a measure of depth rather than breadth  

the science of listener attention
April 26, 2007 11:37 PM

Earlier today, I made a very cryptic blog post. In it, I announced it was cryptic.

It was for me. It was to mark a mental breaking point. Many would do this in some sort of private journal, but I am lousy at keeping those, and it is important to me to note these things. If you go back even just a few posts on this stupid blog, you will see a number of them. They are typically cryptic.

As noted on the most exalted Christie's blog, (link withheld pending authorization) the other day, while she was in town, Mia, her and I had a discussion on blogging, and whether cryptic entries that intentionally limit the comprehending audience are out of bounds:

"Mia is sick, and is nonetheless having a vigorous debate with Patrick about the purpose of blogs and the obligations inherent in keeping one (or rather, if indeed there are any,) and whether or not it's okay to be cryptic in a blog post, to narrow one's intended readership from post to post. I'll weigh in on this at another time, after I've given it some thought."

I'll explain my earlier post now, not because I concede the argument about blogs, information transfer, and audience manipulation, but because it was an incredibly stupid thing for me to do.

The title was Cake or Death?, an Eddie Izzard bit(scroll down) I was recently made aware of by the same most exalted Christie, in which an incredibly easy choice is raised by his straw man of the Church of England: Tea and Cake, or Death. This is a very easy choice. Anyone can make this choice.

You see what I did with "lowers" and "raises" there?

I used it in juxtaposition with an incredibly difficult choice. The options were not cake and death. They were complex, circuitous, and shattering. They have been tearing me up, and the options I raised were deliberately chosen to be truly understood by me and me alone. This is where the really stupid part comes in. The fact is none can be chosen. That's why it's such a hard set of options. That's why it contrasts so well with cake or death. The easy and plainspoken versus the impossible and hidden.

It's called the science of listener attention. We did repetition, we did floating opposites and now you end with the one that's not like the others.

Sometimes the intended audience of something is yourself in the future.

Sometimes in knowing how to make a point to that audience you give someone else the wrong idea.

Sometimes in reaching across vast stretches of time, you need to utilize the science of listener attention.

I will not stop making these posts, as I am not forcing anyone to read them, and this very same day one of them from two years ago proved immensely useful to me.

However, I apologize for the one earlier today. I did not do my due diligence in properly shrouding it - limiting it to its intended audience: me in the future. The key to a good cipher is that it resolves to one thing, and one thing only. It cannot lend itself to non-garbage results, or the integrity of the message breaks down, or as was likely the case today, misinformation is spread.

It was very stupid. It was almost certainly misinterpreted, and for that I have nothing but apologies. Another standing policy of this blog, however, is that I do not take things down that prove embarrassing or shameful. I own them, and leave them there to serve as a reminder in the future.


Comments:

I suppose your point makes sense, and yet it seems largely at odds with the typical motivations of blogs. In a very narrow sense, I think that most people blog to either inform the reader, project an image of one's self, or free-expression. Cryptic messages do not inform the reader, whether the reader is an intended third party or one's self at a later date. In the past I had kept a private journal, and in keeping with my own cryptic nature, often made vague allusions to occurrences in my life. The trouble being that down the road, when things are in perspective and the relative importance of those occurrences seem somewhat less, I am no longer able to understand what the fuck I was talking about. So in my opinion, your clearly not informing the reader.

You could perhaps assess posts of this type as free expression. But free expression is best suited to artists of a more visual medium. Your average painter can toss their soul to the canvas without even once considering whether or not a loved-one, friend, or even stranger may see it at all, or make any personal associations between the content and it's creator. Visual art is very much personal in it's interpretation by the viewer. As a writer, your ability to manipulate the reader is far more powerful. You are not only aware of this, but I've seen you use it to great effect. Free-expression is this blog can be dangerous when vague, because you quite simply are COMPLETELY aware of the primary individuals who will be reading it, and as such have a responsibility to try and avoid unnecessarily freaking people out. Tossing around terms like asshole and coward for the power of the words themselves is all well and fine, perhaps even theraputic. However, it's a bit unfair to a a reader who might be an overly sensitive friend you've recently had a disagreement with. Or to a concerned lover who feels they might somehow be failing you. Or perhaps even to a parent who fears their child might need help with some life-change. Imagination is a powerful thing and when wielded by the author of fiction, a great tool for fantasy, happiness, or controlled terror. But it's far most destructive in the hands of the careless auto-biographer.

This leaves us with self-projection as your intention. And it is (for the most part), I think, this guiding desire that prompted the start and continuation of your blog. Don't misunderstand me. I'm certainly no casting any negative connotation on this form of blogging, I've done as much myself in the past. But I think that under this banner, it's easy to let the keys get away with you. Everyone wants to come across as an interesting, mysterious, or complex personality. This is human nature, and it's certainly fun, both to project such an alter-ego or even to bear witness to one and try to incorporate that identity into your interpretations of other people who offer one. Nonetheless, as amusing as it can be to an intended audience, it is predominantly a self-serving type of writing.

My final point being... If your trying to inform, leave the cryptic messages at home. If your trying to express, keep not your intended audience, but your known audience in mind. And excercise caution. And if your trying to illicit a confuses response or shroud yourself in mystique, then don't be surprised when you get that reaction from people. And certainly don't apologize for it after the fact, because then you've erased your original intended effect AND made your motivations seem trite.

*Disclaimer: The preceeding text is in no way making allusions to the opinions or identities of anyone living or dead with the exception of the singular intended audience. These words are not meant to condemn, scold, or otherwise imply negative feelings towards anyone. I am not trying to take a moral high-ground or place of superiority with this editorial as I'm simply not nearly as good a writer as my intended audience. All opinions herein are dictated by my own life experience. I do not expect to get my pudding if I don't eat my meat. I make every attempt during the tenure of my personal relationships to make it clear that I don't know shit. Frunkus.

Posted by:
BadServo
on April 29, 2007 1:18 PM

Add a comment






Thanks to the spammers of the world, you'll need to prove you're a human via the following box:




Creative Commons License All these musings are protected under the warm umbrella of a Creative Commons License.