12 July 2008

Friday films, underexposed

Apparently the New York Times is ahead of its own readership, which for the most part does not see the validity of personal blogging, or the relevance of an article on the subject.

Here, Emily Gould (personal-blogger-turned-columnist) writes about over-sharing and exposure in an age where – in these parts at least - the private and the public have become disquietingly inextricable.

It’s an informative and well-written piece, but I was more intrigued by the reaction it elicited from readers. There was a general sense of outrage that the NYT would publish the self-absorbed ranting of a young girl who seemingly exploited everyone in her life, including herself, in order to gain recognition.

Which, fair enough – if you don’t blog, there’s little reason to care about the misfortunes that can befall those of us who do (well, those of us with more than a few dozen readers anyway).

But strangely, this moral outrage was predicated on the fact that, because there are more important matters at hand, such as war, famine and elections, Emily’s efforts would be better spent fighting in Iraq or maybe chopping firewood for her elderly neighbour. As though good deeds and navel gazing could and should not exist in the same universe (or newspaper).

Ironically, it's the Baby Boomers that took issue with her perceived self-absorption, and expressed the most vitriol of anyone else commenting.

Anyway, have a read and see what you think.

6 comments:

palinode said...

Women who write about themselves get shit hurled at them, especially when sex and relationships and self are the topics.

Friday said...

True - though in my experience, women are the worst offenders of this type of shit-hurling. It was odd to see so many men get involved this time, which I suppose adds a whole new (old) layer of yuck to the whole thing.

Mrs Slocombe said...

Ah: well it was a bit long-winded, but that's all:The pomposity and all the why don't you dig a well in Guatemala stuff was breathtaking. As Orwell said; ‘All writers are vain ,selfish, and lazy, and at the bottom of their motives lies a mystery’, so what those people really don't like is writers..... I had a piece in the paper about blogging:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/go-forth-and-multiply----bloggers-you-are-not-alone/2008/03/14/1205472071540.html
and I had a response along similar lines, all on a much more modest scale of course:
http://bettyslocombe.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/abyssinia-in-all-the-old-familiar-places/
so I sympathise with her.
As if baby boomers had anything to learn about self absorption: speaking as one, and all.

Mrs Slocombe said...

sorry that url was ridiculously long:did it work? It was vain and selfish of me anyway etc.
Also, all those photos of her lounging around soulfully in a singlet may have over excited the boomer chaps, I fear......speaking as one and all

thelass said...

I couldn't make it through more than two pages of the article because...well...she has always struck me as horribly whiny and the topic has been done to death elsewhere. It strikes me as disingenous, at least, to post about sharing your personal life with (potentially) millions of strangers and then being surprised when some of them are *gasp* unkind to you. Boo hoo hoo.

Friday said...

Mrs Slocombe, I believe that those with no inclination to blog, and those with even less inclination to write, are always going to feel mystefied and then outraged by those who have the gumption (and sometimes talent to do so well). As broad an audience as it can reach, it will always remain an exclusive activity, insofar as others bloggers are the only ones that can truly contribute to the discourse.

That doesn't give non-bloggers a good excuse to act out like a sukly child about the whole thing, but I guess in the same way others don't understand the impulse to keep a personal record online, I find it impossible to understand why it's such a sore point with those who don't.