"LJ is the place where you post your press releases."

[randomness]

LJ is a medium in which it is easy to project a particular facade. You can post whatever you want, at any time, or nothing at all. You can easily edit history by deleting or editing existing posts, or by making backdated posts. You can take great care with your phrasing, because you needn't post until you're satisfied with it.

Moreover, the fact that there are people who strive for honesty and full-exposure gives a great deal of cover to those who try to manage their image. For every LJ user who acts as if they're actually writing in a private paper journal, there's another (to paraphrase redhound) putting out press releases. But if those press releases read like someone's private paper journal, it can be hard to tell. And of course, most people pay at least lip service to honesty, so people usually believe most of what you're saying, at least until your words start straying from your actions.

It's even more difficult to tell if you've never met the person in question. Many people read the LJs of people they've never met. Many more only meet the people behind the journal after they read and friend the journal. It can make it more difficult to figure out when they're simply making things up, if you can't compare who they are in person to what they're writing.

(Of course, there's also the phenomenon of people believing their own press releases, regardless of how divorced from reality they actually are. But that's another, possibly bigger topic.)

For some people writing fiction is the point of LJ. For others, it's exposing their true feelings to the world. Still others use it to manage the impressions others have of them.

People are free to use LJ in whatever way they like. I try to make as few judgments as I can. And perhaps what I say is obvious. But it's always useful to keep it in mind.

And hey, it's my journal. I write what I want.

Comments

Hmm.

[chaiya.livejournal.com]

I don't write the whole truth in my LJ. Sometimes it sounds bleaker than the average of my life, sometimes happier. It's just not possible for me to write everything that's going on, where so much of my life intersects with others' privacy, never mind my own concerns for what I may not want my children to know.

Press releases? Maybe. I guess I also feel like I have to protect myself from some people, lately. (Not you, of course, or I wouldn't be writing here.)

[pantsie.livejournal.com]

This is a really interesting post -- I'm wondering what has been bringing these thoughts to the forefront for you.

To quote David Lynch: "My log does not judge."

There is a certain amount of self-editing that happens in my journal -- mostly, because I want to make sure that I'm telling my own story, that I would be comfortable having a complete stranger read what I write, and that I am being safe in my reporting (avoiding topics like work specifics, for instance). I guess that makes the face that I broadcast there a little dilute, but I still consider it honest expression.

I think the only times that things don't match up are when life throws a curveball, or I decide at the last minute to change my mind. Those sorts of posts are very interesting, because it shows me my path from anticipation to opting out.

[drwex]

So is this post honest, or a press release for r_ness?

[nafe.livejournal.com]

You write what I tell you and you like it! Obey!

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Yes. :)

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Did you learn to use that tone of voice working with the penguins? Neat!

[chris-warrior.livejournal.com]

well, i want people to like me. but i can't force them to read my LJ. and i think that if i was genuinely interested in using my LJ to make myself look better, i'd leave a hell of a lot more out of it.

so i'm not sure.

everything is edited. part of it is the nature of trying to remember your life on paper.

[antoniusrex.livejournal.com]

Man, if these folks are writing press releases (and now, having been writing them for a year) many need work.

The thing about any journal, really, is that it is a chance to give yourself a slightly edited slant on your life in any one moment. It's like taking a snapshot, carefully composed, light metered, and steadied of a moment. And sometimes a true quick-shot picture. Flash, bang, boom.

It's all perspective, flash and mirrors, even in the most honest of posts. Mainly because of the extremem effort to give a two dimensional word on a screen a 4 dimensional (yes, 4) depth to it. To make it taste, smell, sound, feel and look real. To exist.

And then there's the large load of Dren that accumulates due to prose and half thought out poetry.

I guess the thing I'm really saying is that even in every carefully image controlled press release out there, there is a grain of truth. There has to be to sell it. The trick is to figure out what's the real and what's the contrived.

So...what brought this post on? he wondered out loud...

[apintrix.livejournal.com]

hmm... I've been trying to decide what bugged me about this post all day.

perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but as a lit crit geek, I'm seeing an inherent valuation of journal-style entries ("strive for honesty") and more negative gloss on the press-release style entries ("cover" for those "managing their images", the implication of dissembling from true behavior).

I disagree with this value schema. A livejournal is *not* a journal, functionally, because it is intended to be read by others. It is more analagous to a letter, in which personal anecdotes *as edited for interest*, points of interest to the intended recipient, and other such communicative, rather than confessional, forms are appropriate. This is neither a matter of honesty nor dishonesty; it is a matter of creating a substantive Thing To Say to A Whole Bunch Of People. I think this is what you're referring to as the "Press Release" style; it is how I have always conceived of my livejournal-- as a way of keeping in touch with friends, not a personal journal at all. I would put the focus less on an image-controlling fake-journal, and more on the concept of Having A Conversation In A Public Room. (Or, in Friendslock, a private room.) Rules of polite discourse apply. Self-editing does not imply a negative gloss in this context, but rather a regard for the conversation partner, in the interest of providing cogent and interesting material. Sometimes this can, indeed, look like a journal.

Now, I'm certain there *are* people who are deliberately using LJ as a means of managing others' opinions of them, and that this can make it difficult to get to know them. I'm just wary of setting up such a dichotomy between them and the confessional-style bloggers; I think that what I've described above is a very common third option.

Forgive me if I've misread you; these are latenight reactions. I happily judge people by their LJs, because I think that what people present as their image is an important facet of the person as a whole. The inner, "true" self concept does our complex personalities a disservice; what we choose to tell others can often be more indicative of a person's character than what we believe of our inner selves. If a person projects a particular self onto LJ, I'll happily get to know that online persona; if they're different in RL, I'll happily integrate the two into one whole persona, who may be a liar, dishonest with herself, or simply a lousy writer. Maybe I'll like the online lie better, and prefer to continue interacting with that facet of his personality. Who's to say?

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but as a lit crit geek, I'm seeing an inherent valuation of journal-style entries ("strive for honesty") and more negative gloss on the press-release style entries ("cover" for those "managing their images", the implication of dissembling from true behavior).

So, I would contend that you are reading too much into it, yes. However, I'd add that the negative gloss is an accurate reflection of my reaction to some recent posts I've read, and the valuation is being used for contrast. So that part isn't where your analysis misses the point; there, it's dead on. Here is where it goes off the rails:

I'm just wary of setting up such a dichotomy between them and the confessional-style bloggers

I'm not setting up a dichotomy. What I'm saying is that the second style provides cover for the first.

I should have been more clear that these are only two of the many possible ways of using LiveJournal. There are nearly as many ways of using LiveJournal as they are people using it. More, if one believes that no writer is consistent over time. I can be fairly sure I should have been more clear because you are at least the second person to read this dichotomy, which I agree is false, into my original posting. (drwex was much more succinct--not a value judgment, merely an observation*--as was my reply.)

In my defense, however, I will state that I was trying hard not to point fingers and name names. I was being deliberately vague as a means to that end. It's not at all surprising, therefore, that you (both? collectively?) got the wrong idea. On the other hand, writing under such constraints is challenging. I think I've erred on the side of obfuscation, but under the circumstances I'd rather be too obscure than too clear.

(I did try to say there were more than two ways of using LiveJournal, in this bit:
"For some people writing fiction is the point of LJ. For others, it's exposing their true feelings to the world. Still others use it to manage the impressions others have of them."
But I think I should have said something more like "there are as many ways, etc." as above.)

Forgive me if I've misread you; these are latenight reactions.

No apology required. I do find latenight reactions more telling than those written at other, more wakeful hours. And my original post was made in the wee hours of morning, as is this reply.

Moreover, your comment has helped me decide why the other comments have bugged me for the rest of the day. :)

what we choose to tell others can often be more indicative of a person's character than what we believe of our inner selves.

Indeed. If I it becomes clear to me that what someone is choosing to tell me on LiveJournal is a deliberate lie, meant to decieve, and their intent is to manipulate people...I'm not going to think very much of them.

If they're filtering for some neutral or benign reason, whatever; everyone does something like that. You can't write everything.

Maybe I'll like the online lie better, and prefer to continue interacting with that facet of his personality. Who's to say?

Well, sometimes one doesn't have the option of choosing. To take a real-life example, if said person is my housemate, I can't choose only to interact with one facet of his personality. I still have to cope with the fact that his failure to take out the garbage for most of July and half of August has resulted in our hosting maggots in our kitchen trash barrel. (True story.)

If said housemate fails to do this and then starts slagging me to his friends list for failing to clean the apartment, complete with rants about how he's always the one left to do the dishes while I'm the lazyass, then I would say his choice of online lie is a deliberate deception. And deeply problematic both for me personally, and as a reflection on him.

(If any of you think I'm talking about you, you're most likely wrong. If you want to know who I'm talking about, ask me. I'll be glad to tell you in person or on the phone, but not on LJ.)

*"Not a value judgment, merely an observation" would make a great title to my blog, but I like my current title more. Perhaps when I translate it into hanzi I'll use it.

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

This is a really interesting post -- I'm wondering what has been bringing these thoughts to the forefront for you.

Let's talk about this in person, or at least on the phone.