so, i got an email last night from someone to whom i've never spoken, but who has followed my life online for seven years. it got me thinking. this person said that they felt alienated from my life at one point by a series of changes that happened that they didn't agree with. they compared it to going shopping with a friend who's tried on a piece of clothing that's so absurdly not your style that you can't possibly advise them on whether they should buy it.
does this make sense to you, dear readers, strangers in the internet world? do you find that sometimes, you become invested in the lives of people that you don't really know? did anyone feel betrayed when, for example, the olsen twins (one or both, i don't know) were outed as anorexic cocaine users? or lindsay lohan? we're all too "alternative" to be unabashedly into the lives of celebrities, i'm sure, but is it or is it not the same thing to follow someone's life online - someone who is not a celebrity, but is perhaps a demi-celebrity?
also - is there something fundamentally different about sharing your thoughts on a blog, for example, versus writing articles in a print magazine? is there something more intimate, more public, about doing these things on the internet? if so, why? what is it about this medium that allows us to share more - as has been studied before by a few different researchers looking at text versus speech - and what is it about this medium that makes people feel more involved in the lives of people they've never talked to, versus how we feel about "real" celebrities?
for those of you who prefer not to read words, here is a photo. i cut off the mop of hair i'd been growing for over a year.
EDIT: i got so many AMAZING and well-thought-out responses to this blog entry. so much insight! i should use this as research. HA HA HA that would be unethical, because you all didn't know you were going to be quoted. i won't do that. fuck.
does this make sense to you, dear readers, strangers in the internet world? do you find that sometimes, you become invested in the lives of people that you don't really know? did anyone feel betrayed when, for example, the olsen twins (one or both, i don't know) were outed as anorexic cocaine users? or lindsay lohan? we're all too "alternative" to be unabashedly into the lives of celebrities, i'm sure, but is it or is it not the same thing to follow someone's life online - someone who is not a celebrity, but is perhaps a demi-celebrity?
also - is there something fundamentally different about sharing your thoughts on a blog, for example, versus writing articles in a print magazine? is there something more intimate, more public, about doing these things on the internet? if so, why? what is it about this medium that allows us to share more - as has been studied before by a few different researchers looking at text versus speech - and what is it about this medium that makes people feel more involved in the lives of people they've never talked to, versus how we feel about "real" celebrities?
for those of you who prefer not to read words, here is a photo. i cut off the mop of hair i'd been growing for over a year.
EDIT: i got so many AMAZING and well-thought-out responses to this blog entry. so much insight! i should use this as research. HA HA HA that would be unethical, because you all didn't know you were going to be quoted. i won't do that. fuck.
VIEW 25 of 35 COMMENTS
dcruz:
Sure, I'd love to read it 
hecklongtree:
There's something about a small screen that creates a sense of intimacy. That's why TV actors are more approachable than movie stars. That may also be why people feel they really know people they've only seen on a computer monitor.