Block me, and I will go around you. Build a wall, and I will build a door. Lock the door and I will break a window. And if I donâ€™t have have a leader to inspire me, I will lead. If I donâ€™t have a team that will support me, I will recruit a team from beyond the organizational boundaries – every policy has a loophole, every system has a hidden reward.â€
The Participatory Librarianship Starter Kit, via The Shifted Librarian
I wanted to follow up on and extend a recent tweet:
At what point does online sharing become performance? Is it always performance from the start, or does it morph as people start to watch?
11:21 PM Feb 21st from web
I was thinking about the fact that I’m flying out to Drupal4Lib unconference/camp at the Darien Public Library in Connecticut today, and each time I go to a conference where lots of ideas are flying around me, I try to capture the ones that really resonate with me on Twitter. I also use Twitter to respond to speakers when I can’t interrupt them. I use it particularly when I think my opinions will be unpopular or not particularly well accepted. Now that there are a few more people following me on twitter, many of whom I respect a great deal, I’m a bit hesitant to tweet as freely as I want to. As often as I want to. And that hesitation bothers me.
Sure, perhaps I need a little hesitation before I go publishing my ideas and responses and thoughts to the world, right? But I don’t like it. I like sharing, but I’m ambivalent about the general concept of an audience.
I guess deep down I don’t think about online sharing as sharing with an audience until I’m sharing with X number of people. That number isn’t something I’m aware of, I just sense that there is a tipping point in there somewhere.
I have permanent status now (i.e., tenure) , so I’m happier to share this fact: back during the process of dropping out of a phd program in history, I got deeply involved in a fandom community. I wrote a lot. I wrote somewhere around 400K words of fanfiction in the space of about 9 months. It was escapist, particularly to a world where the characters were all generated by someone else, and thus has nothing to do with the devastating and identity-altering reality of my existence. It was nice to inhabit a space where I didn’t exist. Call it a coping mechanism, but I learned more about social networks and technology in aid of collaboration and creativity in that space than I did anywhere else. I have a deep affection for fandom communities and I still try to follow their meanderings. One of the things I learned as part of a fandom community was the power of an audience.
When I started writing in fandom, I did so in total obscurity. I threw myself into writing, something I hadn’t done in years and I really enjoyed. It was like coming out of the darkness into the sunshine. It was incredibly therapeutic. I had been through some difficult times; a terrible break-up, heartbreak, depression, hatred of my program, loneliness, loss of identity. A lot of old feelings resurfaced. Writing was excellent therapy. I had a blog in my own name at the time, but I started a new one with my fandom identity on Livejournal, which was (and still is) the place where fandom congregated. I loved my livejournal. I loved talking about writing process, about ideas, scenes, character motivations; I loved writing about writing. It was profoundly internal, profoundly navel-gazing, and so much fun. I needed to be inside and outside at the same time; I needed to sort out so much but I didn’t want to face in myself. I can’t express how useful this process was; not just writing the fanfiction, but processing the whys and hows and sharing ideas. I had no idea how much of myself I was processing with it. (Easier to see in hindsight.)
My lengthy and frequent blog musings were okay at first. Not at all abnormal in a fandom community. But then I started to attract an audience. I was writing slash (gay romance) fiction revolving around a very popular pairing of characters, so there was a wide audience of readers for what I was so feverishly producing. Fanfiction writers tend to attract an audience, and they generally want to. It’s great to get feedback on what you’re writing. And that feedback is instantaneous. When I finished and posted a story, I would have responses to it within 10 minutes, and 60 or 70 responses within a half hour. (This is not a record: people writing more mainstream fanfiction with heterosexual pairings got far, far more responses than I would.) Many people in fandom have no interest in writing, but write to be a part of the community. Sharing writing is, I would argue, a form of gift exchange. Those of us who wrote a lot were presumably owed a lot in return; the return is feedback, recommendations, reviews, and attention in general. For people like me, noses stuck firmly in their own navels and there just for the sheer therapy/fun of it, this economy completely evaded my notice. I was getting more and more attention for my writing, albeit only from a segment of the fandom itself. I wasn’t at the top of the food chain when it comes to attention-getters, but the attention I received was certainly nothing to sneeze at. By this I mean a registered audience of a few thousand, and an unregistered audience of many more thousands. Not the millions people get with a viral youtube video in 2009, but a few thousand (8 or 9) is quite a bit for any normal individual, particularly back in 2001.
With a fairly large audience, the nature of my livejournal changed. While I still wanted to talk about process and ideas and all this internality that brought me to the community in the first place, somehow it wasn’t okay to do so anymore. With the podium I had, it was understood as incredibly selfish of me to only talk about myself and my own ideas. Suddenly it became important for me to talk about other people’s work at least as often as my own (ideally more often). Now that I think of it, maybe I’ve got this gift economy thing all backwards; what if the economy has nothing to do with the writing and everything to do with the attention? Increasingly I felt pressure to give back; more comments, more reviews, more shout-outs and recommendations; my livejounal couldn’t be my private writing space anymore. It now had to be more outward-looking. I had to give back to my audience, I had to give them the attention they were giving me. I didn’t have the space to just have fun with it anymore. Fun had to benefit others now, I had already got my share. Others, who didn’t have the attention I had, could do what I used to do, writing down their thoughts and sharing ideas with their friends. It was silencing and sad.
A friend of mine had many times the amount of attention that I got, and I saw how it crippled her public posting. Her livejournal had gone from, like mine, being a place to natter on about what she was thinking about and turned more into a means through which to inform her audience of something (updates, teasers for her next chapter, etc.), to discuss other people’s work, the larger themes of the community, and to weigh in on the “right” side of any debate. It became public property.
Perhaps fandom is a unique entity when it comes to relationships with online audiences, but I don’t think it is. This is why I objected to ranking librarian blogs when Walt proposed it. My reaction is over-heated, but this is where I’m coming from. I’m not a high-profile librarian blogger, and I’m planning to keep it that way. I like to be able to muse about whatever I feel like musing about, be that Second Life, or cancer, or the book I’m currently reading, or random conversations with my friends. I want to be able to use twitter in the way that fits best with my personality, too.
So in response to my own question posted above: I think there is a difference between sharing online and having an audience. Sharing online is fun and productive; I love using twitter to record my reactions to things and my epiphanies, because I like to share them with friends and family, and I like to get feedback from people with similiar or radically different opinions. I like their perspectives to shape my epiphanies as they’re being formed. I find that brings my thinking to a higher level. But somehow there’s a line in the sand there, and I’m not sure where it is, between sharing with a group and having an audience. I find the audience gratifying, but oppressive after a certain point. I don’t have the wherewithall to rise above the expectations of a full, demanding audience. Good thing I can twitter and blog in gentle near-obscurity. That’s just how I like it.
Edited to add: Hmmm. This is a pretty good example of what I’m talking about.
So Valleywag has put Second Life on deathwatch. I was sort of intrigued when I heard about this, because I thought they might have something interesting to say. Instead it contains some jabs about how it’s all digital dancing and sex, and then suggesting that linden labs saw SL as a kind of “online schoolhouse”. As usual, those with lots of cynicism and precious little imagination wait until someone tells them what a technology is for, and then merely attempts to half-heartedly evaluate how well that goal is met from their own rather jaded perspective.
While they’re claiming SL is dying, the population seems to have grown rather dramatically in the last few months. I used to see the logged in population sitting somewhere between 42 and 56K, where now it’s rarely below 72K. Just yesterday I was part of a panel of cancer survivors in Second Life talking about the impact of having a survivor community in world; of course I pointed out my own means of expressing myself in Second Life, my Cancerland build, and how the community helped shape it and me through their support and feedback. Others talked about finally being allowed to speak out loud about what they’re going through without having to shape their words based on the feelings of devastated friends and family who only want to see a happy, positive cancer patient. (This same topic was covered in the current issue of Harvard Divinity Bulletin in Mark U. Edwards’ Ways of ‘Knowing’ Cancer: How can we reason about illness?.) We talked about the impact of running in the Relay for Life without having to have the physical strength to do so.
While I quite like the idea of Linden Labs being bought out by an academic consortium, that hardly seems likely.
Having been so deeply impressed by the Second Life article, I nipped over to see what they had to say about twitter. They quote folks saying that twitter is for the insecure seeking out an identity, which I find quite bizarre. I wonder if they say that about everyone who puts their words or work into the public eye, like, say, journalists, novelists, or artists. Not that tweets are novels or art, per se, but I find the rationale behind their judgment quite baffling. Have they never heard of the value of presence awareness? Do they not understand that connection can be reached both through depth of contact and through regular, small acts of communication? Do they not have singular ideas throughout the day, short ones, that bear sharing and storing?
I have said it before, and I’ll say it again: nothing frustrates me more than the “what is it for” argument, which appears to be at the heart of both of these articles. It seems perfectly fair to ask someone who’s a fan of, say, Twitter or Second Life: “What’s it for?” but I suggest that it’s not a fair question at all. “What do you use it for,” perhaps. “What’s its appeal to you,” definitely. But “What’s it for?” is just a way to mark yourself as someone with no imagination, no critical faculty, and no interest in the actual answer. “I don’t see an application for this in my current life/online practice,” is just fine. I wouldn’t debate that. Everyone finds niches for things. But to ask other people to find a niche for something in your life, well. That’s lazy, in my opinion.
Not all ideas or applications work for all people. I can understand why del.icio.us is a great thing to many people, but I’m not really a link collector, so I don’t use it. It’s affordances don’t have a particularly important niche in my life. And that doesn’t mean it’s a useless application, it’s just not that useful to me. I have great respect for the gaming industry, and even have friends who work within it, but I don’t play games other than solitaire and boomshine. I can’t handle the stress. That doesn’t mean I think gaming is pointless. The mixture of personality, imagination, and technology is fascinating and rich; we each carve out our own ways to manage it. If you don’t want to do this, that’s fine; but don’t tell me it’s because there’s something wrong with me, or something wrong with the technology. Turn your high-powered lens of personality probing back on yourself.
What’s so funny about these tirades is that once someone else (with vision and imagination) demonstrates a use for a given application, suddenly those same people who complain loudly about it’s uselessness suddenly become fans. Remember the early days of blogging when everyone told us how bloody pointless and self-indulgent that was? Who doesn’t have a blog these days?
I know, I should get a better sense of humour. But this stuff really grates on me.
A morning conversation between me and Jason:
Rochelle: i am getting whacked in the face with a tail
Jason: check the contract. that’s a valid use of tail
Rochelle: he is sitting on my stomach
Jason: section 231b, subsection 13…
Jason: territorial rights and duties at dawn
Rochelle: so that’s where it is
Jason: bloody right. we got a grievance issue going on here
Jason: someone’s disputing my right of water bottle squirtage
Rochelle: oh dear
Rochelle: when does the lawyer arrive?
Jason: we’re in binding arbitration
Jason: locked in the same condo until we can work it out
Jason: could take years
I started reading Spook Country last night before bed, the first chapter of which ends with a virtual world/real-world mashup that has the main character standing in front of the Viper Room in LA looking down at a dead River Phoenix on the sidewalk in front of her. Leaving aside a whole other post I could write about the significance of that particular moment to people born around when I was, it made me think about gaming and ubiquitous computing.
I suspect most of what I’m about to say is so passe to most people who think about gaming and the internet, but it was a fun revelation for me, at least.
When I first started talking outloud about ubiquitous computing in the library after the Copenhagen keynote about sentient cities, our chief librarian wilted a little. “We just built this place!” she said. But I think ubiquitous computing is not going to come from the walls at all; I think it’s just going to use the walls to interface with mobile computing.
Okay imagine it: you have VR goggles. You put on your goggles and you see the world around you, but also the game space. You have already entered in the usernames of your friends, who are also playing this game with you. You are synced up to GPS, so your goggles know where you are in relation to your environment. You have chosen a genre or theme, but the game is constructed on the fly by the system based on the environment you’ve chosen, the number of civilians in your view, weather information, and variables drawn from the user profiles of you and your friends.
So say you pick a large field by a river for your game space. Maybe you do a walkthrough it first with your goggles on so that the system can add more detail to the GPS and map data; that data would go into a central repository for geographical information. The system can then generate characters that wander past, hide behind bushes, sit in trees, etc. You and your friends can all see the generated characters because of the goggles, so you can all interact with them simulaneously. The characters might be generated by the game designers, or they might be created by users, like the Spore creature creator, with backstories and voices all supplied by fans, vetted by the designers. You and your friends can be costumed by the system; when you look down at your own (bare) hands, they might be wearing chain mail gloves and be carrying a sword.
Or say you pick a city block as your game space; the system connects to google map data, and then also takes in information about all the people around you, and uses them as part of the game. It could turn the city in a futuristic place, with flying cars and impossibly tall buildings. Running around the city, chasing aliens, avoiding civilians, being a big ole’ gaming geek in full view of the public. Awesome.
So now: the virtual library could come with a pair of goggles and a good series of fast databases.
That would be pretty cool. Just sayin’.