Greetings to a new friend

One of the most talked-about aspects of the Internet is the idea of virtual communities, where people of like mind come together and join one another in a conjunction of blah blah blah. I think that concept is seriously overrated, and all you have to do is take a gander at Yahoo Groups to see that many of these communities are self-reinforcing time wasters. Even if you accept that your choice of Ginger or Mary Ann is a major psychological indicator, once you've posed the question, then what?

In his brilliant book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, the late Neil Postman posits that serious issues have been so co-opted into entertainment that we are growing incapable of discerning what is important. (This thesis may well a large part of the answer to Thomas Frank's question, What's the Matter with Kansas?) Since Amusing was written in 1985, when the Internet barely existed, it focuses on television, but many of its points are at least as applicable to the online world.

I may actually be underestimating the potency of the Internet, given its illusion of interaction. For example, I'm writing posts to this blog each day, trying to bring some clarity to elements of the changing world around me, acting as if someone is reading, yet knowing deep down that it is more of an individual exercise. I can't evaluate its value based on the effect on the world, which I acknowledge is virtually nil, I have to see it as something that ultimately benefits me. But, obviously, there is a part of me that pretends it's somewhat public, or I could just write each day into a Word file.

So I can believe that I'm contributing something other than self-betterment, but that's false. In other words, I'm entertaining myself without any particular added value. Is writing to this blog really more important than something else I could be doing? Even if I were not alone, what would be the answer to that question, that is to say, if I maintain the Ginger vs. Mary Ann web site, and get 10,000 visitors a day, is that even minimally useful?

What I'm saying, if somewhat muddily, is that I'm attempting to grapple with serious issues on this blog (well, mostly), but that doesn't mean that, internally, it still isn't self-entertainment. I'm modifying Postman a bit here, because he argued that the one-way form of television constrained thinking, and, clearly, the Internet isn't one-way. Except that it is. Have you ever read a provocative article or blog post, then scrolled down to the comments to look at the interesting discussion that results? But the discussion is rarely interesting; the readers have self-selected, so many of the comments are, "Right on!" Others come from trolls, who exist to bring heat, not light. It usually takes no more than 3 or 4 comments for the discussion to degenerate.

There are those who would say that the political interest coming from the netroots, the massive campaign donations, negates what I'm saying, that it demonstrates that the Internet is facilitating a new kind of activism. I certainly and sincerely hope so, but I fear that the people who are passionate about, say, electing Obama this month will move on to something new and less important next month. We'll see.

Changing gears...

Over the weekend I Googled myself (looking for community? significance?), and came across one of the nicest posts I can imagine. It was written by Citizen Carrie, whose blog is Carrie's Nation. Modesty precludes me from quoting any of her post, but it was kind to little Androcass.

Naturally, before I jumped on the reciprocal train, I needed to take a look at whence my praise was coming. (Given my earlier experience, I'm a little gunshy.) As it turns out, Citizen Carrie is a moderate Republican living in a suburb of Detroit who writes passionately about the issue that most concerns me, the U.S.' growing lack of competitiveness and the lies and non-solutions that have sprung up around that issue (and, Carrie, if I'm distorting or oversimplifying your position, I apologize).

I admire those people who can write with passion or, perhaps, vitriol about the subjects that matter to them (that's why I have James Howard Kunstler there on the right, and believe that Harlan Ellison is one of our most important literary voices). I don't seem to have that ability; there's something about the process of writing that makes me reserved, even passion-less. That isn't necessarily good, I would love to engage from time to time in rampant epistolary emoting, fighting the forces that are exploiting and hurting us with withering prose. But I'm not too good at that (as you saw in the previous sentence), so, for now, I'm stuck with this style.

What I'm saying is that I would love to write something as direct and emotional as this post about Bill Gates that Citizen Carrie wrote on another site, but I find it hard even to conceive of a fine expressive Anglo-Saxon word as "puke" while I'm writing, no matter how many CEOs make me feel that way.

At any rate, she's writing some seriously good stuff, and from a part of the country that has been most affected by the economic experiments of the last 25 years or so. (I need to write more about the business situation in the Chicago area, but I haven't gotten to it yet.) And she writes seriously long posts, which I obviously admire.

To bring the two parts of this together...
along with the title. Being of like minds over a DSL line does not exactly denote classic friendship, but it suffices on the Internet. So, while I think the very idea of a virtual community is overrated, and admiration is not the same thing as friendship, I will continue to read Citizen Carrie and have added her to my Other Places.

And, if you're reading this, CC, keep writing - it's a perspective we need and a viewpoint I'm most happy to incorporate into my thinking. Retain your passion; I may be skeptical about real change any time soon, but it definitely won't come without voices like yours.