I should be under no obligation to post a fresh entry everyday on my blog. For one, no one pays for it. More importantly though, it is not as if people are waiting in nervous anticipation for what new profound insights into human experience I am peddling for the day. And yet, I feel compelled to write every day like a hack suffering from the terminal hack disease.
I do look at the “Recent Readers” bar on the right-hand side of the blog to get a feel for why visitors come to this site. As you might have noticed they are rather diverse in their geographical spread. Their search profile gives me some idea about what it is that brings them to this blog.
In recent weeks, I have been struck by the preponderance of the term “Christopher Hitchens’ sexuality” which has brought many visitors from around the world to my blog. It is a revelation that so many people know about the famously cantankerous contrarian British writer-journalist. What is more is that they are interested in his sexual preferences. Evidently, he used to swing both ways in his younger days, according to his own memoires ‘Hitch 22.’
I did not dwell on that aspect in my short post some weeks ago but merely made a mention of it. Nonetheless, I find that even today so many internet searchers are interested in such details about someone whose glamour quotient is not very much above zero. For instance, I would have understood this level of curiosity about Tom Cruise’s sexual preferences, not that I am implying anything.
Much as I would like to pretend that my blog has finally joined the must-read category on the web, the truth is far, really really really far, from it. To my credit, those who visit regularly do make a couple of points—one is that it is always readable and two that it is quirky and unpredictable. I suppose both those observations are reasonably accurate.
The short post about my meeting with Dev Anand the other day, for instance, prompted a lot of response. It may not reflect in comments under the entry because no one actually comments on my writing. However, I did get some email messages saying how charming the entry was. Some of my journalist friends recounted similar experiences of the movie icon’s impersonal graciousness. While I am on the subject I want to clarify that I meant impersonal graciousness as a genuine compliment. It should be taken to mean graciousness not determined by the kind of person or the class or the stature of the person it is being shown to.
As you can probably tell this Friday morning I am not in the mood for a more substantive entry. In that sense I have been saved by Christopher Hitchens’ sexual preferences and Dev Anand’s lifelong charms.