The Unity of Narrative, Knowledge

Ok, we're back. Loooong delay, of course, because, well...I guess that's hard to explain. Maybe it shouldn't be, but language is part of the problem here. Get ready for an obnoxiously meta post, or just bail on out. No, it's fine. I'm not mad.
The first problem is that this blog needs a subject, and what we have instead is an abundance of passions. My loves in this world are many, and varied, and there's just not much of an audience for non-specialized prattle. All of my favorite blogs are about specific things, things those bloggers know a great deal about, or have a peculiar gift for analyzing. Me? Oh, I guess I'm a Jack of a few trades, but I'm certainly a master of none. I do love books, and comics, and basketball, and video games, and baseball, and movies, and board games, and probably, above all, stories and their telling, and how, you're wondering, does that make me unique? It doesn't, and I wouldn't pretend otherwise. But I love them all, and maybe in such a way that I could tie it all together. Dream, boy. Dream.
In the blogs linked to above, particularly in the sports and video games ones, the particular thing that drew me to them, and then got me addicted, was the author's vast range of knowledge, of reference area, and their willingness and ability to draw parallels between their areas of specialty, and their many other interests, which occasionally seem totally unrelated. It's often what makes the things we love great, whether we recognize it or not; our passions, no matter how trivial, become metaphors that give sense to the rest of our existence, and they become the lens through which we view our world, and strive, however vainly, to understand it. This expresses itself best, I think, in narratives, in stories, which brings us, limping, bored and confused, to our next point.
Consilience is an important concept to me, and that concept, for those of you reading this who have never been stuck, on, say, a train with me, is (very roughly) this: all of the knowledge out there is related, and relatable. Sounds pretty simple, right? And, in a round-about sort of way, we're actually back to addressing the original problem, which is what is this diggidy dang blog about, anyway? Narrative consilience, my friend, narrative consilience. Maybe. Hopefully. We've got a bunch of wrinkles to work out, like, I guess, how is it about narrative consilience when it's mostly about your basketball predictions for this year? And that, I don't know. We'll try to cover several other things, I promise. Patterns will unfold, and we'll all learn something important about how our cultural backdrop is knit. Give me time to work that out, maybe, and don't hesitate to take me to task whenever you like. Via email, where you won't hear me weeping. In the meantime, we will talk about, say, the video game NBA Showdown, and why I'm a socialist, or maybe play that game where you say "oh, so and so? He/she is totally the [x] of [y]." I once called Kelly Dwyer the Mark Eaton of blocking shots of basketball blogs, and if that made sense to you, you should see a doctor.

The second problem of this blog is the voice in which it is written, because I've never written a blog before, and I'm not sure how to go about it. I'm so late to this party, this blog party, that many of the party-starters have already left for bigger parties in posh mansions and the like, with enormous cadres of beautiful people draped across their successful shoulders like expensive furs. Me, I've got a bad back, and I'm a vegetarian besides, so I'll probably just hang here for a while, thanks. And maybe the writing style thing will just, you know, work itself out. Is bad metaphor still a functional writing style?