"Ursula" <Ursula_de_Cologne@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:76eb424f.0311071225.46f16e61@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "palmer.william" <palmer.william@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:<sSIqb.5525$IB7.894@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>...
> > I have a new idea for a new Usenet performance art character:
> > old Penroast. Old Penroast is a senior, just a wee bit on the
> > senile side. Essentially he's a dear old fellow, though rather
> > cranky and full of queer notions about writing and though he
> > takes himself far too seriously. What do you think about old
> > Penroast? I have sort of been neglecting seniors in my
> > performance art, and I have noticed that there are a lot of
> > them sitting out there in what I sometimes call the darkened
> > peanut gallery...
> Bill, I was wondering if you might describe for me just what in the
> hell a "Usenet performance art character is"?
Well, you need to begin with a definition of Usenet
performance art itself, and then move to the "character"
part a bit later.
ATTEMPTS at Usenet performance art begin when
a poster makes a conscious decision to approach
his newsgroup writing as if he or she were putting
on a show for an audience. The reason I stressed
"attempts" is that a professional will never confuse
trying to do something with doing it. Anyone can
attempt to put on a magic show, but only a magician
can succeed at doing that.
Even so, Usenet performance art begins with a
decision to be as entertaining as possible. It takes
place when evidence begins to appear that the
performance artist is successful. The most significant
evidence is follow-up, of course. The greater of number
of DIFFERENT people following up the performance
artist, the more successful the performance.
Now, some of the confusion regarding this fact results
because people try to drag in standards that are neither
appropriate nor workable in this amazing world of words
we call Usenet.
What people don't understand is that the interactive
element changes everything. For instance, interactivity
provides a an interesting "levelling effect." We don't put
our fellow posters up on pedastals, because, after all, we
know we are as good as they are because we can post
just as frequently as they do.
On the contrary, we have no license to be published by
Random House just as frequently as perhaps our favorite
print world author is. My point is that there are very few
things you can bring into Usenet from the print world,
regarding determining who is popular, how writings
are evaluated, etc.
Essentially, the only way to tell whether Usenet performance
art is successful is through the quantity of follow-up. The
fact that some or much of the follow-up are flames means
essentially nothing.
As a long-time California surfer, I can tell you that there
is something about the way other posters view Usenet
perfromace art which is akin to the way surfer's view
hot-dogging show-offs.
The hot-dogger may be far more skilled than some of the
other surfers present, but in their view he is showing off,
putting on a performance instead of just being one of the
crowd. So, no matter how good a performance the hotdogger
puts on, nobody out there is going to kiss up to him and tell
him how great he is. In fact, it is far more likely that the
others will find little things to carp about, just to make sure
the hotdogger's head doesn't get too big for his fedora.
Sort of like, "Hey stupid, while you were showing off, you
missed the best wave of the afternoon." or "I can't
understand why you fell off your board. Damn you were
ridin' the easiest wave you could find." Just by the nature
of the activity, the hotdogger, even when his skills are superb,
is just one of the crowd at teh surf spot. The others present
are far more likely to try to knock him down a peg or two than
praise his good points.
So, it seems to me there is some of that in Usenet. Even
the poster with minimal writing skills can say, "Hey, this
show off is no differnent than me, neither of us gets paid
a nickel here." That sort of thing. (See Google for my
satirical post on "The Usenet Levellers' Society.")
As a result, I get these challenges where people
ask, "Well. you claim to be one of the most, or the most,
famous writer's in Usenet, yet I don't see people posting
any rave reviews of your writing."
Of course not. That is not the nature of the Usenet beast.
Instead, all you have to go on are the number of people
following you up. The number of people trying to cut you
down to size (as they see it) has nothing whatsoever to
do with the matter.
As for the Usenet performance art character, that is simply
a literary character an artist creates in the furtherance
of his or her work. They are different, of course, from
traditional literary characters, but in fact share much in
common with them.
In a traditional print world novel, for instance, you might
meet one of the author's characters on Page 15, stay
with him on Pages 16 and 17, and then meet him again
on Page 35, etc.
With a Usenet performance art character, you might
encounter him first in an author's post of January 17,
meet him again in posts of January 18 and 19, and
then not run into him again until a posting of
February 3, etc.
Further, it is im****tant to point out that should you
decide you are a Usenet performance artist, you don't
create a performance art character simply by posting
under a fake name to annoy others.
In fact, in all my postings as Twinkles, there was never
any doubt in readers' minds that I was making the post.
That would be entirely irrelevant to the development of
the character. You could develop a performance art
character under you real name or under a pseudonym,
then.
Just remember, annoying others, forging, and in
general being a pest is not developing a performance
art character. You see, it is essential that people
accept your character is credible and as a different
person from you at the same time. There is
scarcely anything believable about someone
crawling around Usenet under a phony name
merely to annoy others.
In other words (and at the risk of insulting someone's
intelligence, perhaps), don't confuse a fake-named phony
with an authentic Usenet performance art character like
Twinkles the alt.genius.dwarf.
What proved most amazing was that although people
know I was making the Twinkles postings, Twinkles
began to take on a life of his own, and soon people
were talking about Twinkles as if he really existed!
For a writer, that can be a thrilling experience.
That is all the more astoni****ng since Twinkles is
basically a flat character. I have done little to round
out the poor little chap. I should try to do that: talk
about what he eats, what his fears are, his aches
and pains, his dreams, that sort of thing. (Well, I
did mention his nutty idea about "being like Bulldog
Drummond.")
[By the way, does anyone have an opinion as to
whether I should try to turn Wilhemina, the lady you
met in AVON CALLING! into a performance art
character?]
And when you get done
> with this, please tell me why anyone should really give a rip?
People are going to choose to read the posts written by
those who have made entertaining posts in the past.
I certainly can't tell you that you should spend your Usenet
time enjoying my performance art, because that is an
indvidual decision based upon all sorts of things I have
no control over. If I did not believe there was very strong
evidence showing that many people are in fact enjoying
my work, I would have to think about giving it up. So far,
I have not come close to any situation like that, because,
well, the folks just keep flocking back for more.
accept no cheap imitations:
the alt.genius.bill-palmer
--firing posts at random from a window in the office
upstairs from rec.arts.prose
|
