I’ve decided to expand on some of the themes in my earlier posts, and particularly some of my really LONG comment.
One person decided to leave, was instalanched, and then her post about leaving was blogged about on Cliopatria. (Unfairly and somewhat cruelly, I think.) And because she had a silly, non-academic blog, this is apparently lack of love of history.
I really got this reading from the posts — but not the comments — there. And it brings up that interesting thing people talk about regularly: how does blogging intersect with everything else in your life? But it’s more than that: how honest are we supposed to be in blogs, how honest can we be *expected* to be? If I turn out not to have studied linguistics but cognitive science, but said linguistics to be a bit less traceable, how offended would be people be, and how much right do they have to feel that? What if it turned out I was lying about being in Montreal? What if the cats I post photos of are not actually my cats at all, and in fact I am allergic to cats? I could go on. I claim all these things are true, and you trust me (or don’t), but what would happen if I came out and admitted I was writing fiction or semi-fiction?
I would feel betrayed if I found this out about the blogs I read. I expect some amount of editing of reality and rewriting of conversations. But I also expect that the gists are true, at least to the author, or that the fictionalised parts are marked as such. Is this fair? I’m not sure. I don’t think I’d stop reading, but it depends.
There are some people who post fiction-as-if-autobiography (I am a long time fan of Oblivio). But for most people, we assume blogs are true.
And when we assume they’re true, we also end up assuming they’re fairly comprehensive. I might not have mentioned that I changed elementary schools after grade 4 (ends in grade 6), but that’s not, it seems, a big deal. Of course it was, to me, it shaped my life in all sorts of ways I know about and probably many that I will never know about. But it’s not something I’ve been lying about, even in omission. And I don’t talk about my friends much, and when I do, I try to do so only in generalities, because they might not want to be online as such.
But this also isn’t a lie. I complain about my job instead of talk about the good parts. It doesn’t mean they don’t exist. I don’t talk about the vast majority of the books I read; I don’t talk about most of the music I listen to; I don’t talk about all sorts of things about my family.
A blog, even one where I’ve posted over 700 times to, cannot possibly do justice to who I am as a whole. It doesn’t make it fake: it makes it an honest portrait of part of me.
So to look at this blog and say that I mustn’t be X, because I don’t post about X, is not understanding what blogs are or how they are used.
You can judge me based on this, to some extent. You can dislike what I write, or how I write it. You can just not care about anything I write. Presumably then you don’t read my blog. Or maybe you read it because it provides a daily dose of irritation — I have blogs like that. But the reality of the disconnect needs to be considered when you judge someone based on what’s missing from their blog. (It’s much more sensible to judge someone based on what they say.)
The thing is: this is personal, downtime for most of us. It shouldn’t be judged as more than that, and people are never all of and only what they say on their blogs.
I should make an exception for purely academic blogs — Language Log, say — it may be downtime for them, but I don’t know. But I am sure that despite the fact that all of them have academic blogs, they all have non-academic lives also. This works both ways: I can’t judge someone’s non-academic life by an academic blog. The lack of posts about the LLers families doesn’t mean that they are all lonely and single or just about to divorce.
It’s not that I worry I’m boring: the people who find me boring just don’t read my blog, and we’re all happier for it. It’s more: did I sound like a whiny, stupid brat, not interested in ideas? If so, does that mean that it’s true? (I don’t know and no.) Our personal blogs say things about us — including about how we write — but they’re limited and biased (sometimes for, sometimes against ourselves). You know I’ve been to conferences because I say I have — but you don’t know anything else about the work I’ve done, or my abilities — and to expect that you can predict this based on a personal blog? No. (A professional one is different. But until all faculty members have professional blogs, we can’t tell grad students they are weak because they have personal but not professional blogs.)
This is the thing: it is not, at this point, considered obligatory for academics to have professional blogs. Many do — but we don’t think the others are bad academics. Equally, it’s not obligatory for them *not* to have personal blogs — and those who do aren’t bad academics. If you’re working on online media as a dissertation, probably you need to have a professional blog. Otherwise, you can’t say that so-and-so is clearly a more interested academic because they have a blog.
I’ve said what I wanted to say about leaving academia: I think that the prices we are made to pay aren’t always admitted to as prices. Not that you shouldn’t make that choice, but that you need to say yes, it’s a choice I’ve made, with prices I’ve paid. And some people will decide it was worthwhile and I respect that choice, but I couldn’t do it.
Life is about making these choices — which Becky didn’t seem to realise.
I’m not, in the end, sympathetic to Becky. I feel sorry that she’s had such mental health issues. I feel sorry that she wanted to be a mother and an academic, and that’s a hard combination to pull. But I think she wasn’t willing to say that yes, sometimes you give up something for something else, and that she played on victimhood too much. I don’t think she understood what life entails.
And Michelle said:
If the content of a blog seems at first glance to be frivolous, is that necessarily true? And is that a reflection of the blogger? Is a tendency to talk about personal details that matter to no one else evidence of a lack of interest in anythign else? I think that the answer is no in every instance but yet people do judge people in just that way.
This is exactly how I feel. I don’t think I judge people based on that, but it’s hard to see where the things you don’t say matter, and how much that should be taken into account. Letters of reference use this, as do all sorts of conversations. Still, this is different. When I kept a (written) diary, the things I didn’t talk about were (a) meaningless or (b) momentous. The balance has changed here, but the fact of things I don’t talk about still exists.
I talk about frivolous issues, and I think this is fine. It’s not better to talk about your new techtoys than your new boots — except that tech stuff is coded okay and appearance stuff not. And I think that bringing to the fore this coding of masculine = good, feminine = bad by being a clearly intelligent articulate woman who buys boots and knits and likes pink, you’re adding to the discourse.