 at 7:34 pm

    (who likes)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: