Read it or don't as you choose, and regardless, wonder why that is a story for the New York Times Magazine.
And then tell me if you have a philosophy on how private to be on the Internet.
Most of you who read my blog know me already, in real life. There are a few lurkers and even fewer commenters who don't, and those people would have a hard time stalking me. Most of my philosophy has been based on that, actually: I don't want anyone stalking me.
But there is also the secret agenda that many bloggers have, I think, which is that we want the whole world to stumble on how totally awesome our blog is. We:
- are smart, or
- are funny, or
- write brilliant reviews, or
- have the best recipes, or
- can enlighten the world about something, or
- make the coolest things, or
- have the very most interesting life story.
And you will see, there are as many strategies on openness as there are blogs on that list. There are people with their names, or their pictures, or titles of things they're already famous for. There are people with none of that, and all of it. There are also several people who've struggled with how much to share, and with how mean people can be when they think of you as A Writer, rather than as a person who is essentially putting things of interest out there.
I am one of those people who wants to be a famous blogger without having to be a famous person, therefore having my blog standing up to scrutiny on its own poor little legs.
I'll get back to stories about blackberry bushes or squirrels or something soon. In fact, the world's worst moving company is bringing me some stuff tomorrow, so that should be hilarious. But this privacy business was already on mind somewhat because I haven't been posting much, due largely to (positive) stuff going on in my personal life, which I specifically decline to blog about.
But, well. Hm.
13 comments:
Ooh, ooh, tell me what is happening in your personal life!
I hear you on the privacy thing, but I've never been able to keep my mouth shut, personally. I'm hoping to be a real author, published on paper, some day, and I would affix my name to that. But I did get a P.O. box to post on my commercial website. That's my security failsafe. That and the tabby.
I'm another one who's never been able to keep my mouth shut, but there are still things I won't post about for various reasons -- family stuff, for example, and also relationship stuff, and some health issues. Most of what's on my blog is pretty superficial: it's about my house, or what I did over the weekend, or my latest knit/crochet/sewing project. Sometimes I post about work, but those posts are always friends-only, just in case, even though I generally go by the sensible rule of "don't post anything you would be ashamed to have your boss read".
I did have a bit of an unwelcome brush with internet fame a couple of months ago -- not for anything I wrote, but for something I did. Someone decided to post a link to my wedding dress (which I crocheted, and which I'm proud of so I have a web page about it) on reddit.com and one or two other link-sharing sites, and a friend alerted me to it since I don't look at those things. So, of course, I went to look at the comments. Most of them were what I typically get when people find out I crocheted my dress -- awe, admiration, compliments, so a nice ego boost. But some of them said things like "Good thing she and her husband don't want kids, since they're both so ugly" and "Why is this even posted here anyway -- she's not even attractive!"
Now, I've never been under any illusions about my looks, and I've always been well aware that I'm never going to win any beauty pageants; I made my peace with that fact long ago. Even so, it isn't exactly a lot of fun to watch complete strangers discussing your looks and talking about how ugly you are. I ended up removing the picture from my homepage (although I didn't take down the photo gallery, so pictures of me are still public for those who care to find them) and being grateful that my 15 seconds of fame lasted approximately that long and I'm now back to blissful obscurity.
Okay, this got long, so I guess it boils down to this: I like to have a web presence so I can share things with people who care (either because they know me or they like the stuff I do), but otherwise I have no desire to actually be famous.
Hmmm, well, you *know* I have a tendency to share a lot on my blog. And there have been times now and then where I'll look back and think maybe it wasn't so wise to say what I said. Generally, though? I'm comfortable with it.
I started out blogging less personal stuff than I do now, but I have *always* been one to let it all hang out on message boards, and as I spend less time on the boards, and more time on the blog, that is bound to come through.
I refrain from posting anything that I think would bother Neil, and anything that would make it too easy to stalk my kids, but everything else is pretty much fair game.
People seem to really respond to that honest, personal voice, which only seems to fuel me further. Neil says I'm an attention junkie. At first I took exception to that, but now I think he's probably got a point. I think all bloggers have a bit of the attention junkie in them.
Wow. That article was twice as long as it needed to be, and still didn't say anything worthwhile.
I think it's wise to take reasonable precautions to maintain your privacy online, but you also have to expect that what you put out there could be read (and traced back to you) by anyone at any time.
A friend and frequent commenter here IMed me this morning to say she was still thinking about how to comment here, as she has many thoughts.
"Me too," I said. "It's why I'm gathering others' thoughts, really. Easier than sorting my own."
So I'll jump in and out of this conversation, if conversation there be.
But I will say that, if you are one of my real-life friends, and not a big anonymous jerk, and are now desperately curious about icanhasyarn's wedding dress, you should e-mail or IM me so I can show you the perfectly beautiful picture of dress and bride alike that I just found online.
PMJG-
Agreed on the length.
And I agree with many of the folks who commented at the NYTimes site, that it was very, very self-indulgent. Very bloggy, and not in the way journalists talk about when they mean "conversational and fun."
But what really struck me was the total lack of self-awareness.
It's worth looking at this, if you've read the article and remember her mention of being interviewed by Jimmy Kimmel.
It is a little hard to see how she still doesn't quite get it, though she tries to raise some arguably valid points about public vs. private life.
I saw said dress in person, and I can attest to its impressiveness!
I have so many thoughts about this I can't keep them all straight. Here's one:
To icanhasyarn: I haven't seen your dress or you, but I'm certain that you don't deserve such cruelty from strangers or anyone else.
If it's any consolation, I learned this week one answer to the age-old question: How could anyone be so mean? Turns out that acts of cruelty create a physiological response in the brain of the perpetrator that is similar to that of a drug. Unless someone intervenes early in life, to counter that response with some kind of aversion therapy (punishment or parental disapproval, for instance), acts of cruelty become an addiction. Add to that the anonymity of the Internet, which allows bullies to be cowards, and well, Katie bar the door.
Fortunately, other research shows that each act of cruelty is followed by the same hangover and feelings of guilt as those of an alcoholic who's fallen off the wagon.
So while you were hurt by the bully, you've recovered, grown a bit wiser and continued to be happy in your life.
His or her pain, however, lives on, despite the clever disguise of superiority it may wear.
P.S. I've now seen your dress (stunning), you (gorgeous) and your husband (quite handsome, indeed). Together, you are a sight to behold.
You know, I though of posting the link to my dress, but I didn't want to detract from my point (what there was of one, anyway). But for the curious - here you go. :-)
OK, one more thought:
I just went to get a Diet Coke at the convenience store here on campus. And while I was there, I got caught up with the woman who works there. Here are just a few of the things I know about her and her family:
-When her son is getting married
-How she feels about her son's fiancee
-What the engagement ring looks like, and what the fiancee's objections to diamonds are
-When her son finishes med school and what his specialty is
-Where her son is doing his residency
-What her husband does
-What's going on with her teeth
-That she fell on a piece of lettuce at the grocer store last night and banged her knee pretty hard
-Exactly how her own store is being redone, and on what timeline
...and on from there. I know SO MUCH about her. And, thinking about all of this, I was aware of a few things:
1) She probably does not even know what my job is, even though we primarily interact while we are both at work.
2) I am very glad I am not her friend or relative, because I am generally reasonably private (maybe like Emily Gould's Henry).
3) Some people just like to tell people all about themselves, and always have, and the internet just involves a potentially bigger audience than the local post office or convenience store.
Another thought:
I think you show just enough of your skivvies to make your blog very interesting. Of course, I know you, so I don't need you to fill in the blanks.
As it turns out, even with the blanks left empty for someone who doesn't know you (inn this case, a colleague of mine who's never heard of you) your blog is still 1) very interesting; 2) very witty; and 3) completely relevant.
You go.
Yes, yes, and yes to everything. And I LOVE the wedding dress! That is absolutely amazing! And I can't even fathom why people were saying you were unattractive. It just doesn't make any sense. Bah.
For what other smart people you know and like are saying about this, see Kay's blog here and bzh's blog here.
Post a Comment