« hurricanes | Main | step one: find the damn path! »
September 06, 2005
was that inappropriate?
the football comment? was it? i can't decide. i was called to task about it by a friend yesterday--entirely of my own deserving, because of the way i prefaced it & led into the conversation. i'm sure--in no small part because my friend's comments made the impression absolutely crystal clear--that it's easy enough to read me as wholly hypocritical for that. after all, as my friend pointed out, there are often--if not always--tragedies unfolding while i'm writing about being *happy.* and i chose not to disguise my comment, not to question how people i didn't know could write about things i assume they're out in the world writing about rather than using the actual thing that struck me when i saw it central in the attention of people whose blogs i actually read.
in my friend's eyes, i was completely out of line, not only because i'm a hypocrite, but because knowing it was even possible that i'd be read by the people i was critiquing--and my friend assures me, and i'd like to argue but i'm not sure i can, that that sort of question is clearly a critique whether i ever phrase it as one or not--makes me deliberately a rabble-rouser (not in a good way) & also a sanctimonious shit.
my friend is far too polite to say these things. well. the "h-word" was employed, but the rest are my interpretation of the mood imparted. in any case, it brings me to an interesting intersection of a lot of different theories and awarenesses. like madeline over at academom has been talking about lately, there's an author/audience issue always on the table when you're blogging. who's your public? who's reading you? to what degree do you know who's reading you? what rersponsibility does that knowledge give you? does the existance of a huge possible-public defray responsibility--can i say that since it's just "out there" for anybody to read, i don't have to imagine what i wrote as if i'd written it on slips of paper & slid it under the doors of people on my hall who happen to care (like good, decent, caring, willing-to-contribute-to-the-disaster-relief-effort people all over the world, all the time, tragedy or not, which i never have really understood anyway, which might make my comment that much worse or that much more irrelevant--i can't honestly tell which) about football?
do i have to account for everyone who might possibly read my blog? everyone whose reading is just likely? how would i reckon "likely," anyway. likely now is a different pool than it was 6 months ago, might be a different one six months from now, or tomorrow, if i happen to say something today that someone in my incredibly small readership (at least that i'm aware of and consciously responsible to) finds worthy of picking up, linking to, arguing with, or otherwise drawing to the attention of other readers in other circles. i'm answering my own question there, & somewhat facetiously; of course i can't account for everyone. does it make me a loud-mouthed immature snot-head to say things i know people in my building might be hurt or offended by if i only say them here but don't say them about those people? is it better if i'm commenting about a behavior i find perplexing without naming names? or am i just as guilty as i would have been had i done so because it still amounts (or can be read as amounting) to calling out individuals for doing something wrong, because the question implies a critique and the behavior implies the individual and my location & position make it possible that someone might, without too much work, trace to see who on my blogroll happened yesterday to have recently posted about football?
in case anybody tries it, i should offer the following disclaimer: i really was puzzled & frustrated in the moment, but i don't think anybody's insensitive or unkind or whatever other words i didn't use but could be accused of having hinted at for being interested enough in their fan-sport of choice to write about it even while other things are going on. it just seemed amazing to me in that moment of contrast, when i was feeling guilty for watering my tomatoes because i had fresh water coming right out of the tap & i should have been pouring it into glasses to hand out to dehydrated people still waiting on overpasses in new orleans, but for the logistics of the whole affair.
i don't think i'm better-than. that wasn't/isn't my intention. theory intrudes (damn grad school anyway) at this point: is everything an argument? i know there's a book out titled that, as if titling makes it so, but i don't know if that's applicable or appropriate here--and i'm sure i'm not ready for the implications if it is. can one not make observations in the blogosphere--or anywhere--without being held accountable for arguments one hasn't actually made but which might easily enough be assumed or extracted from the observations made (and those withheld)? how accountable to the lives our texts take on beyond us are we or should we be? and what does the presence of emotion add to that query? is it not argumentative if i say "somebody wrote about football" but only if i also observe my own confused or frustrated emotive response?
i'm rambling. so i'm stopping. feel free to tell me that yes, i am a sanctimonious shit, if you want to. i'm okay with that accusation, or at least not unfamiliar with it. but if you don't mind, i'd also like a little more unraveling of why you think it fits.
Posted by ttobryan at September 6, 2005 03:52 PM