In recent weeks, my father has taken to pointing out that my posts have no comments. To which I generally respond that there are indeed no comments at the blog, but there are often comments elsewhere. I'm therefore receptive to this post by Kathleen Fitzpatrick (building from this), which notes that Facebook, in particular, often makes off with discussions that might originally have happened at their point of blog origin. Ironically, this makes the experience of blogging more like writing for print than for electronic media: there are conversations out there on Facebook, or friendslocked posts on LiveJournal, or Twitter (it's often hard to track back to Twitter), but most of them are inaccessible to me. It does make blogging a bit more lonely, as nobody appears to be there (even though the stat count says somebody must be reading).
Of course, it has generally been my experience that my "serious" blog posts--the ones that take, as Scott says, "five or six thoughtful hours" to write--have never garnered much in the way of comment. The squibs, which may take all of thirty seconds, are far more likely to accumulate responses. (By the same token, the most successful "scholarly" blog post in my repertoire is the satire of neo-Victorian novels, which has now been cited more than once in peer-reviewed venues.) The unfamiliarity of the material is an obvious culprit, but the seriousness itself also appears to be at issue: can the respondent be equally "serious" in a comment that will not take five or six hours to write? In any event, the silence tends to make the effort to blog into something of a blogging-for-blogging's sake type of endeavor.