Whose privacy? (a revision)
prose by
gabriel
21 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.
Being scared of all that shit is old hat.
[1] [2]
Here's what you've really got to worry about: How many people know you?
And what do they know about you?
|
|
|
[ 1 ] gabriel:
[A] Subtle, but it makes the point I realized was unclear (see comment below.) |
|
[ 2 ] lisa:
Yeah, better. |
|
lisa:
Okay, you asked to be ripped apart, so I'm going to get picky. IMHO, first paragraph is quite strong. Intense pickiness to be found below. |
| Add comment |
|
|
See, the problem is not that many people know you (who you know know you), but that they know plenty of people you don't know (yet).
They talk to, instant message with, and write web diaries read by other people.
[3]
And, boy howdy, do people like to talk, message, and write about other people.
I'm not referring to your chatter among friends about last weekend's bender, the list on the Daily Jolt of people whom you've allegedly gone down on behind the bar 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 penchant for the boudoir utility of a certain breakfast cereal's ability to stay crunchy in milk to a few friends, and it comes back around six months later in your being recognized as "that Cap'n Crunch Freak" on introduction to someone whom you know nothing about.
[4]
|
|
|
[ 3 ] gabriel:
[A] Tried to make this (and the following pair of sentences) involve more than just talk. (see below) |
|
[ 4 ] lisa:
This bit is much improved from its original form, but with all of the changes the grammar got a little convoluted. How about "...a certain breakfast cereal that stays crunchy in milk..." and "...six month later when you're recognized..." |
|
lisa:
Okay, I think I see how you're resolving the contradiction here. In other words, you're not talking about the embarassing things that are easy gossip fodder because they happened in public, but about the embarassing things that you thought were totally confidential. Did I get it? |
|
gabriel:
Well, I'm talking about anything that you had just sort of taken for granted was staying private. Stuff that you told people not to say, stuff that just only happened in front of a few people and you'd figured wouldn't get talked about (or didn't think about getting talked about), things that always get talked about, but get around far more now than they used to. Ha senso? |
| Add comment |
|
|
That's when 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?), kept to a small circle.
[5]
Sure, mom talking about that cute Peter Pan outfit you wore for Hallowe'en when you were six might make you cringe, 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 just fucking unsettling.
|
|
|
[ 5 ] gabriel:
[A] Either side of this note point (in the text) should also help clarify when embarassing things are insignificant (and yet still embarassing) and when they matter. |
| 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 on Debra's web page-the one sporting a full moon!
Will you show us your ass so I can be sure the birth mark shaped like Colombia matches?
It's kind of hard to recognize your face...
I only saw it upside down and blurred between your legs."
[6]
|
|
|
[ 6 ] lisa:
Nice addition. |
|
lisa:
This could be tightened up a little bit, especially a the dialogue. "sporting a full moon" and "make sure the birth mark... matches" are kind of wordy and awkward. Also, I find it hard to suspend my disbelief enough, even in the context of humor, to picture someone asking to see the birthmark as a kind of ID (but then, I'm not a humorist). Can you make this more conversational? Maybe: "Hey, I recognize you from somewhere... I know-- you're the guy with the full moon on Debra's web page! Say, how 'bout showing us that birthmark shaped like Columbia? That is you, isn't it? I mean, I only saw your face upside down between your legs." Just a thought. Hope suggested rewrites are within the bounds of what you're interested in. |
|
gabriel:
Suggested rewrites are A-okay, as long as you aren't copyrighting them and won't be offended that I stole them. ;^> |
|
lisa:
That's what they're there for. I'd be flattered. :) |
| 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.
[7] [8]
Regardless of how many hearts were crossed and needles stuck in eyes (or, anyway, promises made to that effect), your friends are human and, if you told them, they're likely to tell someone else.
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.
[9]
And it's only getting worse.
|
|
|
[ 7 ] lisa:
Okay, this is good and strong and brimming with potentential, but now you need to go back and revise the second paragraph, because you're directly contradicting what you started out saying about how the really embarassing stuff isn't what matters, it's the insignificant details. I think the point of this piece changed while you were writing it, and I like where it ends up going, but you need to go back and do something about the contradictions. |
|
[ 8 ] gabriel:
Yeah, I noticed that same contradiction as I was posting this revision and cringed. I'll deal shortly. |
|
[ 9 ] lisa:
I'd lop off "but that isn't so much true any more." Duhh factor. |
|
gabriel:
Actually, I just went back and looked at it carefully, and I don't think it's a contradiction. That is, what's old hat is being paranoid about the stuff I list, not that those things exist. My point is precisely that gossip and loss of privacy has been around for a while, but we're losing it faster faster (that's a meters per second per second thing, not a typo) because of present/developing technology. Does that make some sense? |
|
lisa:
Yes, that makes total sense, and it is clear by the end of the piece that this is what you mean, I just think that idea needs to be in there earlier. In the second paragraph, you present the problem as being people who know you *talking* to people who don't. But it isn't just about talking anymore. You bring that in in this paragraph, but I just think you need to do it a little earlier. |
|
gabriel:
Dig. I'm shoving a couple edits in above (I'll mark them with an [A]). Let me know if they help. |
| Add comment |
|
|
You may think that you live in an especially closed society: Swarthmore College students, the folks at work, academia, whatever.
[10]
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.
|
|
|
[ 10 ] lisa:
Add a couple of more outlandish examples. What was that song (was it Weird Al?) about somebody starting a club for mutant lesbian albinos (and a couple of other adjectives I can't remember)? Imagine some REALLY small groups or closed societies. |
|
gabriel:
I'm about to dump another full revision (again, just easier than editing it in by hand) that has another outlandish example... the *circumstances* are outlandish, though, not the content. Which, I'd argue, is better. See if you agree. |
| 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 easy to think of Chinese, Indian, or Canadian citizens as just a wash of people-like images right up until you start hearing about specific ones receiving monster, hang-on-the-locker-hook wedgies, dropping harmonicas down toilets and reaching in after them, or losing control of their bowels in public.
[11]
It's not that so much that details about someone else's life must be embarrassing to humanize them, but rather that humans remember embarrassing stuff significantly better.
[12]
The gradual spreading of human details isn't going to make Israelis and Palestinians stop blowing each other up next week, but maybe in fifty or a hundred years.
[13] [14]
|
|
|
[ 11 ] lisa:
Nice detail. |
|
[ 12 ] lisa:
Again, you're directly contradicting what you said in the second paragraph. |
|
[ 13 ] lisa:
I hear you, but a humor piece might not be the place for this sentence. |
|
[ 14 ] gabriel:
I'm attached to this partly because it was the original funny in this paragraph (though there are other parts now), and partly because I feel, absolutely, that there are holy things, but that people's right to kill each other isn't one. Rather, it's a stupid thing. And making fun of both sides is a good way to make them realize they're being stupid.
More to the point, though, I've got a feeling that sentence'll disappear in editing proper (you know, by the people who actually edit the magazine these days;^>), so it's probably not arguing about too much. |
| 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.
Already, you're only getting lucky if something you wanted to keep private but divulged to anyone actually has stayed that way.
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.
[15] [16]
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 formal sense.
[17] [18]
|
|
|
[ 15 ] lisa:
This sentence is kind of flabby and doesn't say that much. Can you think of some concrete things a person could do to keep their private lives private? Some outrageous extremes? |
|
[ 16 ] gabriel:
My point is more that what you can do is NOT say things if you want to keep your private life private. (Or, be conscious that what you disclose is, by definition, no longer private.) I'll say that, then. |
|
[ 17 ] lisa:
I miss the sentence about gestures and facial expressions. Could you put the idea back in? Maybe ending this sentence with something like, "...which primates have been doing since once gorilla elbowed another and raised his eyebrows as if to say 'check out the serious fleas on that guy.'" |
|
[ 18 ] gabriel:
I'm stealing that one outright too. Thanks! :^> |
| Add comment |
|
|
[Still needs more of a finish.
Also, there's another specific story I need to add in above.]
|
|
|
|
|
gabriel:
Once again, mosey on over to the new copy unless you're really dying to talk about something here. |
| Add comment |
|
|
Content © copyright 2002 by gabriel rosenkoetter. All rights reserved.