I think I'm quite proud of blogging but I must admit that I used to think that any criticisms of blogging didn't really relate to me as I write about history rather than my life and children. Not that I think history blogging is superior, just that it's different and not as prone to accusations of 'self indulgent navel gazing' as parenting blogging.
HOWEVER, since attending Blogfest I've decided that actually that's bollocks and we're all in this together.
Anyway to answer your questions:
Why do you blog?
Because I desperately NEED to write, because I'm trying to iron out any Aspergery formality of language, because I desperately need to talk about history, because I want to sell books.
What do you get from it?
Book sales, free books, strangers recognising me at gigs/in shops/on the street, vague recognition from people I admire, space in my head once the words have been vomited out on to the page, notoriety, a bit of extra cash.
Is it trivial and is that ok sometimes?
I veer between trivial matters written about very seriously and serious matters written with a vein of triviality. This is very definitely okay.
Why should people be interested in what you write?
They probably shouldn't.
Do you care if they are not?
Not in the slightest.
If you blog just for you why do it publically?
I don't just blog for myself but also for other history enthusiasts.
What value do you think you are adding to the world by blogging?
Er, more history stuff. I love it when people comment to say that they've become enthralled by a historical woman that I've written about and gone on to read more about her.
Do you feel defensive about blogging?
YES, well, mostly. I don't like it when people who don't know the first thing about blogging just write off all blogs as being the same or get them confused with online diaries, which most blogs don't actually seem to be or when people assume that because they read one boring parenting blog then all blogs are a. boring and b. about parenting. It's just so yawn yawn yawn.