I like your point about blogs being the ideal way to put ideas in circulation, in association with your own name. I think academics could be less stingy about their ideas, especially "small" ideas and observations that maybe aren't article or book-worthy. Blogs lend themselves to that opening up. The fear of plagiarism seems like a poor excuse for keeping silent so much of the time.

I also think semi-serious academic blogging -- with its to-and-fro (and the widespread blurring of the boundary between the academic and non-academic worlds) could lead to a climate of greater intellectual freedom. At a conference or in print, it's sometimes risky to publicly express your disagreement with someone. In the blog-world, it's almost expected.

Actually, GHW paid me that compliment about my film reviews (at least I hope it's a compliment). I'm returning to the principle of having my blog function in part as a "professional workbench" where I an work through some of my research ideas. I do think that productive political conversations an take place in blogs, but until I find a more satisfying way of having that conversation, I'm not sure that's how I'll use my blog.

Thanks, Matthew, for elaborating here on some of the themes of our discussion. I think your comments and Amardeep's post are especially relevant in light of all the concern at the MLA about the way the general public has little clue as to what literature professors actually do/think. To the extent your blog and others attract mixed academic/non-academic audiences, it would be interesting to see how attitudes of non-academics change as they realize the range of issues, opinions, styles of academics....