On the transience of online grief

Roger Ebert had written a post a few months ago lamenting the transient expressions of grief and sympathy on the internet upon someone’s passing. He cited the example of one of his close friends passing away. Ebert mourned him for days. That grief manifested in the memories he shared on Twitter and Facebook. There was a period of brooding withdrawal as befits real grief. His followers did respond initially with murmurs of sadness and the customary “RIP”s. After a few days they asked him to move on and say something interesting about movies.

I was touched by Ebert’s concern for his friend and it did seem stark that the well-wishers who joined in to express their condolences with a tweet or two switched context immediately after to trill about new clothes, award shows or movies.

(This is all I remember from the post. I can’t seem to find it and I’ll be grateful if someone could point me to it)

But it did get me thinking of the struggle between the expression of genuine sentiment and what might be construed as lip-service. Ebert believes expressions of grief online are mostly the latter. That’s too cynical for me. The internet suffers from being a noisy, overcrowded arena of communication where it’s difficult to judge if the message and messenger are genuine. I went off on a limb about Steve Jobs’ death because I admired the man. I tweeted about Whitney Houston’s death because I genuinely thought of her (and still do) as a powerhouse talent, irrespective of her struggles towards the end. I meant those words, even if they were a paltry 140 characters unlike the thousands I dedicated to Jobs. In Houston’s case I didn’t feel the need to go on, but I didn’t feel insincere doing so either. I wasn’t making mental comparisons to Jobs’ eulogy or feeling particularly scumbag-y as a result.

Surely the length and involvement of your mourning are a function of how much you liked the person. Traditionally the cues for the sincerity of a sentiment lie in its tone and to some extent, in that of its messenger. Both are absent on the internet. Ebert’s well-wishers wouldn’t even come close in terms of his personal grief at the loss of a friend, but the optimist in me thinks that it mattered they took the time to sympathize. Perhaps they didn’t *really* mean it. It may be that their intent was to console and share a sense of solidarity in doing so rather than mourn. What’s wrong with that? Nothing, says the optimist.

But I won’t allow my optimist to simply run away with matters. I have a pessimist in me too. He ascribes insincerity to two motives; the fear of exclusion and plain old publicity. The fear of exclusion pertains to the risk of appearing unsympathetic, heartless and thus, isolated. Or the risk of not conforming to the ideals of a group. Simply typing in a few words and hitting “Send” or “Update” hardly seems like the kind of thing to occupy you for hours, physically or mentally. Why not “there there” along with the rest of these chaps and get on with life in the next tweet?

Secondly, the alarming trend on Twitter of sending celebrities prematurely to their graves points to the presence of blatant insincerity. The need to cash in by creating bubbles.

Thanks to this pessimism I peruse tweets containing the ominous “RIP” for something other than mere awareness of the tragic event. “RIP Whitney Houston” just doesn’t cut it for Mr. Pessimism. Say something about why you liked her, or what her death means to you.

The Optimist on the other hand, thinks even that little, possibly insincere gesture has some sanctity. That smidgeon of a tweet or update is permanent in its intent, however dubious. It will eventually get washed away in a sea of banal conversations but never *really* go away. It will just be less visible. It will still represent a tiny little part of your day that you dedicated to commemorating a sad event in someone’s life or for someone’s sake.

And that’s got to count for something, right?


Tags: ,

4 responses to “On the transience of online grief”

  1. Anirban says :

    “RIP Britney. We will miss her songs.”
    “You mean Whitney, not Britney.”
    “She was a singer too. I will miss her songs.”

    This is a fictitious, extreme example. The cynic (pessimist) will point to the banality of such a conversation. The optimist will say, whatever the intention, whatever the feeling, the actual response might be harmless.

    “RIP [living person]” is quite common on Twitter to, so there is scope to disagree.

    Of course, the beauty, as you point out, is that both sides are right or wrong based on which side of the bed someone wakes up on.

    Nice post, as usual. :)

    • daddysan says :

      Thanks man, loved the example. Also kudos for pointing out it depends on our mood on any particular day! I’d be a pessimist today and yet be open to banal wishes the next.

  2. Giribala says :

    This made me sad as it reminded of all the fine people we lost recently… thank goodness it is transient….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: