Navel-Gazing, Part 2.

2. I have a general problem with the way most people treat celebrities. This is not to say that I don’t clam up and turn into a blithering idiot in the presence of a famous-type person (hello – hiding behing my drink at the Beverly Wilshire because Christopher Walken was there waiting for a cab), but my issue is more with the fact that people assume an unnecessary and impolite familiarity with celebrities. And then, as I was Twittering and following Nathan Fillion and Eddie Izzard, I found myself putting them into new categories in my head, which are places generally reserved for people I’ve met and interacted with on a regular basis. The navel-gazing part of this is the question of whether or not Twitter and other online casual social outlets are further changing our perceptions of people we’ve never met  before. Having the sordid details of someone’s supposed affair plastered across the pages of US Weekly is one thing, but the minutia of someone’s day-to-day activities is another.

I don’t respond to the tweets of people I don’t know. I know that some people do this, and that’s fine and dandy, but I feel very strange doing that. Is it acceptable to do so? Is it like commenting on someone’s blog anonymously? How many tweets would someone who is relatively visibly, publicly, have to sort through on any given day? If Wil Wheaton takes a photo of Batter Blaster and then tweets it, and I’ve tried it, is it acceptable to tell him that it is delicious?

This is really frustrating me, as you can tell. I also have perhaps put unnecessary thought into figuring it out. But I’m pretty sure that social networking has removed some barriers between people, but at the same time created some nebulous places in interpersonal relations with people we’ve not met in real life.

Thanks for listening.

(Resume normal fiber-blogging tomorrow.)

About HappyGoth

By day, I'm a graphic designer. By night, I'm a knitter. I'm doing my part to keep Hotlanta stylish. I imagine that if you don't already understand the title of the blog, you're probably confused and perhaps slightly annoyed, but never fear - I do have a reason (and it's a good one). Having gone to hear Stephanie Pearl McPhee, and then having been inspired to blog about knitting, I found myself wondering what to call the blog. I recalled a conversation I had with Mouse and the Chicken Goddess about why it is a Bad Idea to anger knitters - this conversation was following SPM, aka the Yarn Harlot telling the assembled throng about Those Who Do Not Understand Knitting and Therefore Belittle It Much to the Chagrin of Others, or TWDNUKTBMCO, which is not the acronym she used but is the one I'm using because I forgot hers - that is, we are numerous and we all have very pointy sticks, easily transforming into an angry mob. Therefore, knitters = angry mob.
This entry was posted in General stuff and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Navel-Gazing, Part 2.

  1. Flawed Events says:

    But what do you think of fan mail, then? Twitter seems to be merely a substitute for snail mail.

    • HappyGoth says:

      Somehow, because it is less immediate, it is okay. Twitter seems to me to be a weird thing, because it is so instantaneous. The closer you get to a real conversation, the more uncomfortable I get about the whole thing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s