I have this recurring thought of the relationship between blogging and ventriloquism, and how, for some people, blogging is like a form of digital-ventriloquism.
You get to talk but not really be yourself; you can act differently, using your voice to say what you want to say but don’t have to be taken seriously because it’s not really you and your true self or voice.
As a result, the consequences of your words don’t have to matter as much to both the creator and the consumer. Perhaps the impact is the same but you don’t have to necessarily own up to it, if you don’t want to.
From another angle, you don’t get in so much “trouble” for what you say or create… because it’s really not you.
Blogging as digital-ventriloquism… what do you think? Wierd thought huh.
fully
Just like some people who stutter but sing like angles;
some people have a better voice in this digital form than the spoken.
So long as it is authentic and consistent.
good illustration dude
I'm not so sure about the "not getting in trouble" bit. It seems to me that my spoken word lasts only a moment, but what's on my blog is out there forEVER. I've been very cautious about my online "persona" lately and what may follow me.
I get the metaphor, I truly do. Sometimes, I think this applies to me… you may not see my lips move, but the dummy definitely speaks!
Like Amanda says, the written word sometimes seems to have more permanence, whether written on paper or on a screen. Because of this, I, too, try to be aware of the digital trail I leave behind me. The ability to re-read before hitting "send," "post," or "submit" and rethink has kept me out of trouble. Unfortunately, my big mouth doesn't always have this feature.
I do not consider blogging as make believe as you may want it to sound. I think there is an accountability most feel (OK about how I feel and let's face it, it really is all about me isn't it?) about blogging that keeps it real and true to self.
I'm not sure if I agree that what I blog about can be taken less seriously just because it's on a blog (unless I'm deliberately trying to be funny). I feel like I can be a lot more real about what I feel and think when I'm blogging about it because I don't get to do that when I'm talking to my peers, so if anything, my blog is more "me" than the "me" people interact with on a daily basis.
So instead of the dummy being my blog, it's the other way around. The dummy is the person that people see and talk to every day.
The blessing and the curse of the internet is that you can be whoever you want. If you want to be the truly real you, you can. If you want to play a part that's not you, you can.
I think the best bloggers try to be themselves, so that's what I try to do.
Arguments for and against blogging ventriloquism are both great! I personally lean more towards the "false-self" side of things. But that has to do more with who I am, and how I've grown interacting with my peers. The beauty of blogging is that we all have the ability to be real. It's what we choose to do with that ability that makes the difference.
I don't fully agree (although I see your point). A lot of people who read my blog are people I know personally, family, people at my church, colleagues. There are those people who don't know me and have the luxury of 'unsubscribing' if they don't want to hear more. But you can't unsubscribe from a person you see in the flesh at least weekly
Having said all that I do agree that it is easier to say or read things online to or about people you know than it is face to face.
You have made me think, which is good
Nice metaphor! A great way to associate an image to the issue so we can gather around the table to discuss!
I believe that those that actually "do it" and start to blog have similiar understandings of how their own published words at times can take on life of their own. This might be perceived as sometimes intentional and someones not (at least supposedly). It is easy for bloggers to develop a relationship with their blogs in way where the blog stand for something…. and this personification takes develops into a sort of 2nd identity in their own minds. Of course much of the time it probably overlaps with their real self as they live it out. But I guess we have to acknowledge that publishing is for many, an idealist's pursuit. That is why we tend to be careful with our words on paper (vs. not *as* careful with what comes out of our mouths 24/7, right?)
>> But from the readers' perspective, I wonder if this metaphor is really understood or accepted at all. <<
I would guess that the large majority of readers assume and assign full responsibility for what is being "put out there" directly back to the author(s). This is probably why we see periodic blogging faux pax stories and this usually is the reason for the inevitable retractions. Bloggers might get the courage to write something that they would never say in person becuase of this ventrilquistic notion and when this borders on recklessness, that's where the 'fun' begins. Again, the response is because in the end, the writer doesn't get a free pass or a chance to say they are off the hook for the words they write. Perception isn't reality if both parties don't agree to the paradigm.
This of course can be extrapolated to really seeing the value of community, koinonia and true fellowship, even in digital/blogosphere relationships where we are held accountable, as well as being pushed to seek excellence and the most dynamic / vibrant growth & expression on the written page. If an idea is truely worth publishing, it should be able to survive the toughest [constructive] critics that surround you. Just as iron sharpens iron, authenticity + transparency somehow always seems to win.
Thanks for making some of my brain cells get some exercise this morning. I'm sure they'll be working out for the rest of the day as I keep thinking about this ventriliquistic framework!
my mouth too. doh!