Many have talked about how our increased familiarity with celebrities, and their overexposure, paradoxically makes them seem less important or glamorous. The more that people encounter a celebrity everyday in the pages of a magazine or on a celebrity website, the less mystery there is about them. Familiarity breeds contempt. Like I said, this is a pretty common saw.
I think there's something a little similar to blogging. Not that people particularly care about bloggers as people. But there's a related interchange involving ideas. What happens is, readers read certain bloggers and start to love what they say. This is often a product of that blogger cogently expressing ideas or feelings the reader him or herself has had but couldn't or didn't express in the same way. Some of the most potent blogger crushes (for lack of a better term) come from this attraction-through articulation. When you read someone who says something you believe in, and says it in an intelligent or beautiful way, and it happens several times in a row, you develop an affection for that person's ideas and writing.
But those things tend not to last. Bloggers have to write a lot. The reality of posting several times a day, usually a prerequisite of having an audience, is that you end up sharing many, many of your thoughts and opinions. No two people, meanwhile, have identical ideas, and the curious thing is that you tend to be more disenchanted by the small differences in your ideas with someone else than in big, glaring disagreements. We tend to be most annoyed with the people who are most like us. Personally, I think it's pretty common for someone to discover a blog, love it immediately, then end up disillusioned by one disagreement or another. Whereas someone who has more profound disagreements, or who just isn't quite as initially enthused, will keep a more even keel throughout. Or so it seems to me.
I do think that there's sometimes more space for people who disagree a lot to get along, blog-wise, than there are for people who are largely in agreement. Internecine argument can be the most vicious kind. Fellow commenters at Megan McArdle's place sometimes ask her why she continues to put up with me. (Her patience is indeed the stuff of legend.) Partly it's because Megan is a cool and laid back person. (Lest my screeds against libertarianism convince you I am a zealot, it should be clear that I have great affection for MegArdle.) Another reason, though, is because we disagree so fundamentally that there isn't much invested in our disagreement. Because we aren't involved in the same philosophical or ideological project, we can just sort of shoot the breeze and snark at each other and not get too mad. Whereas if we were battling for the soul of an ideology, or whatever, there would be more at stake.
Speaking of blog crushes, you should be reading Elizabeth Nolan Brown. That's one that shows little sign of waning for me.