Categories
Weblogging

Comment-free weblogging

I don’t think there’s a person that hasn’t pushed weblog commenting more than myself. The conversations, the discussions, the fun we’ve had has been a treat and a joy and a revelation. Lately though, I’m finding that comments are a mixed blessing. I’ve had a lot of problems with anonymous posters, particularly nasty anonymous posters. (Don’t bother looking for them – I’ve deleted most of them, and blocked their IPs.) In addition, the comment spammers have been stopping by daily now, not to mention the folks getting here on Google and saying the most bizarre stuff.

(Is it just my imagination, or are there a lot of school kids using weblogs for their homework, now?)

I’ve been thinking about taking comments down for a time now, but I hesitated because I don’t want to shut down conversations. Through these conversations I have met people, friends, who I have come to cherish, and that’s been a gift, a true gift. But then I look at Dorothea and she has conversations and connects with people all without comments, and I think maybe for now, this isn’t such a bad thing.

My altered attitude about comments has a great deal to do with the war and the stress it generates; this in addition to some personal worries and the stress they’re causing. Mostly, though, this has to do with me wanting to do something different with my writing. I have found the number of comments I get is inversely proportional to the type of writing I would like to do. No matter how confident you are – and I’m not – this is a bit discouraging.

So, temporarily, I’m turning weblog comments off. This is not a reflection on current discussions – just me wanting to take a breather is all.

Categories
Weblogging

Weblogging as surrogate for action?

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

In my last posting, I was told by a couple of people that my writing the letter to the radio station was basically a useless exercise. Instead, I was given a couple of different options, both of them related to Doc Searls – Doc, are your ears burning?

The first option, from Tom Matrullo is a change in marketing strategy. Let’s boycott the advertisers who advertise on the networks that show biased news. Well, that’s cool, but that pretty much means we don’t buy anything. Doesn’t it? Still, I’m willing – where do I sign up?

The second was from Rahul, and his solution was to create a blogging network of news, giving people at the locations a satellite phone and a weblog and have them provide news. Okay, then, Rahul, what do I need to do?

Marketing and media. And I’ve been told I don’t really understand either of these – or, more accurately, that my understanding “differs”. Well, that’s true. I haven’t read any media or marketing books, such as Cluetrain (a natural one to bring up since Doc’s name is being tossed about).

I’m not against these solutions, but it seems to me that they’re ‘talk’, with no associated action. When these same people tell me I’m powerless to make a difference with my small action, but give me alternatives that are nothing more than talk on a weblog, well, then I get unhappy. Being told we’re powerless only leads to apathy. Chit chat among our little weblogging circles isn’t going to make war go away. Tell me, what can I do?

We who fight this war go about our business. We talk about academics and art and technology and relationships, and these are good things to talk about, and I love to read them. I love to read what you write. I write about these things, myself. But I still want to make a difference. I want to make my voice heard outside of this weblog. This weblog isn’t enough. So I wrote the letter to the radio station. It wasn’t a big act, it was a tiny, tiny act, but at least, it was an act. How is this useless?

Have we become so sophisticated that we no longer even try to make a personal difference? Have our weblogs become nothing more than surrogates for action?

I have one question – if you’re against the war in Iraq, what have you done today to express this disagreement outside of your weblog? What have you done today to be heard?

Categories
Just Shelley Writing

Death of a Moth

Years ago I worked in a large modern building with dark grey glass doors and windows. One morning when I was out smoking, I noticed a bright spot on the wall next to the door: a white moth, with soft, furry body and silvery antennae. It was the most beautiful creature I had ever seen—delicate and fragile, highlighted by the darkness of the glass and granite building. It was held there against the wall by a grip frozen in death.

I was reminded of this moth when I read W.G. Sebald’s Austerlitz with his references to moths; subtle symbols of the lead character’s search for the truth of who he is, like the moth’s obsessive desire for illumination regardless of the cost. And in the book, memories are tipped out into words forming stories as fragile as the wings of a moth preserved in a jar:

None of the containers was more than two or three inches high, and when I opened them one by one and held them in the light of the lamp, each proved to contain the mortal remains of one of the moths which — as Austerlitz had told me — had met its end here in this house. I tipped one of them, a weightless ivory-colored creature with folded wings that might have been woven of some immaterial fabric, out of its Bakelite box onto the palm of my right hand. Its legs, which it had drawn up under its silver-scaled body as if just clearing some final obstacle, were so delicate that I could scarcely make them out, while the antennae curving high above the whole body also trembled on the edge of visibility.

In college I was introduced to another story featuring a moth, Virginia Woolf’s essay Death of a Moth. In it, Woolf writes about a moth flying about a window pane; its world constrained by the boundaries of the wood holding the glass. The moth flew from one side to the other, and then back again, as the rest of life continued ignorant of its movements. At first indifferent, Woolf was eventually moved to pity of the moth:

The possibilities of pleasure seemed that morning so enormous and so various that to have only a moth’s part in life, and a day moth’s at that, appeared a hard fate, and his zest in enjoying his meagre opportunities to the full, pathetic.

The moth settles on the window sill and Woolf forgets it until she notices it trying to move again, but this time its movements are slow and awkward. It attempts to fly but fails, and falls back down to the sill—landing on its back, tiny feet clawing at the air as it tries to right itself. The author reaches out to help when she realizes that it is dying and draws back, reluctant to interfere with this natural process. Somehow in the brightness of the day, the power of death was seeking this moth and there was nothing anyone could do to stop it.

Still, she watched the moth as it fought against the inevitable:

One could only watch the extraordinary efforts made by those tiny legs against an oncoming doom which could, had it chosen, have submerged an entire city, not merely a city, but masses of human beings; nothing, I knew, had any chance against death. Nevertheless after a pause of exhaustion the legs fluttered again. It was superb this last protest, and so frantic that he succeeded at last in righting himself. One’s sympathies, of course, were all on the side of life.

However, after the moth had righted itself, in the instant of its victory, death descended:

The moth having righted himself now lay most decently and uncomplainingly composed. O yes, he seemed to say, death is stronger than I am.

In Woolf’s essay, the battle between life and death is somehow seen as both pathetic and noble. Pathetic because death will always win regardless the desire for life; but noble in how one faces death — on our back, defeated, or on our feet and in dignity.

Another essay, also called Death of a Moth by Annie Dillard, is often compared to Woolf’s essay, most likely because of the similar titles and subjects. Unlike Woolf’s moth, Dillard’s meets its end much more dramatically—caught within a candle’s flame, it’s body on fire, which Dillard details in unsentimental detail:

Her moving wings ignited like tissue paper, like angels’ wings, enlarging the circle of the darkness the sudden blue sleeves of my sweater, the green leaves of jewelweed by my side, the ragged red trunk of a pine; at once the light contracted again and the moth’s wings vanished in a fine, foul smoke. At the same time, her six legs clawed, curled, blackened, and ceased, disappearing utterly. And her head jerked in spasms, making a spattering noise; her antennae crisped and burnt away and her heaving mouthparts cracked like pistol fire. When it was all over, her head was, so far as I could determine, gone, gone the long way of her wings and legs.

Compared to Woolf’s moth, with its quiet dignity and brave fight against death, Dillard’s moth was caught in a torment of fire and died violently, one could almost say grotesquely. Death isn’t veiled in the struggle; isn’t seen through the same type of grey silken glasses worn by one of Sebald’s characters to mute the landscape when he paints. Death is stripped bare, exposed in all of its hideous indifference.

Yet where Woolf’s moth leads one to accept death, to embrace the nobility of death, Dillard’s moth flares out at death, defiant, and unaccepting. Its death says to me, “I do not go willingly, I do not give up on life easily. You must rip it from me and I’ll fight to hold it.” In the end, rather than form a noble and dignified corpse, Dillard’s moth becomes a second wick, causing the candle to burn that much brighter:

She burned for two hours without changing, without swaying or kneeling-only glowing within, like a boiling fire glimpsed through silhouetted walls, like a hollow saint, like a flame-faced virgin gone to God, while I read by her light, kindled while Rimbaud in Paris burnt out his brain in a thousand poems, while night pooled wetly at my feet.

I was more moved by Woolf’s moth, but Dillard’s moth is the one most vivid in my mind and in my memory.

Categories
Political

To whom it concerns

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

To: Beth Davis, Vice-President and General Manager, Y98
Smokey Rivers, Director of Programming

Dear Ms. Davis, Mr. Rivers:

I have enjoyed your radio station, and the mix of music you play for some time now. It is with a great deal of regret that I must tell you I can no longer listen to your station, not while your station is demonstrating such a strong political bias as regards the current war in Iraq. Tonight when I listened to your station, I was increasingly unhappy to hear quotes from the President’s pro-war speeches in between the songs, as well as exhortations to attend a pro-war rally. This not to mention so much emphasis on what I can only refer to as ‘patriotism at all costs’. I have to wonder, and already know the answer, do you give as much air time to those who speak out in dissent against this war?

I love this country, and I care very much for the service people who are in harms way. They are one of the reasons I am so against this war – a belief that our service people have been put in harms way for reasons having little to do with the security of this country. I also believe in freedom of speech and as such I would support your decisions to air news of the rally and President Bush’s speech, if you were also willing to provide equal time for those in the community that are deeply concerned about the war and about the lack of unbiased news Americans are getting. In particular, do you give voice to those who are concerned that we are losing our freedom to speak out against the war?

Not long ago, I held a candle for peace only to have a person call me a traitor. Is this the America we want? Is this the America we want our service people to die for?

Being against this war does not mean we’re against our service people, or against this country. It does mean that we believe Americans have a duty to see with both eyes, and to listen with both ears. When the media in the country only plays one song, tells only one story, shows only one viewpoint, no matter how hard Americans strain to see and to hear the truth, they’ll never find that which is kept hidden and silenced.

Again, yours is a wonderful station, and I have appreciated the many hours of good music you’ve shared with me. Perhaps at some time in the future we’ll have the peace to share a love of music together again.

Sincerely

Shelley Powers

Categories
Connecting

Disembodied voices

Before I get into the true topic of this posting, I did want to clarify that, no, I did not take my clothes off and go prancing naked among the poison ivy leaves. I thought it was important to make that clarification.

(In actuality, what got me was what I thought was a harmless dead poison ivy vine that had fallen across the trail – only to find that out that the substance that causes the reaction can hang around on a dead plant for up to five years. Go figure. And no, I don’t have the rash on my ____)

A lively, interesting discussion is brewing between Jonathon Delacour, Dorothea Salo, and Liz Lawley, sparked by Liz’s an Extrovert Speaks. Jonathon responded, curious about how a relationship can occur between an extrovert and an introvert, especially a strong introvert. To Jonathon, an ideal relationship is two introverts …who can intuitively share their thoughts and feelings.

Dorothea responded to Jonathon, referencing her’s and David’s relationahip:

But if I tried to ‘intuit’ his thoughts and feelings on a grand scale, or he mine, we’d be divorced. It just doesn’t work that way. Not even for introverts.

The back and forth continues, first Jonathon, then Dorothea, and Liz has promised to respond later today or tomorrow.

I was particularly taken with this cross-blog exchange not just because it’s an interesting subject – introversion and extroversion and relationships of like and unlike – discussed in an engaging manner by all parties; I was also taken by how much each person’s own unique voice and style came through with their responses. For the first time in the two years I’ve been weblogging (Yup, you heard it here first, two year anniversay), this is the first time I felt like I was ‘hearing’ the people talk. Disembodied voices.

Do I want to join the conversion? I’m tempted because it is so interesting, and Liz, Dorothea, and Jonathon have said much to respond to. But you know, sometimes it’s nice just to sit in the corner and listen.

And look at the pretty daffodils Loren and Sean brought. And try not to scratch.