recycling is the key to being prolific.
4.1 miles.
...[I want to know your take] on how we get to know people. I guess the question is, what is your definition of "knowing" someone? And how is that different to the knowledge we gain of someone by reading their online journal?
She's doing an article for Metajournals on the topic, y'see, and wanted my input.
So I sat down and wrote a reply, which she said she'd like to quote in full but is already running too long in her article. This is either praise or the nicest brush-off I've ever gotten. Anyhow, she asked me to reprint my reply in here so she can link to it.
We get a very small view of someone through their journal, no matter how "open" and "honest" they're trying to be. If you've ever tried to describe *precisely* what happened in a given episode, you know it can't be done--language isn't the best medium for translating experience. Biographies and autobiographies are, by their very nature, lies: hopefully they capture the spirit of the person, but they can never fully show us the reader what the biographer's subject was like.
I think we can gain a sense of what someone is like through a journal--what he or she likes, what he or she doesn't like, how they're *probably* going to be in person. The reader does a lot of projection, however, to fill in the gaps: "I know funny, upbeat people like Kymm, therefore I know what she's like, and I'd like her a lot if I met her." (An attitude which ignores two salient facts: 1)there's more to Kymm than she's presented in her journal and 2)you have no idea if Kymm would like you.)
We all have a certain filter through which we see our experiences: our own POVs. Which means you get MY version of events, not any sort of objective truth. Not surprisingly, I'm the heroine of my own story--I'm always going to make me the center of attention, depict things I've done in a reasonable light, and ignore inconvenient facts that make me seem stupid or needy or cruel. I show events that hurt me as "Look what this horrible person did to me!" without mentioning whether I deserved it or not.
There's a cliche about differentiating between the artist and the art--someone's journal may tell you more about what they're like as a writer than as a person, no matter what the writer's intent. Plenty of readers think they know what their favorite authors are like, no matter what their subject, but I'm willing to bet that few of them do.
The full expression of human communication when you're face-to-face is full of signals and nuance. The written word, devoid of any other data points, is a pale imitation.
And that's saved me from having to write a long entry for today.
This morning's run was much better. I only stopped once to catch my breath but kept up a good pace the rest of the time--4.1 miles in roughly 39 minutes (counting the walking). So I feel much better about how that's going.
So, everyone's gone nuts over Mark McGwire's use of legal supplements (none of which have been proved to have steroid-enhancing powers). No one has suggested Sammy Sosa, who is close behind, is using anything. If it's possible without the supplements, how is McGwire's feat due to the supplements?
I'm annoyed. Of course, I'm highly amused that McGwire is more than likely going to pass Ruth's mark within 154 games, which means no one can hold the "162 games" mark over his head.
|
|
|
|
Copyright 1998 Diane Patterson
Send comments and questions to diane@spies.com