So, when I first started this blog, I had a category called Philosophical Writer’s Guide, which was inspired by the Opinionated Guide at SF Debris. I did a few posts in that category, including the analysis of the Prime Directive and a full-form summary/review/analysis of the revamped Battlestar Galactica mini-series. I also have a category called Not-So-Casual Commentary, which started as a bunch of video game columns for a now defunct gaming site. Lately, I’ve started including movies and books and other things in the latter category, which left me wonder what there was for the previous category to do. Do I need both categories? Should I just put everything into “Not-So-Casual Commentary”?
Now I’m doing my in-depth Hugo analysis, and as I look back I note that the Philosophical Writer’s Guide includes a number of posts where I analyze the writing of works more in-depth. While I sometimes do stuff like that for video games, Not-So-Casual Commentary tends to be more, well, commentary, either quick discussions or discussions that focus on more than just the writing. Given that, I’ve made a decision on how to divide the content among the two categories:
1) Philosophical Writer’s Guide will contain posts where I get into the details of the writing or story or plot/characterization concepts used in a work. This will include the Hugo Award analysis posts. However, it will exclude commentary on video games.
2) Not-So-Casual Commentary will contain posts about video games, and then posts that either address all aspects of a work, or more shallow discussions of a work and what it contains.
There may still be some overlap, but that’s why you can put a post into more than one category, I guess [grin]. Hopefully, with this everyone will know which category they want to look at for what sort of content.
Look for the analysis of “The Aeronaut’s Windlass” soon.