~~ acting as being

[reenka]

So I was thinking about performances. Like, the way I'm self-conscious if I think of my audience on lj, so I can only really write normally (whatever that means) if I pretend no one's listening, and how that influences what I say.... And the whole idea that one can't be fully oneself with other people because one is -always- performing for some sort of audience.... And online personas, right-- how people say they're not like that at all off-line, and how sometimes it could seem that one's online self is diametrically different.

It's horribly inhibiting, to me, actually imagining people's responses -while- I say something, but I think for more extraverted people, that's just normal. They always think of others, and are inhibited as a consequence-- so they might have a desperate need to let go, but it's assumed one can't do that in 'polite society' or whatever. Because to be uninhibited is on some level equivalent to being thoughtless (and rude, vulgar, offensive, etc). Except the internet isn't necessarily 'polite society', depending on whom you ask and where. There's a lot of disagreement on that, isn't there. Regardless, the urge to say what they want to hear or not say anything at all, if I care about their opinion, is almost overwhelming to me. If I don't care about their opinion (meaning, if I don't know them enough to care) then it feels as if I'm being spied upon by some indefinite number of faceless strangers who could be thinking -anything-, and the unknown is a scary concept all by itself unless one blocks it out with the comforting illusion of, for instance, this lj being 'my' space.

I mean, it's really not my space, is it. It's public space, theoretically, since it's publically accessible most of the time, but even so I don't -think- of it as such, which definitely affects how I act. Right now, I am writing only for my benefit. I realize I could get comments, but I usually don't imagine anyone will understand exactly what I mean, necessarily, which is probably why I so often fail to provide context. If I provided context, I'd be performing consciously (rather than unconsciously), which inhibits me to the point of silence.

This is a new concept to me, though I realize it's not actually all that new in general. I don't tend to think of being as an 'act' or an 'action'-- if anything, I resent being judged based on my actions and have always said that what I do isn't really who I am, because I very rarely do what I -really want- (that is, my choices are limited and my energies are focused inward). But being too, is an act. The question isn't really of the inability to judge one based on that act, but rather the presence of full knowledge and context, which is something else again.


Anyway, then I realized that any performance, if it's good, is real. I especially know this whenever I role play online-- that is, consciously combine performance and writing. It just seems to go naturally together, though perhaps that's because I was always inclined towards acting more than I could normally express. Regardless, is any textual 'act' really impactful or believable if it's false? That is, here we'd have the difference between 'not true' and 'not real'. Something can be true without actually being factual-- an performance of any kind, the play for the audience, seems to tap into that.

I had a weird experience co-writing disfigured!Draco last night with several people. To have written Harry's disgust and loathing and obsession felt cathartic for me-- and to read others who picked up on the same thread (while using my precise context) was also exhilarating. But then the thread twisted and the context changed (that is, the story took another turn away from my own exact emotional spot), and I felt alone again, my story once again only mine, but my performance (as part of a group) now public domain. So these two things-- story, performance-- aren't really the same but are connected whenever one -tells- a story or even writes as oneself, because one's self is never really the exact same self twice.

So I may not be myself, may be acting, but if I mean it (that is, feel it) then it's real (really me)...? That's my suspicion, at least.

I wouldn't want to connect a writer's performance with their 'actual' self in a factual, logical sense-- that way lies dementia. But if one believes there is truth beyond facts or rationality, then the constant shifts of an online persona don't have to contradict each other. If you think I'm one way and I think I'm 'really' another way-- those stances can both be valid. Whatever you think I'm doing with this post, you are correct, in other words. It's kind of a scary proposition-- letting go control like that-- but in the end, that means I can retain control of my own space, as well, since my own perception remains pure, overlapping only if I choose to see it that way. I don't know if any of that made sense, btw.

Comments

[malafede.livejournal.com]

people just write what they want

This is where the impasse starts, though, because there's just such a huge misunderstanding of intent between the two groups - and that's because the base approach to the writing is different, I think. I mean, if I am given a text, my first impulse is to comment, you know? I tend not to think about the person behind it. I talk about it as if it were a pro's work, ie not expecting my words to have any impact whatsoever on the author. I don't want to dictate what an author should write... it's a serious miscommunication problem when it's assumed there's a censoring intent behind a criticism. Writing is the author's pleasure, so of course they shouldn't care what I say unless they think I have a point. This also means that meta is the reader's own pleasure and shouldn't be stifled either with demagogic rhetorical tactics like appealing to the onlooking bandwagon's self-righteous obsession with niceness. Betas and concerned admirers can do the constructive criticism part. The readers just want to express an opinion. If that opinion bothers you, the appropriate answer is disagreement, not "Shut up hater."

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

That's true about most fandoms, I think-- people have totally different perceptions of how to participate in them & what they expect from others, and for some people any criticism is just 'ruining their fun' because they're only there to have fun, and being brought down in any way isn't fun. Though I hate the cult of niceness too, of course... *sigh* Though perhaps the correct 'etiquette' is to email people with stuff like that, just so it doesn't become wank, y'know?

[seekersidethorn.livejournal.com]

! That I would actually consider rude! I only email writers if I want to compliment them or offer constructive criticism. If I want to review in any other form, I am not going to throw it down their throat, especially if it's bad! The things fandom considers wanky are a bit upside-down.