![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
polarity
I had a wonderful, wonderful day yesterday. ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
fennel has such good taste in music and food and words and and...
Then the evening, which was filled with crass remarks by a MUDperson with whom I have huge problems already. I stayed signed on for longer than I probably should have, out of morbid curiosity more than anything else, reading in disbelief. Then left for the evening and spent the rest of my awake time IMing with people to whom I can actually relate as human beings.
In other news, I leave for Kalamazooooo! *splish* tomorrow instead of Wednesday. It will make my traveling companions feel a lot better about the trip. I'm not crazy about the idea, but well, it's not just my trip.
So, this is thought-provoking. I'll disagree with much of it below, but am very glad that Em wrote it. Much like I am glad for most of the rest of her writing, and for whatever she chooses to reveal of herself onMUD.
I have no illusions about knowing people based on whatever they choose to write in their journals. But I am not exactly sure how it is that - in this respect - a journal is different from, say, an e-mail. Or any interaction, really. No one instance of interaction educates us on who our friends are, or people whom we'd like to be our friends. We learn about people gradually, compiling an image of them based on the things they choose to reveal about themselves. Suggesting that the electronic medium is particularly deceitful as a means of getting to know a person doesn't make sense to me: I have certainly known people who are more secretive and much, much less self-revealing in live conversation than are some of the people on my LJ friends list.
I like the friends list. I like that there is an option to make a friends-only post. I guess, there's also a way to make a post that only certain individuals will see, if you have a paid account. We choose to reveal more of ourselves to specific people all the time in livelife, it only makes sense that we should be able to do it here. And, as LJ users usually have circles of friends who are also on LJ, this is a convenient way to share parts of yourself with people without having to repeat yourself twenty million times.
I understand the point about cryptic journal entries, especially as regards other people's names. I am guilty of this myself, though try to avoid it -- but I know of at least one person whose workplace superiors found her LJ and told her to delete it. I'd rather not create problems for people. I wish I could enthuse more at you about the more amazing people and events in my life, but well, the possible consequences of doing that too publicly prevent me from doing so. Not to mention that, were I to reveal more, publicly, I would hear TMI yelps.
I don't think too much about who my audience might be, who might overhear what I say here. (Overread what I write? Bleah, ugly.) I usually write with specific people in mind, and my public posts are things I would reveal about myself to anyone interested. If people are not actively interested, well, I suppose I'm not on their friends list. If I'm on yours, I assume you want to know things about me.
To each her own: I don't feel uncomfortable when people assume they know me from LJ posts. Oh, I think it's silly to no end! But I'd rather take the risk, offer people aspects of myself, and see who responds. People respond. I am surrounded by those who respond continually, with whom it translates into real-life interaction, who amaze me with their openness and intelligence and creativity. Who knows if they would've been part of my life if I had not been an open book for most of my conscious years?
Good writing can cast a spell, and there will always be people obssessing with other people. Personal charisma also often casts a spell, and even in live interaction people are perfectly capable of being other than what they seem. In all modes of communication, it's good to try to keep this in mind, as it is always a risk. For me, the rewards have outweighed the risks, so much so that I have come to largely disregard the risks.
In fact, the better people are at conveying a sense of personality through writing, the more likely it is that that is a conscious skill, and that what you're reading is a persona. Not a lie; that's not what I mean. But a carefully selected image of what they are, chosen to reflect what they want to reflect, and skipping over the things they'd rather not share -- their flaws, perhaps, but even more their insecurities, shynesses, doubts.
Hm. Plenty of my friends have expressed the facets of themselves that they regard as negative, and have received thoughtful response from people who care about them. I do realize that not everyone acts that way, but my point is that what Emily says above is not inherent in this medium. People present carefully selected images of themselves all the time, in live interaction as well.
Yes, it is easy (and another risk) to extrapolate a possible real-life melding of souls from someone's writing, and then be disappointed in one-on-one interaction. I've done this, on both ends. I've had to re-evaluate my expectations and assumptions in reading other people's writing; it has been a learning experience. But, again, the good things that have come out of it pretty much annul the bad. Plus, it was easy to re-evaluate: in the past year I've had to re-evaluate my real-life interactions as well, upon having been hurt rather viciously and repeatedly, so adjusting expectations from writing just came naturally.
Ahh, subjectivity. I think I've indulged myself enough for now.
fennel has such good taste in music and food and words and and... Then the evening, which was filled with crass remarks by a MUDperson with whom I have huge problems already. I stayed signed on for longer than I probably should have, out of morbid curiosity more than anything else, reading in disbelief. Then left for the evening and spent the rest of my awake time IMing with people to whom I can actually relate as human beings.
In other news, I leave for Kalamazooooo! *splish* tomorrow instead of Wednesday. It will make my traveling companions feel a lot better about the trip. I'm not crazy about the idea, but well, it's not just my trip.
So, this is thought-provoking. I'll disagree with much of it below, but am very glad that Em wrote it. Much like I am glad for most of the rest of her writing, and for whatever she chooses to reveal of herself onMUD.
I have no illusions about knowing people based on whatever they choose to write in their journals. But I am not exactly sure how it is that - in this respect - a journal is different from, say, an e-mail. Or any interaction, really. No one instance of interaction educates us on who our friends are, or people whom we'd like to be our friends. We learn about people gradually, compiling an image of them based on the things they choose to reveal about themselves. Suggesting that the electronic medium is particularly deceitful as a means of getting to know a person doesn't make sense to me: I have certainly known people who are more secretive and much, much less self-revealing in live conversation than are some of the people on my LJ friends list.
I like the friends list. I like that there is an option to make a friends-only post. I guess, there's also a way to make a post that only certain individuals will see, if you have a paid account. We choose to reveal more of ourselves to specific people all the time in livelife, it only makes sense that we should be able to do it here. And, as LJ users usually have circles of friends who are also on LJ, this is a convenient way to share parts of yourself with people without having to repeat yourself twenty million times.
I understand the point about cryptic journal entries, especially as regards other people's names. I am guilty of this myself, though try to avoid it -- but I know of at least one person whose workplace superiors found her LJ and told her to delete it. I'd rather not create problems for people. I wish I could enthuse more at you about the more amazing people and events in my life, but well, the possible consequences of doing that too publicly prevent me from doing so. Not to mention that, were I to reveal more, publicly, I would hear TMI yelps.
I don't think too much about who my audience might be, who might overhear what I say here. (Overread what I write? Bleah, ugly.) I usually write with specific people in mind, and my public posts are things I would reveal about myself to anyone interested. If people are not actively interested, well, I suppose I'm not on their friends list. If I'm on yours, I assume you want to know things about me.
To each her own: I don't feel uncomfortable when people assume they know me from LJ posts. Oh, I think it's silly to no end! But I'd rather take the risk, offer people aspects of myself, and see who responds. People respond. I am surrounded by those who respond continually, with whom it translates into real-life interaction, who amaze me with their openness and intelligence and creativity. Who knows if they would've been part of my life if I had not been an open book for most of my conscious years?
Good writing can cast a spell, and there will always be people obssessing with other people. Personal charisma also often casts a spell, and even in live interaction people are perfectly capable of being other than what they seem. In all modes of communication, it's good to try to keep this in mind, as it is always a risk. For me, the rewards have outweighed the risks, so much so that I have come to largely disregard the risks.
In fact, the better people are at conveying a sense of personality through writing, the more likely it is that that is a conscious skill, and that what you're reading is a persona. Not a lie; that's not what I mean. But a carefully selected image of what they are, chosen to reflect what they want to reflect, and skipping over the things they'd rather not share -- their flaws, perhaps, but even more their insecurities, shynesses, doubts.
Hm. Plenty of my friends have expressed the facets of themselves that they regard as negative, and have received thoughtful response from people who care about them. I do realize that not everyone acts that way, but my point is that what Emily says above is not inherent in this medium. People present carefully selected images of themselves all the time, in live interaction as well.
Yes, it is easy (and another risk) to extrapolate a possible real-life melding of souls from someone's writing, and then be disappointed in one-on-one interaction. I've done this, on both ends. I've had to re-evaluate my expectations and assumptions in reading other people's writing; it has been a learning experience. But, again, the good things that have come out of it pretty much annul the bad. Plus, it was easy to re-evaluate: in the past year I've had to re-evaluate my real-life interactions as well, upon having been hurt rather viciously and repeatedly, so adjusting expectations from writing just came naturally.
Ahh, subjectivity. I think I've indulged myself enough for now.