I haven’t been very diligent in my blogging this year.
This is only my 23rd blog of the year. My last blog was at the beginning of August, and that was only my third since mid-May. My blogging is more erratic than the train service in a snowy autumn, when there is both the wrong kind of leaves and the wrong kind of snow to contend with.
I don’t know why that is.
Perhaps I have just lost my enthusiasm. Perhaps I have ceased having opinions on things. Perhaps I have decided to get a life and am now so busy actually doing things that I have no time to blog about them.
Admittedly those last two seem pretty far-fetched.
My most plausible theory is that I have no writing projects in progress and therefore no need to use blogging as a form of procrastination.
I don’t want to stop blogging altogether, however. When the muse takes me I want to once again dust off the keyboard and set loose my half-baked thoughts into the world to be admired, scorned or, most likely, ignored.
But my question is this: what is the etiquette for writing a blog when you have been silent for so long?
I have consulted Debrett’s on the matter and it is oddly silent, but I feel these things matter.
Having not blogged a word for almost 2 months should you just pipe up and plough on (to mix a metaphor) like nothing has happened?
Or do you spend a couple of paragraphs at the start of your long-awaited blog explaining and apologising for your absence?
That seems more polite, but it somewhat derails the main point of your blog. It is, perhaps, also a bit presumptuous: it assumes that your words of wisdom have been missed when, in reality, it is highly unlikely that anyone has even noticed.
So I have taken an even more presumptuous line by dedicating a whole blog to the subject.
I may now disappear without trace again for another couple of months, but if I do, next time I’m just going to leap straight in and pretend nothing’s happened. I’m sure you won’t notice.
Right, as you were…
 Actually that is a lie; I haven’t consulted Debrett’s at all. I have just made an assumption that it makes no mention of the subject. I feel that it is a reasonable assumption, but I’m too lazy to check my facts – if politicians can’t be bothered with facts, why should I? Also, having only included mention of Debrett’s for vaguely humorous affect, I would be annoyed to find that it did actually make mention of the subject as that would ruin the whole thing. Never let facts stand in the way of a good story.