It was 2AM on a Friday night. My house was dark and quiet, except for the light of my computer and the "click-click-click" of the keyboard as my fiance typed furiously. "Josh, let's go to bed now; I'm really tired," I sighed while moving a mountain of pillows off my bed. It had been a long day and I was doubting my ability to keep my eyes open any longer. Josh replied with a halfhearted "okay" and the typing ceased. He was reading and participating in an online message board (also known as a "forum") on the website SMN News, the place for "pure metal news". A forum is similar to a chat room, except it is more organized and much slower-moving; this allows users to put more thought into their posts. In fact, I often see posts in forums that could easily be classified as essays. Because forums permit longer, more thoughtful messages, many perceive forums as superior to the so-called sleazy chat rooms which now tend to be associated with gullible preteens and perverted pedophiles.
I began to nag: "Josh, turn off the computer. I'd really like to get to bed and I can't sleep with all the ambient light! Turn it off, now!"
"Okay, okay, just a second–let me finish reading this one post." Josh replied, irritated with my isistence. Wondering what in the world could be so interesting to read at this hour, I began to walk over to the desk where Josh was sitting. He scrolled down as he quickly scanned the text. As he continued scrolling, I saw something absolutely horrifying in someone's "signature" (a signature is something that is located below all of the posts of a specific person; it can contain text [often famous quotes] or pictures). Josh didn't even seem to notice the picture as he continued reading and scrolling down the page.
"Stop! Stop! What is that? Oh my gosh!" I exclaimed as I saw this very graphic and disturbing photo. I had heard of the self-immolation of Buddhist monks protesting of the unfair treatment of Buddhists in South Vietnam during the late 50s and early 60s, but I had never seen an actual picture of the incident (despite the fact that it is a very famous picture). The last place I expected to see it was in the signature of some anonymous person on a message board for fans of heavy metal music at 2:00 in the morning. Shocked and confused, I asked Josh why in the world someone would put such a picture in their signature. Equally confused (but not too shocked), Josh told me that some of the people on this message board were kind of weird and that they probably thought the picture was cool.
"Aren't there any rules for the forum? Like a terms of use page? You'd think they'd get in trouble for that; I can see that they aren't talking about Buddhist persecution in the 60s and it seems like they have the picture displayed just to shock people. " I responded.
Josh's response was surprising for me: "No, there isn't a terms of use page. It doesn't exist. There aren't really any rules except for don't piss off the administrators! Actually, I'm not even sure about that. I've never even seen them actually do anything other than post in the forums like everyone else." With that, and a few minutes of reading about Thích Quảng Đức (the monk in the picture) on Wikipedia we were off to bed.
A couple of years ago, I used to frequent the forums of GameFAQs and to this day I still visit the forums of Etsy. Both of these websites have a set of rules (formally called "terms of use" or "TOU") for the forums that are enforced by administrators or "mods" (short for moderator). Mods are like forum police; they are people who are present in the forums and have the power to enforce the rules laid out for the forums. They can delete posts, delete entire topics, suspend your account so that you can no longer post, and in some cases, completely ban individuals from using the forums. The rules they enforce vary from many to few to absolutely none. But, why do they have such variance? What are they trying to accomplish by having "terms of use"? Does there actually need to be such control in internet forums? Who and what exactly are they trying to control?
First, I'd like to discuss the strictest of these three websites: GameFAQs. GameFAQs is a site where you can find "video game cheats, reviews, FAQs, message boards, and more". It was started by Jeff Veasey who goes by the username "CJayC" in the forums. GameFAQs has the longest list of forum rules I have ever seen in my life. Offensive material, vulgar language or substitutes for such, posting languages other than English (this is seen as "disruptive" with the English-dominated forums), "flaming" (clearly insulting another user), "trolling" (deliberately trying to annoy or offend other users), illegal activity, advertising, off-topic postings, disruptive behavior, plot spoilers, "flooding" (flooding a certain message board with disruptive topics or posts), impersonation, harassment, and stalking are not allowed. These rules are enforced by mods who are often trusted users that volunteer to police the forums.
Each forum on GameFAQs represents a different topic or theme. Within each forum are topics created by the users of that forum. And within the topic, there are posts (comments on the topic and what the topic-creator began the topic by saying). This type of organization is fairly standard and is seen across almost all sites containing forums. On GameFAQs, there is a forum entitled "Current Events" (affectionately known as "CE" by those who visit that forum). This is ironic considering the fact this particular forum is a social forum and practically every topic within the forum breaks the off-topic postings rule mentioned in the TOU. However, this is permitted and topics not related to current events are not deleted or "locked" (when a topic is closed so that no other users can post within the topic).
CE's audience/participants mainly consist of young adults (90% male) in high school and college (the average age for those who visit GameFAQs is 23). All of them share a common interest in video games. Practically all of them are American and the ethnic makeup of those on CE is similar to that of UC Davis. CE is a place of extremes and randomness; topics tend to be either crass, thoughtful, or just plain weird. On a recent visit to CE, I saw these topics: "What's a good book I should read?", "I just peed in my sister's tea", "I'm a socialist", "Would you do Michelle Obama?", and "Hey guys my left arm keeps twitching". There were literally thousands more, but I felt that this selection best captured the arbitrariness, borderline vulgarity, and quirkiness of CE. With such themes not only apparent in CE, but in all of the GameFAQs forums, it seems Jeff Veasey created the TOU in order to maintain peace and order as effectively as possible in the forums without inhibiting lively discussion.
But, I'm absolutely positive that there is more to the GameFAQs TOU than this. GameFAQs is a extremely popular website; literally millions of people visit GameFAQs each month (and around 40% of them visit the message boards). In 2003, GameFAQs was sold to CNET Networks for over 2 million dollars. Why was GameFAQs worth so much? Because it allowed whoever owned the site to make a huge amount of money by allowing companies to pay to advertise on GameFAQs.
Advertising is a significant part of GameFAQs; practically every page one visits contains and advertisement on it. Without these advertisements, CNET would not be able to make money off of GameFAQs. In order to maintain the popularity of GameFAQs (and keep the advertisers advertising), the TOU exists. Without the TOU, the small amount of peace and order that the forums currently have would likely be lost. And if this peace and order were lost, people who visit GameFAQs my find it unpleasant to visit and instead visit a different website. This would decrease the popularity of GameFAQs and thus decrease the value of the site to advertisers, which directly translates into less money for CNET. Also, if the aforementioned peace and order were lost, especially offensive material would likely become more prevalent on the site (as it is in the rule-less SMN News). This may deter companies from advertising on GameFAQs for fear of being associated with offensive material (and thus loosing business from being associated with such material).
The bottom line for GameFAQs' TOU: it's all about money. GameFAQs does what it can in order to maximize profits from advertisers. Control in the forums is integral to making money. The TOU is specifically made to maintain GameFAQs' traffic while keeping the offensive content from reaching very high levels. This ensures that companies will continue to pay big bucks in order to advertise on GameFAQs.
This explanation also applies to Etsy. Etsy is a website devoted to "buying and selling all things handmade". People can join the site and create their own shops where they can sell goods that they make by hand. By joining the site, others can buy from these sellers. In fact, most people are both buyers and sellers. There are forums on Etsy that are similar in form to those of GameFAQs, but the content is vastly different.
The average age of those who participate in the Etsy forums is 34. Almost all of these people are female and have children. Many of them are artists/crafters, and those who aren't are, at the very least, interested in arts and crafts. Ergo, many of the topics present in the Etsy forums concern art, family, and successfully running a shop on Etsy. The rules of Etsy are called the "Dos and Don'ts", which is noticeably less formal than the "Terms of Use" of GameFAQs. This reduced formality is present in the list of rules. The rules are displayed in a short, simple, bulleted list. The Dos and Don'ts encourage respect for others as well as staying on-topic; they discourage flaming, "calling out" (saying negative things about a someone [usually their business practices] and revealing the username of that person), discussing the details of any transaction, using an alternate account to post in the forums, and posting private information about others. One of the most noticeable features of this list is that there is no rule on vulgar language or offensive material. However, there does not need to be such a rule for two reasons: 1) those who use the Etsy forums tend to not post particularly offensive material and vulgarity is fairly sparse and 2) "the staff reserves the right to lock any topic for any reason, including preemptively locking a topic that has the potential for getting out of control". The latter reason can encompass practically anything because nearly everything has at least the potential for "getting out of control". However, Etsy mods (which are paid employees of Etsy that have a variety of duties outside of policing the forums) rarely utilize the aforementioned right and topics tend to be locked only when users are in a virtual screaming match.
Unlike GameFAQs, companies cannot pay to advertise on Etsy. Instead of making money via advertisers, Etsy makes its money via the sellers who run their shops on Etsy. For each item listed and each item sold there is a fee (20 cents for each item listed and 3.5% of every sale). There is no need to keep offensive content to a minimum in order to avoid scaring off potential advertisers. Also, only about 1% of those registered on Etsy actually visit the forums. Needless to say, that is an extremely small amount of people. For Etsy, maintaining peace and order in the forums is not a top priority–it doesn't need to be. If the forums become particularly nasty and people leave Etsy as a result, it will not affect Etsy's profits significantly. Thus, Etsy does the bare minimum to maintain peace and order in the forums simply because they don't actually need to do more. Etsy's audience is fairly docile and if people do choose to leave because of the content of the forums, it won't affect Etsy's profits very much. Once again, the crux of the rules is money and the maintenance of Etsy's profits.
Just like GameFAQs and Etsy, money is behind the absence of rules in the SMN News forums. SMN News is a site dedicated to the dark, intense, and almost always offensive genre of rock music known as "metal". SMN News' audience consists of those who enjoy metal ("metalheads") and (according to Josh, who visits the site on a daily basis) is mostly composed of males from the ages of 18 to 35. Discussion in the forums tends to remain on the topic of metal and that related to metal (e.g. playing guitar, members of bands that play metal, etc.). The majority of those who participate in the SMN News forums are fans of the metal subgenre known as "death metal". Death metal is particularly intense, extremely fast, very abrasive, and offensive by definition.
Unsurprisingly, offensive material is rampant on the SMN News forums. Pictures of really severe wounds, sexually explicit pictures of women, gore, and even burning monks are quite frequently displayed in the signatures of those who visit the SMN News forums. But, the companies (almost always individual bands and record labels within the metal genre) who advertise on SMN News do not seem to mind such offensive material. This is because offensive material is conducive to metal itself–especially the most popular subgenre of metal on SMN News: death metal. Incredibly crass content does not hurt the profits SMN News, but actually helps it by ensuring that the audience consists of "genuine" metalheads and those who will actually purchase the music being advertised (which has offensive content and tends to fall into the death metal category).
GameFAQs, Etsy, and SMN News are all media that are very deeply intertwined with making money. They do so in different ways and thus have very different rules for their respective forums. But, these rules (or the lack thereof) are not for the greater good; they are tools for maximizing financial gain, as are their respective audiences.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Sex on TV
Despite their popularity, I cannot stand sitcoms. Ironically, my good friend (and roommate) loves sitcoms. She watches a pretty hefty amount of TV and sitcoms are literally all she watches. When I imagine what it is like to be at home, I always imagine Seinfeld or Friends blaring somewhere in the background. I love my friend dearly, however, I often find myself wearing earplugs around the house to avoid hearing the cacophonous sitcoms. But, there is one exception: I Love Lucy.
I truly love I Love Lucy. I love it so much that at one point I seriously questioned my relationship of nearly five years with my (now) fiance because he was not a fan of the show. Fortunately, the show has grown on him and he no longer cringes when I sit for an hour and a half watching episode after episode of I Love Lucy.
As with all sitcoms, each episode of I Love Lucy is a story – a narrative. The main character, Lucy, gets into some kind of hilariously unrealistic predicament and her friend, Ethel, acts as her accomplice. In the end, Lucy's husband, Ricky, (despite Lucy's best efforts) discovers the trouble Lucy's gotten herself into and becomes angry (which also tends to be very funny). After all the craziness and anger has passed, Lucy and Ricky make up and somehow the predicament gets resolved: the end.
I Love Lucy ran from 1951 to about 1960 and most of the shows are in black and white. It is a fabulous example of how much narratives on TV have changed dramatically over the past 50 years. In 1951, Lucy (who was actually married to "Ricky" in real life [his real name is Desi Arnaz]) became pregnant with her first child. Since pregnancy tends to end up being very obvious, it was crucial that the writers worked the pregnancy into the narrative of the show. However, CBS (the producer) would not allow the word "pregnant" to be used in the show. The word "pregnant" implies that the person who is pregnant was "impregnated" at some point. And "impregnation" implies sexual intercourse. At that time, the implicaton of sex from the word "pregnant" was considered to be completely inappropriate for narratives on TV. Therefore, the word "expecting" along with "having a baby" were the only terms permitted by CBS to be used to describe Lucy's pregnancy.
Another interesting fact regarding what I Love Lucy reveals about narratives of the past are Lucy and Ricky's sleeping habits. On the show, when they go to bed, they go to two separate twin-sized beds in their bedroom. During that time, many people would have seen it as highly inappropriate to show Lucy and Ricky going to bed and entering the same bed when doing so. This is astounding considering the following facts: Lucy and Ricky are married, most people during that time did sleep in the same bed as their spouse, and sleeping in the same bed does not gurantee a sexual encounter. But, even the most miniscule implication of sex was not seen as appropriate for a wholesome TV sitcom at that time.
The dominant view of sex in TV narratives has changed dramatically since the 1950s. Consider this advertisement for the show Gossip Girl as well as this advertisement for the same show. Gossip Girl (which I've never actually seen) is a teen drama that deals with sex, drugs, partying, cliques, and other teen themes. To be fair, these advertisements were actually meant to provoke and shock people a bit. But, the bottom line is that Warner Brothers Television, who produces the show, allowed these advertisements to be displayed. Warner Brothers Television produces narratives for television (like Gossip Girl) where one of the dominant themes is often sex. According to research done at UCSB, about 66% of today's prime time TV shows contain some sexual content and, the majority of the time, those shown to be engaging in the act are not even married! This is an absolutely enormous change since the days of CBS disallowing the word "pregnant" as well as husband and wife sleeping in the same bed to be shown in I Love Lucy.
With such a gigantic change in such a tiny amount of time, one naturally may find themselves asking what in the world caused such a change. Some people blame the change on the so-called "declining morals of society". I profusely disagree with this answer; it implies that sex, despite the fact that is a very real and very normal part of human life, is bad and inappropriate for TV narratives. The true cause of such a dramatic change in the prevalence of sex in narratives on TV is the sexual revolution of the 1960s.
What do you think of when you imagine the 1960s? Many of us automatically think of tie-dye t-shirts, protests, hallucinogenic drugs, and a little thing called "free love". During the 1960s, millions of young people embraced sex as a beautiful and natural act that was very worthy of being enjoyed (even outside of marriage). This was the sexual revolution.
However, not everyone agreed with the views that many of the hippies of the 1960s had regarding sex. A significant portion of people saw such views as scandolous and sexual liberation as immoral. Even today, there remains a large amount of people who especially look down on this (and all) aspects of the hippie ethos. Despite continuing backlash, it is clear that the sexual revolutionaries are the ones who won. They are the ones responsible for the dramatic (and entertaining) changes that have occurred in the prevalence of sex in TV narratives as well as the huge changes in America's willingness to openly accept sex as a normal part of life.
I truly love I Love Lucy. I love it so much that at one point I seriously questioned my relationship of nearly five years with my (now) fiance because he was not a fan of the show. Fortunately, the show has grown on him and he no longer cringes when I sit for an hour and a half watching episode after episode of I Love Lucy.
As with all sitcoms, each episode of I Love Lucy is a story – a narrative. The main character, Lucy, gets into some kind of hilariously unrealistic predicament and her friend, Ethel, acts as her accomplice. In the end, Lucy's husband, Ricky, (despite Lucy's best efforts) discovers the trouble Lucy's gotten herself into and becomes angry (which also tends to be very funny). After all the craziness and anger has passed, Lucy and Ricky make up and somehow the predicament gets resolved: the end.
I Love Lucy ran from 1951 to about 1960 and most of the shows are in black and white. It is a fabulous example of how much narratives on TV have changed dramatically over the past 50 years. In 1951, Lucy (who was actually married to "Ricky" in real life [his real name is Desi Arnaz]) became pregnant with her first child. Since pregnancy tends to end up being very obvious, it was crucial that the writers worked the pregnancy into the narrative of the show. However, CBS (the producer) would not allow the word "pregnant" to be used in the show. The word "pregnant" implies that the person who is pregnant was "impregnated" at some point. And "impregnation" implies sexual intercourse. At that time, the implicaton of sex from the word "pregnant" was considered to be completely inappropriate for narratives on TV. Therefore, the word "expecting" along with "having a baby" were the only terms permitted by CBS to be used to describe Lucy's pregnancy.
Another interesting fact regarding what I Love Lucy reveals about narratives of the past are Lucy and Ricky's sleeping habits. On the show, when they go to bed, they go to two separate twin-sized beds in their bedroom. During that time, many people would have seen it as highly inappropriate to show Lucy and Ricky going to bed and entering the same bed when doing so. This is astounding considering the following facts: Lucy and Ricky are married, most people during that time did sleep in the same bed as their spouse, and sleeping in the same bed does not gurantee a sexual encounter. But, even the most miniscule implication of sex was not seen as appropriate for a wholesome TV sitcom at that time.
The dominant view of sex in TV narratives has changed dramatically since the 1950s. Consider this advertisement for the show Gossip Girl as well as this advertisement for the same show. Gossip Girl (which I've never actually seen) is a teen drama that deals with sex, drugs, partying, cliques, and other teen themes. To be fair, these advertisements were actually meant to provoke and shock people a bit. But, the bottom line is that Warner Brothers Television, who produces the show, allowed these advertisements to be displayed. Warner Brothers Television produces narratives for television (like Gossip Girl) where one of the dominant themes is often sex. According to research done at UCSB, about 66% of today's prime time TV shows contain some sexual content and, the majority of the time, those shown to be engaging in the act are not even married! This is an absolutely enormous change since the days of CBS disallowing the word "pregnant" as well as husband and wife sleeping in the same bed to be shown in I Love Lucy.
With such a gigantic change in such a tiny amount of time, one naturally may find themselves asking what in the world caused such a change. Some people blame the change on the so-called "declining morals of society". I profusely disagree with this answer; it implies that sex, despite the fact that is a very real and very normal part of human life, is bad and inappropriate for TV narratives. The true cause of such a dramatic change in the prevalence of sex in narratives on TV is the sexual revolution of the 1960s.
What do you think of when you imagine the 1960s? Many of us automatically think of tie-dye t-shirts, protests, hallucinogenic drugs, and a little thing called "free love". During the 1960s, millions of young people embraced sex as a beautiful and natural act that was very worthy of being enjoyed (even outside of marriage). This was the sexual revolution.
However, not everyone agreed with the views that many of the hippies of the 1960s had regarding sex. A significant portion of people saw such views as scandolous and sexual liberation as immoral. Even today, there remains a large amount of people who especially look down on this (and all) aspects of the hippie ethos. Despite continuing backlash, it is clear that the sexual revolutionaries are the ones who won. They are the ones responsible for the dramatic (and entertaining) changes that have occurred in the prevalence of sex in TV narratives as well as the huge changes in America's willingness to openly accept sex as a normal part of life.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
The Everyman's Burden
Today, I was unfortunate enough to witness this absolutely heinous advertisement. At first glance, it seems to have all the trappings of the average cheesy American advertisement. Mrs. Deserly, credible apparently because her husband lived on a Native American reservation, describes the sad situations of many of today's Native Americans and how her BlackBerry grants her the ability to help them while still being a good grandma.
However, when one takes a closer look at the imagery used in the commercial and listens carefully to what Mrs. Deserly is being paid to say, the whole thing reeks of the Noble Savage stereotype. This atrocious concept came about during the 18th century – it's about 300 years old. And, it is an arrogant and racist lie that has been used to patronize different groups of people (who conveniently tend fall into a variety of ethnic categories except for the Caucasian one) for far too long.
And now here we are; it is the year 2008. Zeitgeist, "the spirit of the age", seems to currently be driven by science, technology, modernity, progress, diversity, and "being green" (what that phrase even means is up for debate). The BlackBerry advertisement captures all of these themes perfectly, but it is profoundly ironic because it communicates such condescending, outdated ideas about Native Americans (specifically, the Noble Savage stereotype). Even more than the Noble Savage concept, this commercial reeks of another particularly offensive, antique idea: the "white man's burden".
While, the phrases used to describe the offending concepts may not be familiar to everyone, the concepts themselves ought to be. And, it is a shame that such ideas are present in things as mundane as advertisements. If these ideas are tolerated in simple things like commercials that actually tend to err on the side of political correctness as to not offend potential customers, what does this say about our culture? What does this say about all of us as individuals? Why are we tolerating this? How dare we turn a blind eye to such discriminatory ideas?
I guess it is far too easy to tune the ugly things out. It is far too easy to choose not to look closer. It is far too easy to lie to oneself and to perceive things differently on purpose. But I'd like to share a simple fact that was best stated by Neil Peart: "you can twist perceptions [but] reality won't budge". While we can easily ignore all the hateful, discriminatory, and racist concepts that permeate our day-to-day lives, they will still be a reality, even if we choose not to see them.
Do we truly want such hideous ideas to be part of our everyday reality? Turning a blind eye to such things will ensure that they remain ingrained in our lives for eternity.
However, when one takes a closer look at the imagery used in the commercial and listens carefully to what Mrs. Deserly is being paid to say, the whole thing reeks of the Noble Savage stereotype. This atrocious concept came about during the 18th century – it's about 300 years old. And, it is an arrogant and racist lie that has been used to patronize different groups of people (who conveniently tend fall into a variety of ethnic categories except for the Caucasian one) for far too long.
And now here we are; it is the year 2008. Zeitgeist, "the spirit of the age", seems to currently be driven by science, technology, modernity, progress, diversity, and "being green" (what that phrase even means is up for debate). The BlackBerry advertisement captures all of these themes perfectly, but it is profoundly ironic because it communicates such condescending, outdated ideas about Native Americans (specifically, the Noble Savage stereotype). Even more than the Noble Savage concept, this commercial reeks of another particularly offensive, antique idea: the "white man's burden".
While, the phrases used to describe the offending concepts may not be familiar to everyone, the concepts themselves ought to be. And, it is a shame that such ideas are present in things as mundane as advertisements. If these ideas are tolerated in simple things like commercials that actually tend to err on the side of political correctness as to not offend potential customers, what does this say about our culture? What does this say about all of us as individuals? Why are we tolerating this? How dare we turn a blind eye to such discriminatory ideas?
I guess it is far too easy to tune the ugly things out. It is far too easy to choose not to look closer. It is far too easy to lie to oneself and to perceive things differently on purpose. But I'd like to share a simple fact that was best stated by Neil Peart: "you can twist perceptions [but] reality won't budge". While we can easily ignore all the hateful, discriminatory, and racist concepts that permeate our day-to-day lives, they will still be a reality, even if we choose not to see them.
Do we truly want such hideous ideas to be part of our everyday reality? Turning a blind eye to such things will ensure that they remain ingrained in our lives for eternity.
Monday, August 4, 2008
On Blogging
Despite the fact that I spend the majority of my free time on the computer, I only recently learned what the word "blog" meant. At first, I heard it used in conversations between my peers. Soon, I started to see it frequently referenced in online news articles. And one day, I actually heard it on televised news. This spurred me to ask my fiance, Josh, about blogs.
When I asked him, there was a hint of amusement on his face in response to my ignorance. It seemed as everyone but me knew what blogs were. Fortunately, Josh enlightened me: "A blog is something people make online where people write about their lives and other stuff like politics."
But, that just didn't seem correct. I have always been interested in reading and especially writing. In middle school, I wanted to be a writer and I even joined a writing club. But, it didn't take me long to realize a very important truth: most people are far too busy with their own lives to care about the writings and thoughts of others (unless the writer is famous, perceived as extraordinarily talented, or simply lucky). If this "truth" were actually true, then why do blogs matter? Why do so many people seem to care about blogging? Why bother?
It did not take very long for me to discover that such a truth still did hold true. A quick perusal of almost any general message board or forum will reveal literally dozens of people begging others to read their blogs. The allure of blogs seemed to largely lie in making them and, for some, trying very hard to get others to read them. However, there does exist a significant handful of famous, talented, and lucky people whose blogs are eagerly read by thousands of people all over the world every single day. Based on these observations, it seems that this is why others care so much about blogs: they're a quick, simple means of self-expression and if you make one, there's a tiny chance that others just might read it.
When I asked him, there was a hint of amusement on his face in response to my ignorance. It seemed as everyone but me knew what blogs were. Fortunately, Josh enlightened me: "A blog is something people make online where people write about their lives and other stuff like politics."
But, that just didn't seem correct. I have always been interested in reading and especially writing. In middle school, I wanted to be a writer and I even joined a writing club. But, it didn't take me long to realize a very important truth: most people are far too busy with their own lives to care about the writings and thoughts of others (unless the writer is famous, perceived as extraordinarily talented, or simply lucky). If this "truth" were actually true, then why do blogs matter? Why do so many people seem to care about blogging? Why bother?
It did not take very long for me to discover that such a truth still did hold true. A quick perusal of almost any general message board or forum will reveal literally dozens of people begging others to read their blogs. The allure of blogs seemed to largely lie in making them and, for some, trying very hard to get others to read them. However, there does exist a significant handful of famous, talented, and lucky people whose blogs are eagerly read by thousands of people all over the world every single day. Based on these observations, it seems that this is why others care so much about blogs: they're a quick, simple means of self-expression and if you make one, there's a tiny chance that others just might read it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
