Voice post

No matter how accurate, interesting or informative a blog may be, it will not attract readership if the author does not have a compelling and engaging voice. Even a voice that touches a nerve is better than none. Ghosts of Alexander is a blog that covers political and military developments in Afghanistan and Tajikistan from the viewpoint of PhD student Christian Bleuer in Central Asian Studies (it says so right there in his profile). The very idea of the author having a PhD might generate an alarm bell from the general audience because they may think it stuffy, long-winded, inaccessible. It definitely would have for me.

So why did I keep reading? Well, although Christian is an academic, he makes an effort to avoid the dry, verbose manner often seen in academic journals, instead using concise sentences to make his point accessible, adopting a more conversational tone, and breaking up paragraphs into smaller ones when he can for easier reading. In addition, he uses a variety of media from other sources as a platform for his opinion, and thus we get a better sense of his voice by his use of personal pronouns, adverbs, imagery, and asides. In his case, the voice is particularly sardonic, regardless if he agrees or disagrees with the subject matter.

Consider his post “ISAF Colonel Swings a Dead Cat, Hits Another Colonel”, which promises to be interesting simply by the mangling of metaphor in the title. He then uses a pop culture reference in “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!”, complete with a link to a video for those who don’t get it. While this post is quite short and doesn’t contain much of his own analysis after each block quote, the comments he does make succinctly inform us of what he thinks of the article: ”Well, that was candid. It sounds like the French civil service.” “My God, the next morning at work must have been so awkward.” Sounds snide, but in this case he does support the colonel, calling him “one step away from being my choice for officer of the week.” He concludes the post with an embedded video (another pop culture reference) that poses a rhetorical question.

And the majority of his posts follow this format. One can see a more diluted version (in terms of vitriol) in “The cost of an Afghan life is…?”, where he doesn’t attack outright, but does question the evidence based on his own knowledge: “I don’t recall anything about punitive damages being higher based on ability of the liable party to pay.” It smacks slightly of arrogance, but at the same time, he makes us aware that it is wholly his own opinion. He doesn’t employ fire-and-brimstone rhetoric to convince others to accept his side, and accepts his limitations: “Of course, I’ll admit when I’m the wrong person to speak to.”

What I particularly enjoy about Christian’s writing is his use of a Socratic-like commentary, peppering his analysis with rhetorical questions to make one think about the issue at hand:

“Right, OK. Let’s just say A and B were somehow implemented – unlikely as it is – how does C work?”

Even if he doesn’t have the answers, and neither do we, it encourages us to not take the news at face value. I find that this method works particularly well when discussing a topic with so many grey areas such as Afghanistan, as it encourages readers to engage in the discussion.

Overall, Christian’s blog is a pretty thought-provoking read, and his combination of a conversational style with an overlay of sarcasm helps him make his point on a more informal level. Even if you may not agree with his point, even if you feel personally insulted by one of his points, even if you have no idea what on earth he’s referring to, he’s still got you thinking.