A pseudo-intellectual analysis of the demerits of microblogging

Of late, it would appear that I have filled the void left by my temporary abandonment of the blog by resorting to micro-blogging via Twitter, which is all well and good except that I frequently find myself going over the character limit, which forces me to make a statement over multiple posts or to my original statement in such a way as to distort or diminish its meaning and impact. My experience with Twitter over the last month has reinforced in my mind the fact that I thoroughly dislike saying something in the bare minimum of words needed to say it. For the better part of a decade I have been self-taught in the art of rehashing material and employing lofty word choices in order to get that all-important paper within striking distance of the minimum page requirement. These devices first employed at school have carried over to my other forms of expression, so much so that as the years have gone by I have developed an almost conversationally crippling predilection to give long rambling answers to simple questions in which I very frequently say little of any real value.

As such, the limits that Twitter (and to a lesser degree, text messaging) imposes on my communications are a drastic change from my expressive norms, and whose negotiation proves cumbersome. While I suppose that tweeting has its place, I have a certain fondness for the grandiose phrasing and wandering prose that have now become permanently cemented as trademarks of my communications with the outside world.

And so I blog.

(And that whole narcissism thing's a turn-off too. Which is not to say that I won't continue tweeting, I just don't want it to become a problem.)