As writers, we do what we are supposed to do, at least most of the time. We write stuff. Oftentimes we get sidetracked, and do other things instead, like eye-googling the internet, watching Youtube, getting lost somewhere on the sidebars between music videos and TED. I love all that! No one expects us to be in razor-sharp focus all the time - after all, we are not journalists. We do want to deliberately entertain, te-hee!
And although I do suspect there is a very fine line between bloggers, columnists and journalism people in general, there is one tiny distinction, that makes all the difference. As a writer of fiction and a blogger I shall be solely entertaining, because that is the job description.
Bloggers are split in different categories, they can be a) the extremely informative kind or b) the entertaining kind. You have to chose one side to be enjoyed and tolerated by the masses, you can't ever be both. If you are an extremely informative blogger, you may set out to write an (informative) book, and, chances are good, your book will be read by the people who also read your blog. You can make a joke, or two in the book, but don't overdo it; you are not Robin Williams, after all.
For someone like me, set out to do a fun little blog with rants, and reviews every now and again, plus snippets from my writing, it would be a serious mistake to be all too political. Being informative, I dare say, being political, scares fun-loving people too much, to respond positively or respond at all. Their job - their reputation is on the line, being openly affiliated with a person of such-and-such political values. And we all know that the Reps hate it, too. You have to play out your ideals in private, not where everyone else can see them.
Thanks to social media we have become closeted again, hiding our true selves, because of what is and is not accepted. It started with people sharing the same things on Facebook, over and over again. Positive things, things that are indisputable. "Life is good." "Cats are funny." "Enjoy yourself." That's fine, I do that myself, because I don't have to think about the consequences.
The problem is that is has gotten to a point where even the attempt at dispute itself is frowned upon. No one dares to say anything that goes against the prevailing opinion. Righty, lefty. It's seems OK to be openly religious, because you get the vote of the majority that way. It's still not OK, not to believe in God. People think you're weird or a psychopath. People only dare to speak up in their like-minded circles about their collective dirty little secrets. You lose readers that way, being openly diverse, not playing towards the rules of the swirling consensus. It is simply unaccepted.
People give their thumbs up only for things that they themselves do, are and stand behind. And the choice for that is what everyone else does or does not like. We are like a swarm of bees. People like to see their own life choices confirmed. As a writer, I would need to mirror that for bonus points, and then I'd definitely get the friendly nod of approval. Quid pro quo. I find that disgusting.
It's the end of free speech as we (may never have) known it. It's Germany, in 1938. It starts out with silent disapproval and it ends with pogrom and persecution. Nowadays, people lose jobs, because they openly share their political opinions at work. Your boss can't differentiate being a boss and being human at the same time - all the time - and unfortunately the same dynamics apply there as they do on the internet. You are what you say, not what you do. A big mouth attached to a suit. It means you will get fired if you say something he doesn't agree with. The rules of conformity nearly demand it.
Lately, I feel the same way here on my blog, gagged, curtailed. I don't get paid for my writing, which makes it even worse. I worry about possibly not getting paid in the future for saying what I think right now. I can't write like that, I can't live like that. This goes against the freedom of thought as much as it goes against free speech. Solution a) would be to play by the rule, solution b) would be to change the rule. I say, change the rule. I know full well, that by saying this, it may very well be the last post you ever want to read from me. That's unfortunate. But it doesn't mean I shouldn't take the chance to speak up, as long as I still can.
Hi Dana :-) First, I learned something new today. A lolcat. I had to look it up. lol...so, now I know.
ReplyDeleteI wrote a post along the same vein as this one, but mine was aimed more at people who are purposefully networking to build an author platform. Who are building followers to promote their work.
I think there's a time and a place for all expression, and there are times and places where it isn't prudent to mix personal expression and professional. But, I'd never advocate laws limiting expression. Still, I can't help but see it as a foolish move for authors to alienate potential support people. Writing is a lonely enough pursuit without pushing people away.
"The problem is that is has gotten to a point where even the attempt at dispute itself is frowned upon..." I love discussions. Civil discourse is highly underrated :-) The larger problem, I think, is that so few people are capable of such--civil discourse. And it's multiplied to the -nth degree in the USA during a presidential election year. :-( I am voting for Odin ;-) In 2008 I belonged to a QnA group--Beta, since "closed". It was the foulest thing I'd ever seen in my life. People, who for two years had been intelligent, diverse, open minded, all of a sudden dug in their heels and could see it no other way. And they vilified or demonized everyone who didn't see it their way. Wow... But, as far as their foul behavior, their insults laced with profanity, and their complete lack of anything even remotely resembling intelligence?? lol... Yep. I'd defend their right to do it, but I'd also avoid it like the plague.
I've posted mini-rants. A couple of weeks ago, on fb, my status update was a link to an article and "WTF?" It wasn't political, it was racial. Even so, I did it. Maybe I lost a follower or two? Who knows. We all do it now and again.
I don't see it as the end of free speech--we can still practice it, but it is at our own peril. Firing an employee for expressing their opinion might be illegal under discrimination, but like so many types of discrimination, good luck proving it for what it was. It sucks, but it's reality.
And I do see a lot of self-censoring. I do it. I think nearly everyone does. I do it because of my employer. There are a dozen people on my facebook friends' list who work at my company. It all gets back to them. So, I censor.
The religious debate?? Oy! lol... I've been in a few. I've learned from them though. Not everything I learned was good. I know who mosy of my atheist friends are, Christian friends, Jewish friends. Friends who are plain old Deists--probably the group with which I most align. And I think we all have something to teach and something to learn. I steer clear from religious bigots. lol, they have nothing to teach except intolerance :-)
In some ways, there is something to be said for sites that allow anonymity. It is neat to use a nickname and actually be uninhibited--without worry of someone minding your business or picking a fight just because of who you are. It's weird though. Even with a nickname, you develop a persona. And once that is established, guess what? There is an expected behavior associated with your persona--anonymous though the person behind may be. It becomes limiting and burdensome. Lived it, did it. It was truly fascinating, though. I digress.
Off and running again. Good post. You do make a lot of valid points, Dana. :-)
Hi Dana! Love this; I feel a lot the same way sometimes, like I can't say exactly what I think on my blog out of fear of offending someone who might otherwise buy something I've written (at a point when I publish something which I ask money for).
ReplyDeleteHowever, it's worth noting that I did at one point lose patience and put up a blog post that was both political and religious (http://therearedragons.co.uk/in-which-i-am-ashamed/). I have since been told by every blogging 'authority' in existence that I shouldn't have done it; I should have bitten my tongue and kept silent. BUT - that blog post was and remains one of the most viewed pages on my site, and one of the best-received posts I've ever written. So, go figure.
As for your point that there's an attitude that it's not OK to not believe in God, I do think that it depends on where in the world you are. Here in the UK we have a very agnostic/atheistic culture, and it can be very hard for me as a Christian to speak out against that. I gather that in the USA the reverse is true (though anyone who wishes to correct me on this is welcome to do so).
I don't think that this is an issue confined to blogging, or even to the internet. There is a growing reluctance in all kinds of society to accept anyone who thinks differently to what is perceived to be 'right' in that society. On the other hand, we do need to challenge fundamentalism of all kinds - and at what point do we differentiate a fundamentalist from someone who just disagrees with us?
Change needs to happen at a grassroots (ugh, I hate that term) level of society. We need to challenge intolerance, and not judge all aspects of a person simply on the basis of one particular belief they hold (ie. just because I disagree with someone's religious or political views, doesn't mean I won't adore a novel they've written).
Crumbs, this is turning into an essay. In any case, in summary, I don't think we should self-censor on our blogs. If we continue to bow to the status quo of 'you have to fit in to get along' then we may as well give up on humanity now. I have always found that what you show to other people, other people will show back to you. I suggest tolerance, goodwill and understanding; if we speak our minds while still providing others with the space to speak theirs, listen without judging and do our best to understand other people's point of view, the world can only be a better place for it.
Thank you for a fascinating and thought-provoking post, Dana.
Dana, you did it, you've found me out. The largest reason my SSS posts have diminished over the past month is partially due to the loss of readers I've had over Squishing Whistle Pigs.
ReplyDeleteNo it's not anti-religious, it's actually quite the opposite, though in my quest for spirituality and the "meaning of my life" I've found some odd practices in organized religion, so did I lose readers because they thought I was bashing them, or did I lose readers because maybe there is a little truth to the madness behind religion? I will never know and though it wasn't my intent to offend anyone, apparently I did so. My only intent was to entertain with a story I felt was a humorous look on the seeking of spirituality and the moral of the story being that God is more within us than in some building with a cross.
But that thinking got me into trouble and lost me readers. Heavy sigh. I can't fix it. I refuse to remove my bits because I love my writing, I love that story, though I may never sell a piece of work because my name is now attached to a "blasphemous" piece of writing.
I suppose I do what I love and continue to write regardless of what people think of me. I'm still me, I still wish of nothing more than to move people with my writing. I seem to move you and your comments on my blog to that end make all my writing worth the effort. You make me proud of what I write and therefor I will trudge on with what I love because I know there is at least one other person in the world who loves what I write too and that means the world to me.
Wonderful post, Dana. You are my muse and my hero. ;)
Mel, I think the comment you posted about losing readers over your work may have been the initial spark for this post! I remember wanting to respond to it on your blog back then, publicly, then I thought, no, if it gets too mean I don't want you to have problems because of your affiliation with me there..if the people you were talking about read it.
DeleteI switched to email, but I never sent it. The subject was "small-minded jerks" if I remember correctly, and I suddenly realized how angry I've gotten over this... why? At myself! Because I don't think it is our job, especially as writers, to prevent other people taking offense at what we write. I think it is a death sentence for creative people to think like that, it ties our hands considering other people's feelings too much. A bit of "insubordination" is necessary - I just thought about the wild child Henry Miller - a very rude but well-remembered writer. :)
I admire you for sharing SWP, and I find your spiritual exploration deeply fascinating. It's like being on a mental safari with you! :)I hope you continue to share.
I find it so hard to remain true to myself in that aspect, something is holding me back, and even in this blog post, I couldn't do it - say it - to the full extent. I should have been more blunt.
I appreciate your sentiments, Dana. You are absolutely right. Writers should not have their creativity stifled by these types of shackles. I tend to get quite angry about it, as well, at times. For me, I'm going to continue to write what comes to me regardless of negative outside influences. We have to remain true to ourselves whether we voice our frustrations or not, but that is the gold of being a writer, we can voice our frustrations in our work and be proud of it. Hemingway tackled some very touchy topics for his time and he was great for it. We just have to handle it with more class than the haters and we'll win out in the end. Our work will stand on it's own for its power and depth. ;)
ReplyDelete