It is incredible the thoughts that seem worthy of writing when you know you have a venue for them.
This occurred to me the other day as I was driving and a car near me honked, I believe to let the car in front know that the light had changed. Of course, it could have been to tell the idiot in the car to pay attention. The result would have been the same--a beep or two on the car's horn. What made me consider this is my recognition of the complete inability to know whether the honk was intended as a gentle reminder or an impatient, irate admonition (at least, if the recipient of the honk could not see the facial expression or flailing arms). I must have been in a good mood, or I would have assumed that the gesture was meant to cause offense. Of course, it is easier to think of these things objectively if one is not on the receiving end.
Although the car honk is non-verbal, the issue is one of tone, as it is in written communication--notably, email. Arrangement of words alone is usually inadequate to convey the sense in which the meaning was meant. This comes across in the user profile of The Ironic Catholic, who writes, as illustration of her definition of irony, " I.e.:This is a joke, people." The words themselves do not necessarily communicate the tone of voice in which the sentence would be delivered, but since we are used to hearing this phrase, the ", people" provides sufficient indicator. Ignoring that context on the side of the page, one might take this humorous post literally--and did, until one realized the spoof in the middle of an email to me about the post. Hence, net culture has developed the smilies, and variations on the smilies, to indicate mood, or tags like "(ha, ha)" to indicate jokes. Or we fail to do either, and are misinterpreted.
I assume that I was misinterpreted by the blogger who deleted my comment on this post (link removed). Who knows? I was being sincere, but could not necessarily indicate it. Political posts get so nasty so fast; I usually avoid them completely. Even agreement can be taken as mockery.
The ability to change what you have said, or what someone else has said in response to you, rather contradicts my idea at the beginning of this post that thoughts have to be "worthy" of being written--an idea that can be traced to our cultural impression that writing has a privileged position, and that something, once written, is permanently fixed. With the blog, however, you can delete me, I can delete you, I can delete something that feels particularly vulnerable if I choose to do so. But does that really feel honest? Or genuine? Or do these things really matter, since blogs are, after all, "virtual"?
After the fact, I decided that I would assume "technology failure" from the deleted comment and not give the link. Further calling the permanence of writing into question. . .
3 comments:
I couldn't agree with you more about politics. I avoid discussing it like the plague. I'm on a forum for one of my favorite writers and everytime a political discussion comes up (quite frequently)you can be assured that all hell is going to break loose. I don't even know the point of people posting about politics, because everyone has their own beliefs and generally do not sway from them.
I see the deleting thing and the useless political flaming thing as part of the "virtual" culture that deserves exploring--maybe not always a problem but it could have some negative consequences. I'm referring to the way that people choose so deliberately what they will read and respond to and tolerate in response to themselves in a different way than when you're engaged in face-to-face conversation or even watching the news or reading a magazine. I can choose to avoid political blogs because I don't intend to be swayed, or I can read them because I like to argue. Or I can choose to read only people who think like I do so that my opinion is consistently affirmed and I am at once further convinced that I am right and shielded from those who might prove me wrong. This exists in print culture, too, but to a greater extent, I create my own bubble in this virtual world. There is a lot of lip service to how the web has opened up the exchange of information so that anyone's voice can be heard. But what happens more often probably is that people end up hearing more of what they want to hear and less of what they wish to ignore. I can certainly see evidence of that in my own web use, and I consider myself a pretty open-minded and well-informed person.
I have developed the tendency of avoiding even those blogs that say things with which I agree in a way that is inflammatory because it inflames me (even to the point of animosity). The web is not so much free speech sometimes as a mindless cacophony of opinionated people. Some are interesting, and some merely think they are! For me, it is a problem because there is so much to sift through. The bubble is almost a necessity!
Post a Comment