I posted this yesterday on G+, and was rightfully chastised for my combative tone. l strive for authenticity, though, and as a member of the human race, sometimes I feel hurt and rejected, and sometimes I get angry about it. It is for that reason that I am using the original post, as a forward to my more reasoned thoughts on the matter.
Shared by me yesterday:
"OK, so maybe I've lost my audience, here on the oh-so-intellectual G+, by talking about ghosts, John Cusack, and such. That's a shame.
Did it ever occur to anyone, though, that the reason the "cool" smart people aren't on G+ is because it's filled with entirely too many smart people with big old sticks up their arses? Ya know who Tweets? Neil Degrasse Tyson. Bill Nye. Doctor Sheldon Cooper, for fuck's sake. No really. The character has a verified Twitter account, and I have seen more profound and thoughtful shit in 140 characters out of him than I have seen for entire six month stretches here. Lol.
I jest, but my point is, I miss having real, thought-provoking discussions here. Can't we just make up, and agree that "smart" can come in more than one package?"
As I have already said, I realize the above post aims for conflict. However, the fact that someone instinctively felt the need to critique it, and then to remind me that when one changes their "brand" to cater to a different audience, they lose favor with their original one, only serves to prove my overall point....
Social media, to my mind, is first and foremost a social experience. I do not subscribe to the notion that just because one is a writer, he/she is obligated to make every post a complete and polished piece, or to speak only in his or her writing voice. That methodology only serves to separate us, by establishing rigid roles for writer and reader alike. It can be likened to actors who never stop acting, but instead play character versions of themselves, forever reminding the fans that they are not on the same level and never will be. For very famous actors, the practice is an unfortunate necessity for safety and security reasons. For the rest of us, though, there is no practical need for such reinforced boundaries.
It really comes down to personal authenticity for me, and the freedom to embrace it "off the clock", if one chooses to do so. If you actually know me and read any of my published pieces, you can easily recognize the difference between my normal voice and my writing voice, and even those very famous authors who need to establish and maintain a certain level of social distance don't go around speaking in rich and detailed word pictures every time they open their mouths in public. Being writers should never force us to never clock out, just because the world can read what we post. The public is actually quite capable of telling the difference between real writing and personal thoughts. No one is going to stop reading Stephen King just because he (hypothetically) Tweeted about a ball game, or Ezra Klein because he posted a status update from a Lady Gaga concert.
This brings us to content, which is the core of my problem here on G+. My professional writing tends to focus on social observation and problem solving, because that is what I feel is important. Although I could attract a much larger and more loyal fanbase writing professionally about what makes celebrities tick, or even about paranormal theory, I don't, because those things are just hobbies to me. Does that mean I am not allowed to ever talk about them on the Internet? No, because social media is actually social time for me most of the time, and my social media friends are just that- friends. I do not feel I should be punished for not using the web strictly as a self-promotion tool, nor should I be judged for being interested in things that others may find silly.
I realize I have not taken human nature into account, and that people WILL judge me, whether I deserve it or not. I also acknowledge that there are just some subjects that simply do not mix, which is why I have thought about using different pen names for each. In the end I am making a choice, though, and my choice is to refuse to be defined by traditional expectations.
