news flash: humans can be icky

[mckitterick]

Tonight, rougewench turned me on to this story, "The Life and Death of Jesse James," about an online love affair gone horribly, horribly wrong and one man's heroic efforts to save his "friend" from an online... something: Predator? Not really. Freak, I guess.

Following up on various responses to it, I came across this critique of that story by legionseagle.

I was disturbed and felt dirty while reading Olson's original piece, and legionseagle put (his/her) finger on exactly why. Olson, too, victimized "Audrey" by trying to keep her the helpless victim, or at least cared more about his self-aggrandizing than he did about his "friend."

Why is schadenfreude so appealing to so many? Why have I spent an hour reading Olson's essay and legionseagle's examination of it and so many responses to this mess?

I sense some kind of insight into human nature that I'm not certain I want to face right now. I feel gross and tired after reading about this sick episode. But go ahead, read those pieces for yourself. Perhaps you'll be brave enough to look into the abyss and sense what stares back.

Chris

Comments

[kalimeg.livejournal.com]

Earlier today I made it about halfway through -- I actually quit the piece about when Harlan showed up. I mean, I have met a lot of folks who were originally from mail lists and other things online -- I figure people should know better than to promise *anything* to someone they don't actually know -- and people should at least plonk down the minimal bucks to confirm that the person they are talking to is real if they start to get serious.

Better still, meet them in groups, gatherings, parties, dinners -- any way but one on one.

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

Absolutely. Makes sense that people would meet online where they can match interests and such, but Olson was right that "Audrey" should have tried to actually meet the guy.

Still, Olson's piece makes me nauseated.

[chernobylred.livejournal.com]

Olson, too, victimized "Audrey" by trying to keep her the helpless victim, or at least cared more about his self-aggrandizing than he did about his "friend."

I read Olson's piece before going to "Audrey's" blog. When I read the story, I was under the impression that he was doing a service by outing the Jana St. James person--trying to get the word out about her. I did think he was, generally, an egotistical, name-dropping asshole. But hey, he was an egotistical, name-dropping asshole who was trying to warn people from a nasty internet freak-monster.

I didn't realize that he published the story without consulting the victim. I felt really sad for "Audrey" when I realized he did not have her blessing to publish it. Yuck.

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

Oh, sure, getting her name and photo out there helps others avoid her. But he could have done that in 200 words rather than 2000 jerk-ish ones. And without removing "Audrey" from the position of power.

[chernobylred.livejournal.com]

200 words wouldn't have been picked up by a newspaper/mag, though. And yeah, removing "Audrey" from his decision to publish it was really extra shitty.

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

Not just removing her from the decision to publish, but also from reviewing the piece (it had serious inaccuracies), and - most important - from the action. By preventing her from being an agent of her own salvation, she remains in the victim role. He thus victimized her again and prevented her from taking control of the situation, thus harming her healing process.

[gwyndolin.livejournal.com]

Okay, so I was living in my own little fantasy world, I guess. I didn't realize the piece was non-fiction. (Especially considering the role of Harlan Edison as "nice guy.")

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

Especially considering the role of Harlan Edison as "nice guy."

Hahahahahaha!

[amjhawk.livejournal.com]

Hmm... interesting. My thoughts:

Granted, I didn't know that Olson bypassed Audrey on writing the article. That's not cool. That aside...

1. I keep on running into things that improve my view of Harlan Ellison, despite the extremely bad first impression he made on me. Weird.

2. Olson - a bastard, yes. An asshole? No. You once explained to me the difference between selfish and self-centered. I feel that he's the latter. As a self-centered person myself, I hope that I'm not as oblivious to barrelling people aside as he is, but I think that the cases where he victimized Audrey are completely unconscious (maybe even his bypassing her on writing the story) as he seeks his own form of vengeance or justice.

3. I would totally be like the younger guy who angrily demands answers - and I thought that was an astute observation on Olson's part - that sometimes the world is too chaotic and irrational to yield said answers.

4. And while Janna does seem to be some special form of evil, I wasn't too bothered by this story. Your initial description did have me wondering if I should even read it. You always were a more empathetic/sympathetic person than me, though.