A Survey Of Online Diarists: Part Two
Dateline: 12/01/97 - Weekly feature from your Guide To Personal Web Pages
Online diaries are fascinating because they reveal - and often revel in - the public/private tensions inherent in homepaging. And in quite dramatic fashion.
This second article on the results of my survey of online diarists will delve deeper into the What and Why of online diaries (see Part One for the Who), which means exploring that fragile fault line between public and private. In the process, we'll address the inevitable questions about anonymity, identity, exhibitionism, and yes, truth. Amid all the contradictions, perhaps we can find some light.
Nom de diary?
Anonymity - usually in the form of pseudonymous expression - exists in the diary world, but it is far less prevalent that most observers insist.| Do you use your real name in your diary? | |
|---|---|
| Yes | 86% |
| No | 14% |
Why do relatively few diarists use the shield of anonymity? Some important clues lie ahead. But without question one reason is that many diarists tend to view their diaries as a form of communication. And isn't the value of that communication diminished, or even negated, by a pseudonym?
| Do family and friends know about your online diary? | |
|---|---|
| Yes | 88% |
| No | 12% |
| Do you encourage or discourage them from reading it? | |
|---|---|
| Encourage | 20% |
| Discourage | 20% |
| Neither | 60% |
These two questions resulted in many attempts by diarists to qualify their answers. Quite a few said that only select family and friends were aware of the diary. Others said that while they did not discourage those close to them from reading it, it made them uncomfortable. The answers also depended somewhat on the type of diary: the more traditional recording of events and doings (which allows family and friends to stay up to date on the diarist's life) versus the more reflective, revelatory assessment (which may result in resentment or hurt feelings).
That's not to say most diarists bare all. Far from it. Inevitably, because of the public nature of the diary - the "invisible eye" one diarist terms it - there is self-censorship.
| Do you censor yourself in your diary? | |
|---|---|
| Yes I censor many facts/opinions | 10% |
| Yes I sensor occasional facts/opinions | 49% |
| Yes but rarely | 28% |
| No | 13% |
| Why do you censor yourself? | |
|---|---|
| Concern for others' feelings | 70% |
| Fear of web wackos | 18% |
| Fear of legal ramifications | 20% |
Note: The second question allowed multiple answers, thus the percentages do not add up to 100. Write-in answers included "fear of work ramifications" and "some stuff doesn't belong online."
A mere 13% feels free to tell "all." And no, I don't know how many of those write anonymously.
But is this surprising? Surely there can be no more significant differentiator between a completely private journal and a public Web one than this matter of self-censorship. Courtesy, modesty, simple self-defense dictate that this be so.
Exhibitionism is a term you hear a lot in reference to online diaries. If it be so, then it is primarily emotional and intellectual exhibitionism, not sexual.
The truth as I know it
Who wants or expects objective truth from a diary? Instead, I believe any diary worth its salt must remain true to its own brand of subjective truth.I'll let you in on a question an academic who specializes in "cyberanthropology" suggested I ask online diarists in my survey: "In your online diary do you maintain a sharp distinction between truth and fiction? (my suspicion is that most people don't.)"
Do online diarists lie a lot? How about the occasional fudging? Do they go back and change past entries, rewriting the past, so to speak?
| Do you ever use fiction techniques such as imaginary dialogue? | |
|---|---|
| Yes and always reveal | 16% |
| Yes and sometimes reveal | 8% |
| Yes and never reveal | 3% |
| No | 73% |
| Do you ever significantly edit/rewrite past entries? | |
|---|---|
| Yes | 18% |
| No | 82% |
The diarists appear to stand on the side of the truth (as they know it/feel it, I'm compelled to add). Even those who admit using fiction techniques tend to do so in a playful or creative manner and, as the survey results indicate, almost always inform readers they are doing so.
As for the small percentage who use composite characters, imaginary dialogue, etc., and don't tell their readers, let them continue to write their autobiographical novels, as long as they continue to entertain me.
The question about rewriting attempted to push a couple of hot buttons, not just truthfulness but also how diarists view their diaries: a literary effort that requires continued polishing or a more spontaneous "venting" that it's somehow wrong to edit once posted?
Two versions
I suspect that only a small number admit to rewriting past entries because, as many diarists have indicated, they edit their entries quite a bit before posting, toning down extreme sentiments or excising details (the self-censorship factor). One diarist admits to occasionally preparing two entries: one to "exorcise the demons, the other to put on the Web."But once an entry is "published", does it have an integrity all its own even on this mutable medium? Rewriting the past "betrays the dialogue," insists another diarist.
A dialogue.
Although there's a rather vociferous minority who insist they do not seek feedback - who quite angrily reject even constructive criticism - most diarists realize publishing on the Web, for better or worse, is an act of engagement. The braver embrace that dialogue.
Go to Part Three of the survey results or return to Part One.