I'd estimate that nearly half of my existing journal is made up of "bitchy" entries, in which I complain about some emotional/mental/physical pain I'm in. I'd always regarded these entries as useful in their creation (they purge these thoughts, keep them from running around in circles in my head) but utterly useless reading material, the very definition of self-indulgence.
But now I'm starting to use them as a way of learning more about how I deal with shitty situations or how I've changed/not changed as a person. Sometimes I use them as guidance as to how to feel about something. How did I reacte to similar trouble 2 years back, 6 years back? Perhaps the most heartening aspect of looking back is realizing how utterly hopeless you were at one point, and how unwarranted that hopelessness was. Better days were on the way; you just didn't feel that they were.
I'm really interested in the ways that we impose narrative structures on our formless lives. I wonder if many people, now or ever, saw only the One Big Story - their own life, instead of the thousands of stories that I see my life as. Each time I'm in one, I feel that its THE story of my life, but it never ends up that way. I feel fortunate and somewhat immortal in this respect, as if I've been allowed to lead multiple lives, just out of curiousity. What could possibly bind that night camping on the mountain with my trip to Quebec City? At best, its a serial. Franzen was right; "the only real story, in the end, is that you die".
This is what I do when I go back and read those bitch sessions: locate my old self in a narrative, and identify w/ that old pre-comeback self, thus manufacturing hope for my current self. But I sound more detached from my life than I really am. Perhaps I aspire to be detached. I aspire to laugh (as a detached watcher would laugh) during the sad parts, but be deadly serious (pious, even) about the happy parts. That's the tone of my favorite authors/films, and that's the tone I wish to impose on my personal narrative.
(months later...)
After having watched the ending of 'Before Sunset,' I've a revision to make. We don't even live a full story. Even the snuffing out of my consciousness doesn't end what I think of as the plot of my life. In fact, its very unlikely that any of our deaths will coincide with any sense of closure. It'll probably be just like the end of this movie, just fading out while the narrative keeps going. It's maddening to consider this, but that's why I divide my life into many individual, overlapping stories - so I can get some closure. Its possible that my appetite for closure comes from watching/reading so many stories w/ beginnings and endings. Supposedly we spend more time in fictional universes, watching movies, reading novels, than anyone else in history, to correspond to the multiple lives we live (multiple marriages, multiple groups of friends, multiple "homes.")
Sunday, March 27, 2005
Monday, March 07, 2005
Call me "gramps"
Just got involved in this new social networking site www.memetika.com. I'm glad to hear the word "meme" getting more mainstream use. But still, the site doesn't seem to do anything this site/friendster doesn't.
Searching the internet for someone who has the same interests as me just ain't cutting it. I guess its fun to know that most people who like the Sopranos don't like the Gilmore Girls, and that apparently no one has read or likes "The Moral Animal". I want some site that can connect me with someone who is thinking approximately what I'm thinking right...now! And we're not too far away from it.
But what then? Would I even want to talk to those people? I just never got into the whole chatting-w/-someone-you've-never-met-in-person. Could it really be that entertaining/pleasurable? God, I'm sounding like an old fogey, but seriously, I just want some sort of passive info (a movie, a book, an interview) or the physical presence of a conversation with someone. In other words, if I want info, I'll go to the pros, those who have studied making movies/writing/whatever and practiced it until they've become damn articulate. If I want social interaction, I'll talk to someone in person (hell, I don't even like phones all that much). I know in principle that the internet makes it easier to find like-minded people who would make better conversation-mates or, well, mates than we stumble across thru sheer chance in real life. I think with real life relationships, we have more incentive to meet people half-way, to alter our likes/dislikes. What we're after isn't someone similar to us necessarily. We're after people who care about us, and in real life, people adjust to those around them so that they can get/give this, so that they can be social.
These people who can lose themselves in the social fabric of the internet searching for someone more similar to them than those in close physical proximity - don't you think they'll end up with the same pleasures and problems as those who socialize w/o it? Perhaps I've been extrodinarily lucky in that I've found people offline whom I care deeply about, and those who are less lucky need online social networking. Or perhaps I'm just too damn old for this "internet" thing.
harumph
Searching the internet for someone who has the same interests as me just ain't cutting it. I guess its fun to know that most people who like the Sopranos don't like the Gilmore Girls, and that apparently no one has read or likes "The Moral Animal". I want some site that can connect me with someone who is thinking approximately what I'm thinking right...now! And we're not too far away from it.
But what then? Would I even want to talk to those people? I just never got into the whole chatting-w/-someone-you've-never-met-in-person. Could it really be that entertaining/pleasurable? God, I'm sounding like an old fogey, but seriously, I just want some sort of passive info (a movie, a book, an interview) or the physical presence of a conversation with someone. In other words, if I want info, I'll go to the pros, those who have studied making movies/writing/whatever and practiced it until they've become damn articulate. If I want social interaction, I'll talk to someone in person (hell, I don't even like phones all that much). I know in principle that the internet makes it easier to find like-minded people who would make better conversation-mates or, well, mates than we stumble across thru sheer chance in real life. I think with real life relationships, we have more incentive to meet people half-way, to alter our likes/dislikes. What we're after isn't someone similar to us necessarily. We're after people who care about us, and in real life, people adjust to those around them so that they can get/give this, so that they can be social.
These people who can lose themselves in the social fabric of the internet searching for someone more similar to them than those in close physical proximity - don't you think they'll end up with the same pleasures and problems as those who socialize w/o it? Perhaps I've been extrodinarily lucky in that I've found people offline whom I care deeply about, and those who are less lucky need online social networking. Or perhaps I'm just too damn old for this "internet" thing.
harumph
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Ow + blogging as local news
Still a bit enervated from last night, but not so much that I don't remember a thought I had about blogs yesterday.
there was some sort of a brou-ha-ha outside the library on campus around noon. I'd heard something about a campus conservative group, Texas-shaped cake, and counter protests - sketchy details at best. I rubber-necked for a minute or two, but didn't really get any new info. There was some dude from the campus paper there, trying to get info for a piece in tomorrow's paper. The thing is: I wanted to know what the hell was going on right then, and just asking people, "hey, what's going on?" was going to get me a lot of shrugged shoulders. I've gotten this expectation from reading online papers like NYTimes or cable news networks to just get immediate news. But there's no reason for any huge establishment to give a shit about our campus doings. That's where blogs step in.
Blogger should have some sort of feature where you can search for people who have blogs in your geographic area and get a sense of what public opinion is about a certain local event. Definately more practical than asking some dude next to you "what's going on?" (though arguably more anti-social).
there was some sort of a brou-ha-ha outside the library on campus around noon. I'd heard something about a campus conservative group, Texas-shaped cake, and counter protests - sketchy details at best. I rubber-necked for a minute or two, but didn't really get any new info. There was some dude from the campus paper there, trying to get info for a piece in tomorrow's paper. The thing is: I wanted to know what the hell was going on right then, and just asking people, "hey, what's going on?" was going to get me a lot of shrugged shoulders. I've gotten this expectation from reading online papers like NYTimes or cable news networks to just get immediate news. But there's no reason for any huge establishment to give a shit about our campus doings. That's where blogs step in.
Blogger should have some sort of feature where you can search for people who have blogs in your geographic area and get a sense of what public opinion is about a certain local event. Definately more practical than asking some dude next to you "what's going on?" (though arguably more anti-social).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)