What privacy?
prose by
gabriel
20 April 2002
29 comments
|
 |
Skein Home
Author's Works
View without comments
|
It's time to get paranoid.
Not about black helicopters, space aliens, or the sanctity of Swarthmore's online student records.
All that shit's old hat.
Here's what you've really got to worry about: How many people know you?
And, as if that weren't enough, what do they know about you?
|
|
|
mwirth:
This opening paragraph is great, especially "All that shit's old hat." After such a great set-up, though, it's a little bit of a letdown how logical and normal the rest of the piece is. I wanted you to start out sounding reasonable, and then start to go more and more off the deep end with these ideas. The ass picture on the web should be an intermediate step on the road. Get wackier. |
|
gabriel:
Yeah, the five paragraphs I wrote first are far more outlandish that what came yesterday. (Though... the ass-on-web-site bit was added yesterday. But I'm talking about the explication of privacy that happens... well, I'll mark it.) |
|
gabriel:
Anyhow, one thing that still needs to be added is a couple more specific examples, which will, perhaps, perk some of them up. (Incidentally, some of the examples are true, though none happened to me. No, I'm not telling which. ;^>) |
|
jlewis:
I'd cut "as if that weren't enough." How many know me is not a matter of concern yet, because I haven't yet read the article. |
| Add comment |
|
|
See, the problem is that there are a pretty fair number of people who know you (and who you know know you), but they know plenty of people you don't know (yet).
They talk to these people.
And, boy howdy, do people like to talk about other people.
[1] |
|
|
[ 1 ] lisa:
All that said, I'd love to see this as a last sentence to a paragraph that starts much more obliquely. (Does that make sense?) |
|
lisa:
I agree and disagree with Rat. After the first paragraph, this one is definitely a let-down. You're setting us up for some totally new privacy problem, previously unencountered and spawned by cutting-edge technology or social change. What about giving the problem a 21st-century name? A conspiracy-theory spin? Make the readers get at least halfway through the article before they figure out you're talking about the age-old problem of gossip. The problem isn't that it's not wacky enough, just that you make it too obvious too early. Just my $.02. |
|
gabriel:
Hrm. I understand how you feel let down by the second paragraph, but I'm not sure that starting more gently is the best of ideas. That is, I don't want the reader to read a paragraph, decide this article won't be all that funny, and then flip away, so that first paragraph really has to have a hook. I'll have a look at spicing this one up, though. |
|
jlewis:
I think the problem is that this paragraph isn't doing any heavy lifting. The point here is pretty basic: people gossip, shit about you gets around even to people you don't know. Also, we're going to work in a Choco Pebbles joke here. The meandering of this and the next paragraph take away from the punch of the Choco Pebbles. Also: wackier. A breakfast cereal preference by itself is not wacky. Think kinky, think disturbing; hint at some horrific double entendre. Find a way to use the phrase "stays crunchy even in milk." |
|
gabriel:
Wouldn't that change the cereal preference to Cap'n Crunch? (That brings in all kinds of computer geek references I suppose I will refrain from making...) |
|
mwirth:
Oh, when I meant "start out sounding reasonable" I meant AFTER the first paragraph. I didn't mean change the first paragraph. It is good. I meant the second paragraph could start out sounding reasonable, you know, people gossip, things are embarassing, this is a problem, and then as the article progresses, it starts to be far more extreme than the reader can relate to anymore.. |
| Add comment |
|
|
I'm not referring to your chatter among friends about last weekend's bender, who you went down on at Olde Club, or that nose-picking incident in the Tarble game room (that's right, I saw you).
Oh no, I'm talking about the ex-lover who mentions your breakfast cereal preference to a few friends, and it comes back around six months later in your being recognized as "that Choco Pebbles Freak" on introduction to someone whom you know nothing about.
|
|
|
That's where the shit gets heavy.
The most embarrassing things don't really matter much more than fourth boy- or girlfriends (do you remember yours?
Without counting?), but when someone you've never met knows some insignificant detail of your life, and not just knows it, but knows you because of it, that's some truly unsettling shit.
|
|
|
jlewis:
I'm not sure about bookending the paragraph with heavy, unsettling shit here. Also, that's *when* the shit gets heavy, not where. The previous example doesn't include a location. |
|
gabriel:
Yeah, the shit bookends have been bugging me too. |
| Add comment |
|
|
Everybody must have had this happen a time or three: you're cruising along at some cocktail party thrown by a friend of a friend.
You don't really know anybody, but you've finally thinned your bloodstream enough that you're comfortable chatting with people you don't know without too many awkward pauses.
And all of a sudden, one of these people whom you've just met, probably one you'd rather fancy impressing, comes out with something like, "Oh, hey, I know where I recognize you from!
You're that guy whose full moon Debra has a picture of on her web page!
Will you show us your ass so I can be sure the birth mark matches?"
|
|
|
jlewis:
Punch it up. Ass on a web page? Good. Now give us specifics. What's the birth mark look like? Why are people interested in it? How can they recognize you from a picture of just your naked ass? How did you GET your naked ass in a photo on the Web? All of these have rich, creamy comedy potential. |
| Add comment |
|
|
Because, you see, no matter who you are and how private you thought your embarrassing moments were, they're probably out there somewhere.
This was bad enough before everybody and their fucking iguana had Internet access, when the passage of information between private individuals required at least vague acquaintance between the passer and the passee, but that isn't so much true any more.
And it's only getting worse.
|
|
|
You may think that you live in an especially closed society; Swarthmore College students, the folks at work, academia, whatever.
But when it really comes down to it, it is, in fact, a rather small world.
These days, though, pretty much no society is all that closed.
The kind of community penetration that used to be reserved for tax collectors, the FBI, and telemarketers is now at the fingertips of any navel-gazer with half a clue sitting in a public library.
|
|
|
gabriel:
awkward because it was several paragraphs hacked together without much thought... |
| Add comment |
|
|
Not that this is all bad.
Breaking down societal barriers, in the long run, works wonders for people's comprehension of formerly remote others as real human beings (a comprehension which is still, for the most part, lacking today).
This is the kind of thing that leads to folks actually treating each other decently.
It's not going to make Israelis and Palestinians stop blowing each other up next week, but maybe in fifty or a hundred years.
|
|
|
gabriel:
(see my [first] comment on the first paragraph) This paragraph... |
|
jlewis:
I'm with Lisa on this. These two paragraphs (this and the previous) are hard because they're meaty -- this is The Point you're making, and it's hard to toss off sarcastic comments about making the world a better place. That said, I'd actually EXPAND these, even at the expense of some humor quantity. I'd like to see you take fewer words to say "it's a small world after all," and a whole bunch more words explaining why a loss of privacy could be a good thing, why it breaks down social barriers, why that breakdown is a good thing. Explicate this shit for us -- otherwise, it makes the I&P conflict example a little too glib. |
| Add comment |
|
|
Along the way, though, we'll either have to be a little more conscious about our privacy or accept that we haven't got it.
For the most part, anything that you're taking for granted as private these days, you're probably just getting lucky on already.
It doesn't take much, really, to keep Joe the Doorman from knowing things you don't want him to know, but it does take some kind of conscious effort.
I mean, just presuming that things you say won't get passed along has been poorly-founded thinking since apes crawled out of the trees and started to gossip, which we were doing long before we had any capacity for language in the modern, formal sense.
[2] [3]
(Think about how much gossip gets across through pointing, gesturing, and facial expression as things are today.)
|
|
|
[ 2 ] lisa:
If you do change these paragraphs, this idea needs to be kept in somewhere. |
|
[ 3 ] gabriel:
Good call. I'm less changing them than couching them more comfortably. (That idea's still there in my editing version.) |
|
gabriel:
(see my [first] comment on the first paragraph) ... and this one are a little weak. Or, at least, not particularly funny. |
| Add comment |
|
|
[Guess-what-kind-of finish… that's right, a PUNCHY one!!!]
|
|
|
gabriel:
Guess that's something of an inside joke... |
|
mwirth:
Yes.. I'm an insider!! (It took me several years with Spike to achieve that status.. Even as a senior, I didn't know what they were talking about half the time..) |
|
gabriel:
I think, maybe, the specific reference may be after your time, Rat. I submitted the draft for an article last year some time without much of a finish and, a few lines down from that in the file included, [PUNCHY FINISH!]. One of the current Spike editors (Alyssa) read through it, sat there looking for a little while, and said "I think it needs something..." At which point I highlighted that line with the mouse cursor. ;^> |
|
jlewis:
Sure, but Jon, Mark, and I are responsible for the Spike Editing Method of "um, could you punch this up for us?" "What does that mean?" "You know... punchier." We were also big fans of "This needs to be more funny." |
| Add comment |
|
|
|
|
jlewis:
Gabe, could you punch this up a bit? Thanks. |
|
jlewis:
Uh, sorry about that, old habits die hard. Comments inline. |
|
gabriel:
Tom: is that encrypted to my key?
Josh: Asshole. :^> |
|
jlewis:
Never mind -- general comments here too. I hate to say this, but in general, it needs to be funnied up. :) Rat is right: it's not quite wacky enough, and I kept finding myself hitting points where I expected a rim shot and didn't get one. Rants like this seem to work in rhythms. Instead the wackiness that is present here is really irregularly spaced. That can be okay, but because the Places Where The Punch Lines Go don't necessarily have punch lines, the mismatch between the peaks of funny and the peaks of content makes the whole thing a bit anticlimactic. I'll try to point out specific examples above. |
|
lisa:
I think you need to decide whether this is just about gossip in general or about how changes in modern society/technology have compounded the gossip problem. If the former, I suggest stalling a bit and pretending to be talking about some new and modern problem. If the latter, omit examples (like the breakfast cereal) that don't fit the pattern, and make your thesis clearer and your other examples wackier (include bizarre chains of connection like, the girl you are trying to come on to knows about some obscure collection you have because she knows someone you bought some obscure collector's item from on e-bay. Not the funniest example ever, but the only one I could think of at the moment). |
|
gabriel:
If you're still reading, shimmy on over to the new post. (I made changes that, if I were to make them through Skein's revision foo, would blow away comments that I'd rather keep here.) |
| Add comment |
|
|
Content © copyright 2002 by gabriel rosenkoetter. All rights reserved.