"If it is worth saying, it is worth signing." I respectfully disagree. Let me give you an example. I have bipolar disorder. This is no secret and it's not something I'm ashamed of. I will come out on internet forums about my illness, but it's not something I want published on City's Letters to the Editors page. People have prejudices about the mentally ill and the poor (thus my 'poverty' comment upthread). As a freelance writer, I would not want potential clients to have the wrong perception. So when City did an article on the mental health system a while back, I had great insight into the system, but I chose to remain silent. I didn't know I could post anonymously, so I didn't contribute to the discussion, By insisting that people use their names, we are effectively silencing others who DO have something worthwhile to say, but for whatever reason, need their privacy protected.
My mentioning "poverty" was not to imply that it's a "shameful condition". That was poor wording and lazy writing on my part. I simply meant that people who are perhaps not comfortable talking about their lives, for whatever reason, often have the greatest insight into a problem. Perhaps I should have posted that anonymously, because always on the internet, someone will misconstrue your good intentions! Frankly, I feel this argument is a tad elitist. Only people who are willing to go public get to air their views? Yes, the internet is a public forum, which is precisely why some people wish to protect their privacy. There are many legitimate reasons why people prefer to remain anonymous. And putting up with obnoxious posts, which will be moderated anyway, is the price of internet democracy.
Often, the people who need to remain anonymous are the ones we need to hear from most. For example, a person who is mentally ill and has great insight into the mental health system, but doesn't want their workplace to know of their illness. Or someone who works in a political office, but doesn't want to jeopardize their job. Or someone who was a former addict, or who was in an abusive relationship, or who live s in poverty. It's not who said it that's important, it's what's being said. If we are only to hear only from the people who sign their name, then we are potentially shutting out voices that need to be heard. To ignore them is akin to censorship, and is the very opposite of what the internet is all about.
Our city is being transformed by these surprises of color and creativity happening in the most drab unexpected little corners. It's wonderful.
Why is there no mention of the remarkable "Life of Pi"? Talk about ambitious--this was a book that everyone said could never be adapted for film. "Life of Pi" is a rare breed: a technologically groundbreaking, visually breathtaking film with heart. It was not so much a film as an experience. But Mr. Grella would rather cite overstuffed costume-dramas like "Anna Karenina" , which, except for Jude Law's performance, are hollow at the core. Everyone I know who saw "Life of Pi" was moved to tears and said that, like the book, it was a life-changing experience that stayed with them for days. I have read Mr. Grella's reviews for years, and I get the feeling that he operates from the head and not the heart, and that actually being touched by a film is low on his list of criteria. But to be moved, to live vicariously, to cry, to feel something--isn't that exactly why we go to the movies?
Website powered by Foundation.