Smells like Teen Spirit
After reading the article linked below regarding the blog phenomenon, it became apparent to me that teenagers are using the format just as I mentioned previously, as a sort of online diary that chronicles events in their lives for all to see. I'm not here to harp on that point further, but what I am intrigued, or is it disturbed, by is the notion that teenagers operate by a set of guidelines that's both very closed-minded and open-minded at the same time. For instance, in the course of the article the author continuously points out to those subjects that were willing to speak about their writing that there's a certain understated contradiction within their entire ideologies regarding these blogs. Important events, or at least those events perceived by the authors as being important, are chronicled on these blogs. Repeatedly, it's pointed out, though, that a good portion of these events are rather personal in nature. Posts are deleted with a frequency that seems to belittle the actual point of keeping an online journal. The very act of publicly posting one's thoughts is greeted with strong reactions of either embarrassment or outright shame when the possibility arises that another person, perhaps those who are the very subjects of the post, might be able to read the entries, specifically I'm referring to the teen who wrote about a girl he liked but then deleted the post because of the possibility that she might read it, thus making the revelation little more than an artifact in his mind.
This type of thought process speaks volumes not only with regards to the teenagers who are creating these blogs, but about society itself. One of the main problems with blogs, as I mentioned previously, is the fact that the format is that of the traditional diary, and, obviously as this article points out, teenagers are some of the biggest proponents of this notion. However, problems arise when it becomes apparent that the lines between private inner feelings and the need to post publicly about one's ruminations on life are blurred to the point of illegibility. Retractions on blogs are easy enough, but it's disturbing, to me at least, to contemplate a writer's ability to go back and erase the past after it's become apparent that the work has been published and seen by all.
In fact, I'm reminded of the recent re-publication of a Joyce Carol Oates novel,A Garden of Earthly Delights, by the Modern Library which has glaring alterations to the text. Something about this strikes me as being not particularly kosher. I realize that altering a novel is a far cry from altering the revelations posted on an online blog, but the idea is still the same. Should something that's already in print or online be altered if the true intention is that either the product is finished or the forum is decidedly public in nature?
I realize that my original rant on the subject was merely devoted to the actual quality of the work being posted on the web, and I still cling to the notion that the majority of it is rather base in nature and poor in quality. I will, however, concede the idea that for a teenager with few outlets in life this type of forum is necessary and most likely welcome as a way to express one's self. However, not only are they contributing to the glut of unreadable text on the internet, they are also playing fast and loose with a set of rules that are continuously deteriorating to the point of non-existence. First, it's the loss of quality and grammar, and now it's the loss of the line between public and private. A distinction needs to be made.
Writers who Rewrite; Publishers who Replace