To tweet or not to tweet? That was the question. I resisted jumping aboard the Twitter bandwagon until last week for reasons both practical and philosophical. But it basically boiled down to this: I don't have that much to say. And certainly, once I turn in this column each day, I've pretty much said it.

I've never understood people like Anderson Cooper who, going to a commercial, announces festively, "And I'll be tweeting during the break!" Let's think about this for a moment. We've been listening to AC360 for, say, the previous half hour under the assumption that if Mr. Cooper has something to tell us he's doing so. What could he possibly be hiding from us, or at least reserving for his twitter followers: "I had a BLT for lunch"; "I secretly don't like Jeffrey Toobin "; "Our makeup lady did a great job camouflaging the pimple on my forehead."

Rob Shepperson

Besides, where does he find the time? We've been watching the whole show so we know he's busy—doing hard-hitting live interviews, shooting the breeze with newscaster Isha Sesay, reading the Ridiculist. Come commercial, if it were me, I'd want to catch my breath, pop a mint, or maybe run to the bathroom. Isn't his soapbox big enough already? Is his position at CNN that shaky that he feels the need to be tweeting during the interstices of his action-packed life?

I appreciate there's an ulterior motive here, though I can't say I fully subscribe. It's about growing the brand. Mr. Anderson and others are ostensibly adding viewers, readers, followers, whatever by extending their reach on platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, etc.

But that begs the more fundamental question: What do they have to say that can more eloquently or forcefully be expressed in 140 characters than in a few on-air seconds, or in their next novel, or just texting their friends? Nonetheless, when you do what I do for a living you can't look a gift audience in the mouth. I like to think I write for myself. But readers are your currency, your raison d'être—if not in your own eyes, then certainly in those of the people who sign your paychecks. The more the merrier, and if Twitter can increase your yield, why not?

All of this came to a head recently when I ran into a friend, a fellow writer, at a cocktail party. He took me to task for not tweeting. He explained, as I've stated above, that it's all about expanding my brand. I responded that I don't even know what my brand is. He waved off my reservations, uttering the magic word—money. Somehow tweeting could lead to making more money. He didn't say how, exactly, but I suppose it makes sense that the more people you have following you, the greater your assumed clout, and the more likely opportunity will come knocking.

I shared my reservations about having nothing to say, but my friend brushed them aside. He assured me he has as little to say as I do and already has 13,000 followers. It's all about establishing your presence in the ether.

I also have logistical-spiritual issues with tweeting. I require something resembling solitude to write. Distractions must be put aside. That's why I write this column first thing in the morning, before the distractions have an opportunity to mount. If I was simultaneously tweeting, it would drain what little creative mojo I possess. From what I've observed, people who are serious about tweeting, about their online presence, do so several times a day, if not an hour. When do they find the time for philosophical reflection, or even to grab a bite? I expect that would go double for writers. I remember reading a story about E.L. Doctorow. His daughter, on her way to school, asked him to write a note requesting she be excused from gym, or something like that. He spent so much time crafting the note that his wife eventually grabbed it out of his hand and wrote it herself.

If I was tweeting, I'd spend all day trying to get the wording perfect. That's what writers do. They slave over language, happily so. I would never have time for anything else.

I have other twitter-related fears. For example, what if I somehow attracted "followers" but wasn't "following" anybody myself? Because if there's anything I'm less interested in than writing tweets, it's readers those of others. Wouldn't it just confirm what my wife has always said about me, that I'm fantastically self-involved, if people could see that I had 99,000 followers but was following only three people?

Out of curiosity, I asked my Twitter-championing friend at the cocktail party how many people he followed. "Eight hundred," he told me. Eight hundred? Doesn't that mean he's being bombarded with a tweet every other second? When does he find the time to hug his kids?

Anyway, last week I threw in the towel and started to tweet. So far it's backfiring, badly. I thought I'd have more followers by now. I have 15. The first time I tweeted—just that day's column—my wife asked me several times how many followers I had. I think she was being passive-aggressive, trying to cut me down to size. I got all excited when I got two more followers in quick succession, then realized they both worked for The Wall Street Journal's communications department. As much as I appreciate their support, I don't think that counts.

I'm not sure how to increase the numbers of followers I have besides scoring a reality-TV show. It would probably also help if I tweeted more often. But I'm unwilling to make the investment of time and creative energy.

The only reason I started to tweet was to expand my brand. But what if 15 followers is the size of my brand? My new fear is that not just my wife but also my editors are going to track my numbers and wonder whether anybody is reading me if I have less followers than, say, the average unpopular ninth-grader.

Once you start tweeting can you untweet? Will anybody notice? I'd like to cut my losses before it's too late.

—ralph.gardner@wsj.com
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304371504577402340073355430?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304371504577402340073355430.html
online.wsj.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2014-42
104249
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:2LOYW7W2CFGXLBV2D6VU24JP4MJHT67G
<urn:uuid:6aff3099-51cb-4d04-bae4-3a81083b365f>
2014-10-31T19:28:13Z
205.203.132.1
sha1:GJKGE2ZBNAS4LS3EXGJTGPTPTPKVD4D7
<urn:uuid:3fe94ee3-d07e-4a0c-b3bd-853a3015a3bb>
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304371504577402340073355430?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304371504577402340073355430.html
length
response
<urn:uuid:13faa723-3e5e-40af-b5f7-36bd6ed5d1bc>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-16-133-185.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2014-42
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web with URLs provided by Blekko for October 2014
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf