RefBan

Referral Banners

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Is Twitter Turning Your Friends Into Jerks, Or Were They Always Like That?

May 9th, 2012Top Story

Is Twitter Turning Your Friends Into Jerks, Or Were They Always Like That?

By Stephen Totilo

Is Twitter Turning Your Friends Into Jerks, Or Were They Always Like That?Who are these people we follow on Twitter? I'm not referring to the celebrities or the joke accounts. We don't care about those people that much, right?

But who are these people who have the names of our friends?

I don't recognize many of them. One of these people seems funnier than the friend with whom he shares the same name. Another has the name as my friend but not the discretion. You might see a person on Twitter with my name. He's more of a shill than I think I am, always going on about the stories published on the website he runs.

Who are these other people who have the names of people who, in the real world, I like? They're the same people, of course, but different. In the Twitter world, so many of these nice people are grumps, mutterers or other species of insufferable.

What has Twitter done to the people we know? Or is it just showing what these people were like all along?

As a reporter and as a creature of the second decade of the 21st century, I keep Twitter open on a computer screen or on my phone for many hours of my day. Through Twitter I witness an avalanche of short ideas, bits of news, and, from time to time, THINGS THAT MUST BE WRITTEN IN ALL CAPS.

I know that most of what passes through my Twitter feed has no great significance on my life or my work, but I'm afraid to turn this faucet off. I'm afraid I'll miss something. I'm worried I won't see the news or a reply to something I've said. If I were to shut down Twitter, I would also miss something I wasn't privy to in the years before I joined Twitter. I would miss the thing I now experience daily in 140-character murmurs: the incidental buzzings of people I know, or who I think I know, or who I think I want to know-but maybe no longer do.

I've oscillated between thinking that Twitter obscures or illuminates the real people whom I thought I knew.

I don't know if I've come to know the people I follow on Twitter better than I do the people I see in real life, but I know that I know the people I follow on Twitter differently. I know them in a way that I wouldn't if I only saw them for a drink or dinner. And the people with whom I do sometimes see over a drink or dinner? I experience them strangely on Twitter. They are, some of them, practically different people than the ones I thought I knew. I've struggled to account for this difference.

I've oscillated between thinking that Twitter obscures or illuminates the real people whom I thought I knew. I've debated whether to flee from Twitter and to not have it distort (or clarify) the identities of the people I follow. But I've decided to stay on, because I've become convinced that Twitter is, for all its faults, something that is good for the way we know each other. I dare say it is improving human relations.

***

Twitter is, like much of online communication, a performance. Tweets are our transmissions to our audience. With each Tweet we turn our head from the stage to address the crowd while the drama plays on. We make a remark about what is happening. The rest of the players remain unaware of our wit. Who cares what the players think or no? We have fans to impress.

Twitter is the way to complain about a bad taxi driver without him knowing it. Twitter is the way to grumble about some new law, some bad TV show or some loudmouth on the bus. Where once we might fear our complaints would only find air or hostility, we can now assume they reach sympathetic ears, or, more accurately, eyes.

Twitter is, to give it one more metaphor, the box seat that the old guys in the Muppets sat in. It's let many of us be Statler and Waldorf. There is a show going on around us, and we have something clever to say about it.

Perhaps Twitter has made us complain more, essentially given us a currency and therefore an incentive to kvetch.

I am, as I've said already, more of a shill than a complainer on Twitter. I'm a positive guy in 140 characters, most of the time. I'm slow to attack though quick to defend. If I complain, I complain with a joke, which is what many Twitter users do. We've all learned, possibly from the stand-up comedians who first joked about air travel, the art of complaint as entertainment. And on Twitter that's what we do, turning an aggravation—some momentary deficit of happiness in our life—into the profit of the re-Tweet. Where once was only instant loss in life's stumbles, now there is the almost-as-instant gain of the applause from our audience as we report the gaffe. We benefit from the chortle or the other affirmation that we've skewered our prickly life back and skewered it well.

Perhaps Twitter has made us complain more, essentially given us a currency and therefore an incentive to kvetch. Perhaps, too, it's made me more of a shill for my website. Perhaps, more positively, it's also brought more of me to the people who follow me, delivering more of my thoughts about politics or about boxing or about the person I can't believe they just hired to write Superman comics, (but not about how bad the C train is because we don't get cellphone service underground and therefore the urge to whine passes before I'm above ground).

I'm just not sure I'm really me on Twitter. I wonder about who the people I follow on Twitter really are and I am unsure how well I've come to know them one Tweet at a time.

***

I had a theory I've overturned. The theory was that on Twitter we role-play. We professional-wrestle as outsized characters of who we really are. We strut for the crowd. But meet us in person and we're kinder, more nuanced, more realistic. We complain less in real life.

We shoot from safe distance from our rhetorical unmanned drones. We are more honest at range, where we feel safe from retaliation.

The overturned version which is now my new theory: over drinks, over dinner, during the small talk that follows the smiling and shaking of hands, we role-play. In real life we prattle about things we don't most want to discuss. We subdue our real reactions so as not to agitate the person in front of us or the people beside them. We keep our most honest self to ourselves, because, otherwise, what gain is there in telling the taxi driver that he's a terrible taxi driver? We fake it in real life. But on Twitter we are more real. We shoot from safe distance from our rhetorical unmanned drones. We are more honest at range, where we feel safe from retaliation.

We use Twitter as a new way to express thinking, closer to real-time, without revision or worry. We give the world access to the comic-book thought balloons above our head and let anyone who so desires to read them. We essentially invite people to know us more intimately and more consistently, from minute to minute than most people have ever known the people who live miles away from them.

***

On Twitter we talk and assume people are waiting to hear. When we follow dozens of people, we see so much chatter. We're given access to batches of internal monologues. What, then, of the amount of negativity among them?

This is the unsavory revelation: follow a bunch of people regularly on Twitter and you'll likely be exposed to ever more complaining, more snark, more unhappiness. Meet with these same people in real life and you'll likely hear fewer complaints. The same people will be more pleasant, but perhaps only because they're paradoxically more distant from us when we see them in person. They're no longer visible to us at the granular level. I'm reminded of images of human skin under a microscope. I'm reminded how the beautiful when paid closer attention to can appear so unpleasant.

Should I despair that Twitter has collated the thoughts of the people who I most want to hear from into a clamor I'd rather not experience?

If only I had the courage to shut off communication, though I'd risk missing the next important thing they might say.

Maybe I can change these people and their messages? Where would my intervention begin? "Can you complain less?" "Can you?" "Maybe you could?" "Can you stop yelling, you stop ranting and you stop making mountains out of life's speedbumps?" If I were to not ask such things, what else could be the process of my complaint? Twitter allows us the passive un-follow, the equivalent of walking out of the movie theater while the feature is still playing. It's likely to have as much effect on the person we followed as on the director of that film.

Why would I turn away from it at all, if Twitter is my means for knowing the people I follow better? Do I want to be friends with characters or do I want to friends with people whose thoughts I know?

This is the more important question to ask about the din of complaining I experience from the people who I've chosen to follow: why would I turn away from it at all, if Twitter is my means for knowing the people I follow better? Do I want to be friends with characters or do I want to be friends with people whose thoughts I know? Do we actually want to know our friends less? Is that the position I really want to take?

Thanks to Twitter, I now know of more of the world's burned toast and inept cashiers, just as I now know of more mortar rounds lobbed by murderous regimes. I now know how life's troubles have made this group of people—who I've chosen to be an audience to—feel. I know more of what makes them smile and more of what makes them frown. That they frown so much disorients me. Yes, I know they complain in part to entertain. But they really are uncomfortable more than I thought they'd be.

I don't think it's all performance. They were not turned into jerks or boors by Twitter. Nor were they jerks or boors or shills or whatever else all along. But the latter is, I now believe, closer to the truth. Twitter does illuminate.

We are aware of more of life's thorns thanks to our Twitter feed; we are now more aware of who is scratched, who bleeds and how often. We are reminded of discomfort more frequently. We have a choice to un-follow or to accept this buzzing in the background of our life. I'm choosing the latter. It seems more right to want to know than to want to ignore.

And yet what should our response be to all this negativity? It may be, I submit, to report in 140 characters not just the ruts but the verdant valleys, not just our hard climbs but the gorgeous heights. It might be to Tweet about the wind at our back and the taxi driver who actually knew the address we mentioned and whose foot pressed the accelerator smoothly. In witnessing more negativity through Twitter we might gain empathy, and from empathy, I believe, kindness and a desire to be positive eventually comes more naturally.

Twitter may be the new mumbling under one's breath. It may be the new complaining and the new thinking out loud. I think it's also the new understanding of the thoughts and the reactions of the people in whose lives we are the audience. It doesn't change our friends; it just changes how we know them, often awkwardly these days as we see the spill of their gut reactions. But I think it will ultimately help us know each other better. It will be something that is good for us.

(Top photo: The Muppets Statler and Waldor in 1977 | The Evening Standard/ Getty Images)
Number of comments

John Travolta's Allegedly Gay Penis: A History

May 9th, 2012Top Story

John Travolta's Allegedly Gay Penis: A History

By Maureen O'Connor

John Travolta's Allegedly Gay Penis: A HistoryAfter decades of rumored gay bath house orgies and Scientology "cures," John Travolta's sex life is back in the news with sexual battery charges from a pair of male masseurs. Running parallel to the story of John Travolta's rise to fame is the story of his allegedly gay penis' rise to infamy. Now presenting John Travolta: A Portrait of the Actor as the Sum of His Gay Rumors.


1975: TV Breakthrough, Scientology Conversion

Click to view Where His Dick Is: Submitting to its first Church of Scientology audits (essentially elaborate confessionals) as the actor converts to the religion from Catholicism. Travolta joined the Church the same year that Welcome Back, Kotter premiered. "Scientology put me into the big time," he said. Years later, Time magazine will report that "high-level [Scientology] defectors claim that Travolta has long feared that if he defected, details of his sexual life would be made public." The Church of Scientology is rumored to peddle homosexuality "cures."

Where His Head Is: Amibitious. Before Welcome Back, Kotter's final season, Travolta will star in 1977's Saturday Night Fever and 1978's Grease.

Image via


1983: Totally Hetero in Playgirl

John Travolta's Allegedly Gay Penis: A HistoryWhere His Dick Is: On the cover of Playgirl, in disco movie sequel Staying Alive, and trying to prove it prefers having sex with women. After one film critic says Travolta is on the verge of "turning into a laughing stock," Travolta discusses his gay rumors with Rolling Stone: "They say that about everybody. That's a notorious rumor. They say that about me, Marlon Brando, every male, epecially the first year that you become a star."

Where His Head Is: Successful. In 1983, Travolta dances with Princess Diana at the White House. His star is on the rise.

Image via Playgirl


1990: Gay Bath House Sex, Part I

Where His Dick Is: In the orifices of porn star Paul Barresi from the years of 1983 to 1985, according to a tell-all interview Barresi gives to the National Enquirer five years later. Barresi says he met Travolta at a gym in L.A.: "He wanted to know how much I made for starring in porno movies. I told him four hundred dollars a day. He said, 'Then that's what I'll pay you to be with me.'"

Where His Head Is: Wooing actress and fellow Scientologist Kelly Preston, whom he will marry shortly after the bath house rumor breaks. She will be pregnant during the wedding ceremony.


2006: Male Nanny Kiss

John Travolta's Allegedly Gay Penis: A HistoryWhere His Dick Is: Yearning, one would presume, for male nanny Jeff Kathrein in this photograph depicting the supposedly heterosexual men locking lips on the stairs of Travolta's jet. Six years after this photo is taken, Kathrein's role as a caretaker will be questioned in the wake of the tragic accidental death of Travolta's 16-year-old son Jett. Kathrein discovered the boy after his fatal seizure; the National Enquirer points out that Kathrein—a wedding photographer by profession—participated in a Scientology drug program and was in close proximity but unaware during the teenager's death seizure.

Where His Head Is: In the locker room of Australia's 2006 World Cup team, posing for pictures with superfine specimens of hot male soccer ass, while his PR team issues irate statements insisting Travolta is heterosexual and happily married.


Nov. 2007: Kirk Douglas Kiss

John Travolta's Allegedly Gay Penis: A HistoryWhere His Dick Is: As if to prove that Travolta really does platonically kiss hetero men on the lips, all the time, totally non-sexually, John Travolta's penis does its best to remain flaccid during an on-stage award show liplock with Kirk Douglas.

Where His Head Is: In a wig, hiding male-pattern baldness.

Image via Getty


July 2007: 'Plays It Straight' in Drag

Click to view Where His Dick Is: Inside a fat suit, pantyhose, and a dress for the gender-bending role of Hairspray's Edna Turnblad. The role of Edna has traditionally gone to gay male drag queens; consequently, Travolta faced a new wave of sexual speculation and accusations Scientology homophobia. The result, according to New York Times film critic Jesse Waters, is a performance that "explores the exhibitionistic and sensual sides of [Edna's] personality."

Where His Head Is: "I'm not playing gay in this," Travolta explained. "I'm playing a woman…. I guess, maybe, if I was in Brokeback Mountain, we'd have another kind of discussion. But this is not that."


2009–2010: Outed Repeatedly by Princess Leia

John Travolta's Allegedly Gay Penis: A HistoryWhere His Dick Is: Getting dragged out of the closet by Hollywood pal Carrie Fisher. In a 2009 column for Out magazine listing ten things gay men should know about straight women, Fisher wrote, "We don't really care that John Travolta is gay." A year later The Advocate asked again about Travolta. "I mean, my feeling about John has always been that we know and we don't care," she replied. "Look, I'm sorry that he's uncomfortable with it, and that's all I can say. It only draws more attention to it when you make that kind of legal fuss."

Where His Head Is: Mourning. Teenage son Jett's death forces Travolta in 2009 to confirm longstanding rumors that Jett suffered from autism—a diagnosis that the Church of Scientology rejects on principle.

Image via Star Wars


Nov. 2010: Gay Bath House Sex, Part II

John Travolta's Allegedly Gay Penis: A HistoryWhere His Dick Is: A tell-all about the gay bathhouses of Los Angeles alleges that Travolta is a frequent and indiscreet participant in homosexual spa sex. Interior designer Robert Randolph describes watching Travolta giving and receiving oral sex, receiving anal sex, and initiating mutual masturbation. Randolph says Travolta visited sex spas "several" times a week: "His taste has changed over the 15 years that I've seen him visiting spas. First he strictly liked black guys. For the longest time if you weren't black, he didn't want you. Then he was into Middle Eastern men. Then it was Mexicans and other Hispanic guys. Then he moved on to Koreans."

Where His Head Is: Socially in flux. Kiss-fectionate nanny Jeff Kathrein ceases to work for the Travoltas, amid reports that he was never identified as a "nanny" before Jett's death, anyway.


Jan. 2011: Boys Only Hotel Party

Where His Dick Is: Less than a month after 49-year-old wife Kelly Preston gives birth to her miracle baby Benjamin, The National Enquirer reports that Travolta has abandoned a "heartsick" Kelly to spend time with three "male pals" at a luxury ski resort. The all-male foursome is spotted "getting the works" at the hotel spa.

Where His Head Is: Occasionally without its wig.


May 2012: 'Reverse Massage' Penis- and Ass-Touching

Where His Dick Is: "Semi-erect," "eight inches," and "unkempt" while grabbing a male masseur's genitals for a "reverse massage," according to a lawsuit made public on Monday. On Tuesday a second masseur came forward with a similar claim: "While he was massaging near Travolta's buttocks area, Travolta would open his legs and spread his butt cheeks open and had a full erection and would maneuver in a way to try to force Doe Plaintiff No. 2 to touch his anus and around his anus."

Where His Head Is: Lawyer-to-the-stars Marty Singer characterizes the accusations as "complete fiction and fabrication."

Number of comments

A New Translation of The One Russian Science Fiction Novel You Absolutely Must Read

May 9th, 2012Top Story

A New Translation of The One Russian Science Fiction Novel You Absolutely Must Read

By Annalee Newitz

A New Translation of The One Russian Science Fiction Novel You Absolutely Must Read If you're going to read just one Soviet-era Russian science fiction novel, it should be Arkady and Boris Strugatsky's dark, ambiguous Roadside Picnic. Originally written in the early 1970s, it's back in print in English after 30 years, with a brand-new translation by Olena Bormashenko and a riveting afterword by Boris Strugatsky about how the book was butchered by Soviet censors. It's a seriously intense tale of a man who risks his life and freedom to smuggle artifacts out of mysterious "Zones" where aliens landed.

Red is a "stalker," a man who is one of the most successful players in the black market for alien technologies. He trades in the inexplicable objects left behind by mysterious visitors in now-contaminated Zones all over the Earth, where even the laws of physics have been warped by whatever the aliens were doing. The life of a stalker is almost always deadly, because the Zones are full of toxic gunk, gravitational anomalies, and other dangers. Plus, exposure to the Zones causes the stalkers' children to be born as inhuman mutants, and corpses buried in the Zones come back to life and shuffle aimlessly around their old homes. Still, Red thinks the whole deal is worth it — the artifacts fetch hundreds of thousands of dollars, mostly because they've allowed scientists to invent everything from infinite, self-replicating batteries to a perpetual motion machine.

Nobody has any idea why the aliens came, nor why they left. At one point, a Nobel prize winning physicist who works on the Zone technologies admits that the items may have been left behind as garbage. The aliens might have been the equivalent of humans on a picnic leaving behind foil wrap, batteries, motor oil, and other bizarre bits of junk that confuse the local animals.

The brilliance of this novel is that it doesn't matter whether you believe the Zones are garbage we animals are picking over, or a message the aliens want us to decode. The point is that you are forced to guess at the aliens' intentions, and deal with the discomfort of not ever getting a pat answer. It's the same discomfort that is wrecking Red's life, and warping everyone around him as they try to create value and meaning from what might, after all, be nothing but (literal) alien shit. Things only get worse when some of the stalkers decide to hunt down the "sphere," an artifact that supposedly grants wishes.

A New Translation of The One Russian Science Fiction Novel You Absolutely Must Read Fast-paced and exciting, Roadside Picnic is also a compelling character study of Red and his family as the stalker's life changes them. It's a novel of disturbing ideas about both extraterrestrial life and our own pathetically puny place in the universe. Gritty and realistic but also fantastical, this is a novel you won't easily put down — or forget.

It's also one of the Strugatskys' most popular books outside Russia, partly because it inspired Andrei Tarkovsky's film Stalker (as well as a series of videogames). But its publishing history, according to Boris, nearly drove the brothers insane. Apparently, it took eight years to get the book past the censors, and not for the reasons you'd think. Russian authorities had no problem with the ideology of the book, which can be interpreted as anti-capitalist and depicts Western life as a horror show. Instead, they were angered by the idea that kids might be harmed by reading a book that was so dark, full of violence, drinking, crime, and cursing. They gave the brothers a list of hundreds of scenes and phrases that had to be changed before the book would be published — including turning the zombies to cyborgs (less disturbing) and making the novel's ending decidedly unambiguous in a really cheesy way.

In the afterword, Boris Strugatsky explains that there are worse things than ideological censors — there are the literary gatekeepers who want every work of fiction to be banal and reassuring, never forcing the reader to go outside his or her comfort zone. But Roadside Picnic, now restored to the authors' original version, is all about going into the Zones that are far beyond the reaches of your safe little life. To venture into the Zone is to confront who we really are, and what our place is in the universe. And the answers will disturb the hell out of you. Which is as it should be.

You can pick up a copy of the new translation of Roadside Picnic via IPG, from Chicago Review Press.

Number of comments