Last night I made the
mistake of commenting on an individual’s blog about why I thought social media
was the ruination of society and why I thought that many people on this site have
their keyboards pointed in the wrong place. In this long comment of criticism,
my biggest mistake was saying I was happy with the relatively few number of
followers I had.
This individual sent
me a note which perhaps they may have thought was helpful but like so many of
these people was as self-centered as so much of the political criticism I’ve
gotten at this site. (I won’t bother to give their name even though they made
it clear they were unlikely to read my own column.)
They looked at the
number of followers I had and told me they thought I was using this site
incorrectly. Strike one.
They told me that
they hadn’t read my article because they have no real interest in either film
or television, still the meat of my columns. Strike two.
They told me that
this was strictly a political and tech site and I was taking up time and energy
sending my columns here, claiming it was like sending cultural articles to a finance
magazine. Strike three.
Then they told me
that I was writing my articles in an incorrect format, doing it poorly and not in
the right matter. Considering I haven’t received a single complaint like that
from anybody and that I’ve submitted many of them to my father, who knows more
about journalism and critical writing then this person could ever remember, strikes
four and five.
Now I considered
writing this post on this individual comments section because I was irked by their ignorance but I
know from past experience that, like ninety percent of the people who are criticized,
they will either ignore it or take it the wrong way. And I can do that
basically for fun. So instead I’m going to explain to my own readers – who are
out there and know my frustrations better, exactly why I think this person is
wrong-headed and why I do what I do in the first place.
First, yes after
eight years on Medium I have slightly less than five hundred followers. I said
in my comments I was fine with that considering how I got them, but I don’t
think this registered with a generation who believes that to be taken seriously
in the world you have to at least have half a million followers on Instagram.
(I spent most of my comments arguing against this and they clearly missed that
point.)
Perhaps I should
mention that it took me nearly five years just to get as many as a hundred readers
for my columns. The fact that this number has grown exponentially in the last
three years and continues to do so is a matter of triumph for me considering that
anywhere from 90 to 95 percent of my columns are cultural criticism and I have
avoided using clickbait and advancing my metrics with social media and algorithms
at all costs because I refused to debase myself. I mentioned this in the
comment I left this person and its clear that didn’t register.
I should also
mentions that somewhere between three and four thousand people read my column a
week according to Medium stats. I grant you that’s not a significant number to so
many writers on this blog, but to me it’s staggering and in a sense, moving.
Perhaps it’s the kind of feeling that can only be described to someone who
spent so long writing and being unread that and as someone who is now
astonished that people actually do read and listen to me. Maybe the use of profound
is too strong a work, but I am kind of amazed when I look at my stats and every
week and see the pieces that I wrote as long ago as three or four years ago
that are now being read enormously. People care what I think about shows like Shogun
and So Help Me Todd. They love to read my comments on Jeopardy going
back the past two years. They think highly of my analysis of The West Wing and
The Closer. Maybe I don’t get a huge amount of people who comment my
blog or clap for it, but I don’t live or die by that. All that matters to me is
that you read my stuff in the first place; more so if its about TV and film. It’s
nice when someone comments on it, even if it is just a ‘great article. My well-being has never
lived or died based on the number of people who love and/or hate my articles.
The fact that so many people seem to think otherwise – and that many of them do
so on this site – depresses me.
Now on to the next
part. As my readers know all too well, there is a healthy number of people on
this site who do write about movies, television, books, music and things
other than politics and tech, which as we all know are the only things that
anyone in the world should not only write about but care about. (This is sarcasm.
I know I shouldn’t have to point this out but given that so many of the people
on this site only seem capable of expressing it and not recognizing it when it’s
directed against them, I think I have to.)
I know this, of
course, because many of you are my colleagues and peers, if not friends in the
traditional sense of the words. I have written many comments on your columns
over the years, expressing support or friendly disagreement and many of you
have done the same, for which I am grateful. And I have noticed that it has
been debate and friendly disagreement practically 100 percent of the time. We
might have disputes over whether Game of Thrones deserved all the Emmys
it got or whether Dead Poet’s Society deserved a Best Picture nomination
but they are temporary arguments that we quickly let go of and then move on with
the next article. I’ve never gotten into the kind of visceral disputes with those
who deal with film, TV, books and all things cultural that is the everyday life of every article
that involves politics in any form. I’ve certainly never had to block or mute
any of you the way I’ve had to with so many political articles where people very
quickly become rabid vultures and conflict is expected. I have a theory as to that
which I’ll get to, but not just yet.
Now I should mention
that I’ve written somewhere between 1500 and 1600 articles over the last eight
years on this site and close to a thousand in the past three years alone. And because
I have an eclectic set of interests I rarely return to the same subject matter
twice in a week and maybe not even in a month. Those of you who read my columns
know that I have many continuing series I’ve written about over the years and that
many of them dealing with similar themes but I think part of the reason I’ve
had such a hard time getting a devoted following is because I don’t only write
about the same subject and thing day after day. I write primarily about television
and awards shows pertaining to it but as we all know there are countless
numbers of those shows and my articles on awards show about them go into depth
that many don’t. For a long time I only
wrote about television but eventually I realized I had more to say about such
things a films, books, history, criticism, and once in a blue moon issues affecting
the contemporary world. I contain multitudes and I don’t want to be confined to
a single subject and I have a very specific reason for writing as little as I
do about today’s political minefield and the world we live in. (I’ll get to
that too.)
No one who reads my
blog regularly can argue that I write the same kind of article every day. Having
spent so much time on medium in the political world, I can say with all
sincerity that dozens, if not hundreds of people on this site, do exactly that day after day after day. I’m
not being entirely sarcastic when I truly wonder if there is some kind of online
form that all of these writers have in their computers or iPhones that they use
as their model for every other article and merely edit to meet the current
subject.
I don’t deny the fact
that many of these articles are personal, have a truly great vocabulary and
have historical footnotes and research. It doesn’t change the fact that for a
sizable number of them they are, for all intents and purpose, just writing the
same article in terms of theme if not subject. It may differ depending on the individual’s
race, gender or sexual identity, maybe even by political affiliation. It doesn’t
change the fact they’re still just writing the same article.
You know the type by
now. We all do. These individuals take a subject from the past day, week,
further back, maybe some personal event that happened to them. Sometimes it has
to do with their identity, sometimes its general. Then they use this article to play the same
song. You know doubt know the catchphrases by now: “capitalist agenda” “no difference between the two parties’, “nation built on white supremacy’ “corrupt
world order” “evils of civilization’, ‘cable news’, ‘social media’. That last one comes up a fair
amount, perhaps more than all the others, particularly as the greatest violator
of everything that’s wrong with today’s society. You’d think that these so-called
intelligent people might be aware, as I continuously have made clear, of the irony
that they are using links to social media to promote their anti-social media agenda.
But that is as clearly lost on them as sarcasm.
Then we go to the
comments section, where the real fun begins. Seventy to eighty percent of it,
as we all know, is written by fawning writers who do everything in their power
to tell the author how brilliant they are with the ideas and how completely right
they are with how utterly screwed the world is. Fifteen to twenty percent is
comprised of trolls who are of the completely opposite political views who call
this person an idiot. The writer or their acolytes then berate this individual to
a longer argument that usually takes an entire thread. The remainder of the posters
(and I was part of them) gently criticize them or point out that they wrote
these articles and don’t have a solution. They are always ignored by the author
and their allies no matter how many times they try to reason with them, and yes
I speak from personal experience.
Now not all of these
articles are of the so-called ‘doom-porn variety’ but they all have a similar
negative tone as to the impending collapse of our society, mixed with the clear
fact some seem to be rooting for it. There is no real optimism here, no kindness,
no hope. Oh, and a reminder to read the next article they write and comment on
this one.
I spent a ridiculous
amount of time over the past three years trying to figure out why so many at least
seemingly intelligent people have spent so much time and energy – of which many
say they don’t have much – writing all of these articles about how broken our
society is then trying to do anything at all to try and fix it. Considering
that there seem to be millions of them out there, you’d think if they spent the
same amount of energy they do decrying the system into making an effort to
change it, they could actually do something significant. And when you consider
that they all seem to know, chapter and verse what is wrong with America and
the world today they must know what would work to make things better.
But in all those
hundreds of millions of words I’ve read, I’ve seen nothing approaching a
solution. Not a realistic one, not an unrealistic one, not even a science
fiction type one. All they seem interested in doing is writing and posting how
broken the world is and how nothing can be done to fix it.
Some of my colleagues
– who are psychiatrists – argue that this is a form of therapy. And while I
grant you this is slightly less dangerous than shouting at random strangers, it’s
not really more productive. And as someone who when he was younger did the
former and could not let go of his rage, I acknowledge there is some therapeutic
value in express your frustrations this way.
And I should mention
I agree with ninety to ninety-eight percent of the frustrations and problems
with our society today. I share them and they do bother me as much, if not more
than so many of these writers. So why don’t I spend every waking moment doing
exactly what they do?
Because I don’t have
the answers either. I don’t think there’s a short-term solution to the issues raised
and probably not long-term ones. I have slightly more faith in the system then most
of these writers, albeit not much more. But
I believe – whole-heartedly - that so
much of the so-called discourse in our society is just noise that adds nothing
to the conversation. I believe that unless you have something constructive to
say about fixing the problem, then there is nothing to be added by just raging
against the machine. It’s worth writing about occasionally, but to devote every
moment of your spare time to it just seems a waste of it.
So I do what the vast
majority of us have to. I move through life the best I can. I deal with the
horrors in the world by talking to them with my friends, family and people I
care about. I do my best to keep myself well-informed but not too well-informed
– because I truly think if the world cared about everything the people who
shout us do at the level they all think we should, the vast majority of us would
not have the strength to get out of bed in the morning.
And I long came to
the conclusion that while there are many problems in the world, the people who
write these articles on this site and others are not the least bit interested
in solving them. To paraphrase Aaron Sorkin they are interested in two things
and two things only. Making you afraid of it and telling you who’s to blame for
it. That’s all the lion’s share of these articles do and I will be damned if I
do anything to contribute to being part of what they all agree is part of the
problem.
All of this is why I
have spent so much of my time at this site and will continue to do so for the
foreseeable future writing about film, television, books, and very little about
the world at large. Because here’s the larger thing. The reason I write so much
about these things is not because I would like to be read by millions of people
online. That would be nice, I grant you, but I’m not naïve enough to think its
possible. No the reason I do it is the
same reason I watch television, read all these books, watch these movies and
even write about history.
It makes me happy. And
I can sense the happiness in the writing of so many of my fellow film and TV
critics at medium. Even when they truly hate the film or show they see, I can
tell that, like me, they enjoy what they do. They get pleasure out of sharing
their point of view. They enjoy debating it with colleagues online and they’re
grateful that people respect them.
I don’t sense any of
that enjoyment or happiness or anything other than a kind of bitter contempt
for the world in any of the political or media articles I’ve read at this site.
Perhaps that’s the reason they have a bigger following then my own articles. It
has nothing to do with an algorithm so much as the adage that misery loves
company. Maybe they truly feel so defeated by life that the only thing they
want to do with their time as the world collapses around it is spend with
people who agree with how screwed they are.
And I just don’t
understand that logic, not as a writer or as a human being. Maybe I would if this
was my full time career, if I cared more about responses on social media, or if
I wasn’t quite a bit older than I suspect many of the biggest doomcryers are.
But maybe it’s my own philosophy, particularly as someone who has lived a difficult
life and has dealt with his own share of demons over the years. Maybe it’s just
the perspective of someone who needed a lot of actual therapy instead of
whatever these articles are.
I agree that the world
is, far too often, a dark place with a future that is increasingly uncertain. I
agree there’s a lot to be miserable about. But unless you have a constructive
solution to even one of these problems and are willing to spend the time and
energy working to achieve it - neither
of which those who scream the loudest about it at this site seem remotely
interesting in doing – then shouldn’t you spend at least some of your time and
energy on something that makes you happy?
I grant you the
things I and so many of my colleagues write about movies and TV are small potatoes compared
to everything else going on in the world. And it’s not like we don’t worry
about the big stuff to. But at least I get the sense for those of us here on
Medium in our little circle of film and TV we come here to escape our problems
by talking about the smaller things in life. We can forget the struggles of the
everyday world that so many people on this same site seem to want to relive,
relitigate and regurgitate for the sole purpose of such insubstantial things as
clicks and likes. Maybe its makes so many of these people feel better but since
their natural state seems to be outrage and anger, it’s impossible to tell.
So to that person who
tried to ‘help me’ today, thanks but no thanks. I’m perfectly fine writing
about things you don’t care about to an online site that doesn’t seem to want
them to relatively few people, compared to you and your colleagues. No I
probably won’t have as many followers as you will when I discuss such things as
the thematic concepts of Lost and The X-Files or what shows I
thing deserve this year’s Astras (next few weeks readers) but unlike you and your
colleagues with everything you write about in deathless prose, I’ve made peace
with that. I don’t know if you’ll read this article or how you’ll take it, but
I couldn’t care less. You’ve never been the type of reader I’ve tried to reach
nor wanted to, truly. That was the point of my original comments which you did
miss. If you want to unfollow me after this article, go ahead. You were never
my audience anyway. I don’t know if you’ll be happy about that but I am.
No comments:
Post a Comment