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).
Sunday, February 20, 2005
editing
Is the key to using blogs (or journals for that matter) to chronicle your life knowing how personal to get, how much of yourself you reveal? My mother told me that she has just finished writing her autobiography. If it were extremely personal, I don't think I would want to read it. Yet I would want it to be somewhat personal, or else it might just be very boring. You want there to be a voice, an opinionated voice, not just a record of events.
And I don't think I feel this way just b/c its my mother. I try to imagine what it would be like to read an autobio from someone living 150 years ago in Texas. If they went on about who they had a crush on, etc...well, maybe that would be interesting. Its not only sex life that has gotten left out of so much personal history over the centuries; its emotional life. So maybe you do want to leave in some of the personal stuff.
Ultimately, blogs are like any art, maybe even like any conversation you have - its not whether its personal or not that makes it of value. Its your ability to convey your conscious experience of life without being trapped inside your own head. All communication, like our consciousness, is editing - there are a billion experiences every instant. Our minds weed out the irrelevant information about the physical world (sound & light not audible/visible to humans). Artists/bloggers/conversationalists extend that process to their own experience, to the social world.
And I don't think I feel this way just b/c its my mother. I try to imagine what it would be like to read an autobio from someone living 150 years ago in Texas. If they went on about who they had a crush on, etc...well, maybe that would be interesting. Its not only sex life that has gotten left out of so much personal history over the centuries; its emotional life. So maybe you do want to leave in some of the personal stuff.
Ultimately, blogs are like any art, maybe even like any conversation you have - its not whether its personal or not that makes it of value. Its your ability to convey your conscious experience of life without being trapped inside your own head. All communication, like our consciousness, is editing - there are a billion experiences every instant. Our minds weed out the irrelevant information about the physical world (sound & light not audible/visible to humans). Artists/bloggers/conversationalists extend that process to their own experience, to the social world.
Sunday, January 30, 2005
recycle 6 & self-deception
The idea of blogs or even journals as total confessional is illusory. The funny thing is - a person might be able to monitor you and your thoughts on your own desires and compare them to your actions and get an idea of how big of a self-deciever you are. I suppose this is how psychologists make a living. Its odd, but ultimately you may never be able to know yourself, or know the relationship your desires have with your actions, as well as others do.
Another funny thing - blogs as a substitute for shrinks. Sure, none of us have licences, and we'll give crappy advice, but this does share the openness and the ability for another to give advice from a position outside of your self. That's what drives this confessional instinct that bloggers and reality TV show contestants have. We confess to be corrected, to get away from our self-deception. Maybe I've been reading too much Foucault, but I really think blogging, confessing our thoughts and judging another's thoughts thru responses, could create new Norms different from those imposed on us by various institutions.
BUT power, including the power to survey, judge and establishing norms, ultimately coalesces in small groups. Our thoughts, the fodder of norms, are out here on the web, but who has the fricking time to go through them all. The future really is in information management. If there aren't "net-shrinks" lurking around livejournal and blogger.com, its only a matter of time.
I consider my journal to be a map of my consciousness and my actions, but not of my motives and desires. And that's what you'll never get thru this medium (unless it becomes heavily interactive) - any opportunity to call my bluff, to know what my motives and desires really are. More the reason to make this whole thing more interactive.
Another funny thing - blogs as a substitute for shrinks. Sure, none of us have licences, and we'll give crappy advice, but this does share the openness and the ability for another to give advice from a position outside of your self. That's what drives this confessional instinct that bloggers and reality TV show contestants have. We confess to be corrected, to get away from our self-deception. Maybe I've been reading too much Foucault, but I really think blogging, confessing our thoughts and judging another's thoughts thru responses, could create new Norms different from those imposed on us by various institutions.
BUT power, including the power to survey, judge and establishing norms, ultimately coalesces in small groups. Our thoughts, the fodder of norms, are out here on the web, but who has the fricking time to go through them all. The future really is in information management. If there aren't "net-shrinks" lurking around livejournal and blogger.com, its only a matter of time.
I consider my journal to be a map of my consciousness and my actions, but not of my motives and desires. And that's what you'll never get thru this medium (unless it becomes heavily interactive) - any opportunity to call my bluff, to know what my motives and desires really are. More the reason to make this whole thing more interactive.
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Blogs: Jumped the shark?
I was just rooting around in my parents' vinyl record collection. The funniest thing about those old records are the jackets, some of which have rediculously eclectic pictures of other albums on one side (Jim Nabors Sings the Lord's Prayer, Janis Joplin, The New York Philharmonic performing selections from 2001) and enthusiastic endorsements of the medium of vinyl record on the other: "Everybody's familiar with records, too...Every album is a show in itself...Everything is on record these days...This is not so with any other kind of recording"
But aren't we always overly enthusiastic about every new medium? Have I been this way about blogs?
I've found that I'm obsessed w/ finding out what's new. I was never a trendy person, but now that I'm supposedly making a career out of studying something that's constantly changing (media), I consider it my responsibility to know what tools are being used. And it would seem that tools are becoming more like trends - here today, gone tomorrow.
I'd bet that blogs are today's Freindster (or any other social networking site). Not that friendster went away, but the initial buzz has worn off. If you want to concern yerself w/ what's permanent and lasting on the internet, maybe you've gotta look at blogs, friendster, and their ancestor, the personal webpage (I still say HTML is for dorks ) as the same thing, serving the same function, w/ a little bit of the function of a message board or a chat room thrown in.
I still have faith in the internet as "feeder league" for creative mass communication (you hear that, editors of major publications? Notice me!). But seriously, its not like the existing form of finding writers/directors/etc is perfect or efficient. In fact, its pretty goddamn arbitrary. This is already happening w/ mashups - a couple of laptop DJs remixed some Brittany & Christina, produced good stuff, became word-of-mouth hits and ended up working for B & C.
The system of deciding what gets played or shown to mass audiences is based on physical proximity, chance encounters, nepotism and imperfect opinion polling. There are serious flaws in marketing surveys, and since this way of gathering data is based on the public's willingness to volunteer, there will always be significant biases towards certain opinions and certain people.
We know that everybody and their brother has a screenplay or is in a band that they think can conquer the world. With the internet, there's no reason a grass-roots darwinian entertainmosphere can't evolve which will either render marketing obsolete or so integral to the entertainment itself that you won't be able to detect it (whatever's after product placement). Members of the current system of entertainment marketing & advertising can't be blamed for trying to smear new technology as a mere breeding ground for illegal bootlegs - they're just trying to save their hides. For everyone who isn't in old-school marketing & advertising, this is a terrific opportunity to help built the more efficient system that replaces it.
BTW - the term "Entertainmosphere" - copyright 2005 goshdurnit. Yeah, yeah, some other jackass used this word on his/her blog, but he/she failed to copyright it! Violate my copyright and I swear I will CUT you!
But aren't we always overly enthusiastic about every new medium? Have I been this way about blogs?
I've found that I'm obsessed w/ finding out what's new. I was never a trendy person, but now that I'm supposedly making a career out of studying something that's constantly changing (media), I consider it my responsibility to know what tools are being used. And it would seem that tools are becoming more like trends - here today, gone tomorrow.
I'd bet that blogs are today's Freindster (or any other social networking site). Not that friendster went away, but the initial buzz has worn off. If you want to concern yerself w/ what's permanent and lasting on the internet, maybe you've gotta look at blogs, friendster, and their ancestor, the personal webpage (I still say HTML is for dorks ) as the same thing, serving the same function, w/ a little bit of the function of a message board or a chat room thrown in.
I still have faith in the internet as "feeder league" for creative mass communication (you hear that, editors of major publications? Notice me!). But seriously, its not like the existing form of finding writers/directors/etc is perfect or efficient. In fact, its pretty goddamn arbitrary. This is already happening w/ mashups - a couple of laptop DJs remixed some Brittany & Christina, produced good stuff, became word-of-mouth hits and ended up working for B & C.
The system of deciding what gets played or shown to mass audiences is based on physical proximity, chance encounters, nepotism and imperfect opinion polling. There are serious flaws in marketing surveys, and since this way of gathering data is based on the public's willingness to volunteer, there will always be significant biases towards certain opinions and certain people.
We know that everybody and their brother has a screenplay or is in a band that they think can conquer the world. With the internet, there's no reason a grass-roots darwinian entertainmosphere can't evolve which will either render marketing obsolete or so integral to the entertainment itself that you won't be able to detect it (whatever's after product placement). Members of the current system of entertainment marketing & advertising can't be blamed for trying to smear new technology as a mere breeding ground for illegal bootlegs - they're just trying to save their hides. For everyone who isn't in old-school marketing & advertising, this is a terrific opportunity to help built the more efficient system that replaces it.
BTW - the term "Entertainmosphere" - copyright 2005 goshdurnit. Yeah, yeah, some other jackass used this word on his/her blog, but he/she failed to copyright it! Violate my copyright and I swear I will CUT you!
Sunday, December 12, 2004
old is the new new
Just read a fantastic article by Jonathan Franzen about his experience with his father's alzheimer's disease and death:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?010910fa_FACT1
Its long, and probably won't interest you unless you're thinking about a parent's possible demise. But if you are dealing with that, then it may help you in some way.
There's a bit where talks about how he remembers his father. He contrasts memories through letters his mom and dad wrote to his personal memories of his father. And then he riffs about how we remember things:
"The will to record indelibly, to set down stories in permanent words, seems to me akin to the conviction that we are larger than our biologies".
He goes on to speculate about the "postmodern resurgence of the oral and the eclipse of the written: our incessant telephoning, our ephemeral emailing..."
I'd say that emailing, and blogging, isn't that ephemeral after all. So maybe the written, searchable, (semi) permanent communication culture is back in a bigger way than ever. In the event of a blogger's death or alzheimers, their blog gains value. Memories fade and distort. I think as the blogging generation gets older, we'll start to realize the impact of this new imprint we leave behind. Its the next in a long line of technologies used to try to conquer the horrid emptiness left by death of a loved one. The first thing people used photos for were portraits which they held on to after the person died. Then sound, then video. Maybe its this increasingly giant sea of permanent records of people's lives that has our hip culture stuck in retro mode. With every sample of an Isley Brothers song, with every remake of a movie, our environment is made up of clothes/sounds/lives past.
But we don't consider this healthy, do we? We have pictures and old letters from loved ones who died, or maybe we broke up with someone years ago. People go to the trouble of destroying these reminders so as not to be tempted by them. I'm fine with remeniscing over old photos, but when I watch video of people who are gone, well, it just feels wrong. We can conjure their presence, but generally we choose not to, probably b/c once you start down that road, living in old photos, home movies, old blog entries, maybe it'll be hard to turn back to the absence, the uncertain.
I think IM culture was really the triumph of written culture. When people copy chat transcripts and save them (as I've seen in a few blogs), then we are setting in stone so many interactions. You may ignore your old chat transcripts, old photos, old videos, choosing not to live in the past. But maybe me or one of my dorky friends will take it, sample it, give it a new context and new life as a birthday gift or art. In these ways, we are decreasingly mortal.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?010910fa_FACT1
Its long, and probably won't interest you unless you're thinking about a parent's possible demise. But if you are dealing with that, then it may help you in some way.
There's a bit where talks about how he remembers his father. He contrasts memories through letters his mom and dad wrote to his personal memories of his father. And then he riffs about how we remember things:
"The will to record indelibly, to set down stories in permanent words, seems to me akin to the conviction that we are larger than our biologies".
He goes on to speculate about the "postmodern resurgence of the oral and the eclipse of the written: our incessant telephoning, our ephemeral emailing..."
I'd say that emailing, and blogging, isn't that ephemeral after all. So maybe the written, searchable, (semi) permanent communication culture is back in a bigger way than ever. In the event of a blogger's death or alzheimers, their blog gains value. Memories fade and distort. I think as the blogging generation gets older, we'll start to realize the impact of this new imprint we leave behind. Its the next in a long line of technologies used to try to conquer the horrid emptiness left by death of a loved one. The first thing people used photos for were portraits which they held on to after the person died. Then sound, then video. Maybe its this increasingly giant sea of permanent records of people's lives that has our hip culture stuck in retro mode. With every sample of an Isley Brothers song, with every remake of a movie, our environment is made up of clothes/sounds/lives past.
But we don't consider this healthy, do we? We have pictures and old letters from loved ones who died, or maybe we broke up with someone years ago. People go to the trouble of destroying these reminders so as not to be tempted by them. I'm fine with remeniscing over old photos, but when I watch video of people who are gone, well, it just feels wrong. We can conjure their presence, but generally we choose not to, probably b/c once you start down that road, living in old photos, home movies, old blog entries, maybe it'll be hard to turn back to the absence, the uncertain.
I think IM culture was really the triumph of written culture. When people copy chat transcripts and save them (as I've seen in a few blogs), then we are setting in stone so many interactions. You may ignore your old chat transcripts, old photos, old videos, choosing not to live in the past. But maybe me or one of my dorky friends will take it, sample it, give it a new context and new life as a birthday gift or art. In these ways, we are decreasingly mortal.
Saturday, December 04, 2004
alright, alright
Following up on last entry...
My offline journal has moved from literary to analytic and now, its actually looking kinda bloggy.
By that, I mean I just record stuff very quickly, broad strokes, not well written. Merely recording so that I don't forget. I don't like this. That stage of my life when I was unemployed and desperately unhappy living in NYC yielded by far the best writing in my journal. I took the time to be articulate.
Which brings me to a deep question: should you ever go back and edit/delete old entries in your journal or blog? I know everyone would say, "of course not! You've gotta remember the past, warts and all". Well, I've looked back at old entries, from, say, after the first time I got my heart broken, and those are some pretty big, ugly warts. Fundamentally, its nothing TOO horrible, probably not that different from anyone else's experience (yet this doesn't make it something we shouldn't be embarrased about others seeing, not unlike wiping your ass). And even though i know that its not likely that anyone will find or read that offline journal, I still have this urge to delete.
My offline journal has moved from literary to analytic and now, its actually looking kinda bloggy.
By that, I mean I just record stuff very quickly, broad strokes, not well written. Merely recording so that I don't forget. I don't like this. That stage of my life when I was unemployed and desperately unhappy living in NYC yielded by far the best writing in my journal. I took the time to be articulate.
Which brings me to a deep question: should you ever go back and edit/delete old entries in your journal or blog? I know everyone would say, "of course not! You've gotta remember the past, warts and all". Well, I've looked back at old entries, from, say, after the first time I got my heart broken, and those are some pretty big, ugly warts. Fundamentally, its nothing TOO horrible, probably not that different from anyone else's experience (yet this doesn't make it something we shouldn't be embarrased about others seeing, not unlike wiping your ass). And even though i know that its not likely that anyone will find or read that offline journal, I still have this urge to delete.
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
More on blogging
(Maybe this will be a meta-blog, where I just ramble on and on about blogs)
Remember 'logs?
You should keep a blog so you can go back days or months or years from now and look back and see what you were thinking, doing, or what your writing voice was like.
I've been keeping this quaint off-line journal for quite some time. Every now and then, I go back and read old entries, and I think its really changed my self-image. Obviously, there's a lot of "boy, was I stupid back then", but there's also a lot of "history repeats itself more than I noticed". I'm more aware of the patterns in my life. Phases, too - sentimental, ironic, literary, bitter, analytic, jokey. Like old photos, it becomes increasingly difficult to believe you inhabited these words.
And if you're detailed enough in your chronicling, it can really feel like time traveling, inhabiting the old you.
Favorite insult of the day:
Remember 'logs?
You should keep a blog so you can go back days or months or years from now and look back and see what you were thinking, doing, or what your writing voice was like.
I've been keeping this quaint off-line journal for quite some time. Every now and then, I go back and read old entries, and I think its really changed my self-image. Obviously, there's a lot of "boy, was I stupid back then", but there's also a lot of "history repeats itself more than I noticed". I'm more aware of the patterns in my life. Phases, too - sentimental, ironic, literary, bitter, analytic, jokey. Like old photos, it becomes increasingly difficult to believe you inhabited these words.
And if you're detailed enough in your chronicling, it can really feel like time traveling, inhabiting the old you.
Favorite insult of the day:
Monday, November 29, 2004
You should blog. seriously, dude.
I refuse to do anything unless I can bring something new to the table. Could there be anything "new" in the oversaturated world of blogs? Sure. But it'll probably take too much damn effort to think of it.
In the meantime, here are some thoughts about blogging:
If everyone has a blog (and I gotta admit, it was pretty easy to set this up), and writes a brief synopsis of what they do and think each day, and you could search for ideas, behaviors, etc by googling all blogs, then the internet (or rather tha corner of the internet known as the blogosphere) would begin to resemble the collective consciousness that the entire internet was intended to be (instead of the vast wasteland of advertisements and shitty defunct personal webpages it is).
When you look at this blog, or any other blog, or your blog, as an individual voice, it can seem pathetic. With so many voices, it seems as though there would never be any reason for anyone to listen to anyone else. But if you can search for ideas within them, then they don't seem so pathetic. Instead of the reader being all, "I wanna see what Joe Random did or thought or felt today" he or she'd be all, "I wonder what PEOPLE think of that new Handsome Boy Modeling School album?" or "what do PEOPLE think of me?".
I'm learning about all the imperfect ways people have tried to gauge public opinion. But if everyone would spill their guts in blogs, then every researcher could have instant access to a much more accurate picture of what public opinion truly is. And it won't just be marketers and social scientists who will use it. Anytime anyone is curious what other people think of 'x', they'll be able to find out.
People are stuck on the idea of reading things on the net "linearly". I think in the future, we'll read things "through" search engines. We'll have a question and we'll go thru the search engine to an EXCERPT of a site or blog, take what we need and bail. As the writer, its hard not to assume a linear reader. I guess writing on the web will evolve to be search friendly (as TV programming evolved after the remote control). I could put popular phrases in my blog to attract hits via google (e.g. clown porn). But then search engines will evolve to weed out things searchers don't want. Another arms race, I suppose.
Obviously, the blogosphere doesn't even come close to reflecting the population, demographically. But they're making it so durn easy to start one of these things. It just seems like the next logical step in this whole internet revolution. So blog, dammit. Write the most boring, bitchy, self-indulgent, unreadable blog you can write.
In the meantime, here are some thoughts about blogging:
If everyone has a blog (and I gotta admit, it was pretty easy to set this up), and writes a brief synopsis of what they do and think each day, and you could search for ideas, behaviors, etc by googling all blogs, then the internet (or rather tha corner of the internet known as the blogosphere) would begin to resemble the collective consciousness that the entire internet was intended to be (instead of the vast wasteland of advertisements and shitty defunct personal webpages it is).
When you look at this blog, or any other blog, or your blog, as an individual voice, it can seem pathetic. With so many voices, it seems as though there would never be any reason for anyone to listen to anyone else. But if you can search for ideas within them, then they don't seem so pathetic. Instead of the reader being all, "I wanna see what Joe Random did or thought or felt today" he or she'd be all, "I wonder what PEOPLE think of that new Handsome Boy Modeling School album?" or "what do PEOPLE think of me?".
I'm learning about all the imperfect ways people have tried to gauge public opinion. But if everyone would spill their guts in blogs, then every researcher could have instant access to a much more accurate picture of what public opinion truly is. And it won't just be marketers and social scientists who will use it. Anytime anyone is curious what other people think of 'x', they'll be able to find out.
People are stuck on the idea of reading things on the net "linearly". I think in the future, we'll read things "through" search engines. We'll have a question and we'll go thru the search engine to an EXCERPT of a site or blog, take what we need and bail. As the writer, its hard not to assume a linear reader. I guess writing on the web will evolve to be search friendly (as TV programming evolved after the remote control). I could put popular phrases in my blog to attract hits via google (e.g. clown porn). But then search engines will evolve to weed out things searchers don't want. Another arms race, I suppose.
Obviously, the blogosphere doesn't even come close to reflecting the population, demographically. But they're making it so durn easy to start one of these things. It just seems like the next logical step in this whole internet revolution. So blog, dammit. Write the most boring, bitchy, self-indulgent, unreadable blog you can write.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)