Aaron Sorkin is Out of Touch

Sorkin does have a point about the reality of social media, in that much like life, we all try to project the best versions of ourselves. Think about the personal branding ethos and its endemic spread across the social web–positioning ourselves as experts/leaders in our fields, showing off our ability to combine wit with brevity and provide insight in 140 characters or less, and what does–and most especially, does not–get posted on our Facebook pages. We’ve all got personas, and they vary depending upon the person or people with whom we’re communicating. We play one role with our families, another among our various circles of friends, and yet another among work colleagues. Ever feel uncomfortable when your disparate networks collide in real life? This is why, and it applies to our use of social media as well.

Good News and Bad News

The bad news, in my estimation, is that Sorkin has a point, although he certainly hasn’t actually stated it. Carrie’s conclusion that Sorkin means to say, “It’s not real” is reasonable given what we understand about the frustrating experiences of reality TV stars/actors/participants who act in one context but are edited to appear different. But does Sorkin actually mean that reality TV is “not real,” or merely that it is somehow contrived, hollow, or convoluted? Or does he mean to identify with the viewers more than the participants? Or is he saying, as Colbert took it, that it is somehow dehumanizing that everyone is reduced (notably not elevated) to a performer or someone being watched?

I think it would be interesting to get more information on just what Sorkin was trying to say, but in any event I believe some of those candidates listed above are substantiated by a lot of people’s experiences. It would be difficult to claim that strictly online relationships are equal to strictly in-person relationships. They are different, and if one is a fan of warmth, lovingkindess, intimacy, etc., it’s hard to see how the Internet can match a private residence or even a restaurant. But that says nothing at all about people who use the Internet and especially services like Facebook to organize their schedules, plan events, engage friends in conversation in the midst of their busy lives, store pictures, keep in touch, kill time, play games, make jokes, write collaborative works of poetry, etc. In short, if what Sorkin means to say is that online socialization is no replacement for in-person socialization, I’m not sure any healthy person would argue with him.

The good news is Sorkin’s argument, in the form presented, is merely an analogy, which turns out to be incredibly easy to attack. Does Sorkin seriously think there are no meaningful exchanges over the Internet just by virtue of the Internet’s getting in the way? How many thousands of successful relationships prove him wrong? Does Sorkin really believe the kinds of derivative creativity and free culture that have been Lessig’s life work are somehow not substantial, or that the personal interactions that formed around and often drove those creative works are in any relevant way lesser than similar creative advances and personal interactions that took place in venues with tables, desks, and chairs? The fact that culture on the Internet does not float in a bubble separate from offline culture but is connected in a million ways, shows how wrong it is to cleave apart online and offline worlds. And I think this false dichotomy is evident in Sorkin’s analogy. There is no necessary conflict: online and offline socialization complement each other. Sorkin is simply unaware of how this works, because he doesn’t even have a Facebook account.

There is little else explicitly said by Sorkin, so I’m not sure how one should take him. But one might further ask how he knows people are trying to reinvent themselves as Ally McBeal online, or whether his friends might prefer reading online that he “had a good cupcake” over being telephoned for such asinine chatter? He has said enough in this short interview for me to agree that he is old fashioned, or behind the times, and arguably just out of touch, but he has not said enough to be sure how deep are his objections to Internet socialization. And we may find that he’s aware of some actual shortcomings of online interactions, such as the loss of subtleties of tone and the unique potential for abuse and cruelty conferred by anonymity.

You’ve said a lot to counterbalance the negatives, and I think these points are important. So are the ones Lessig makes about the Internet helping to drive a global culture. And I suspect these are the kinds of things Sorkin either knows little about or simply regards as exceptions. But it wasn’t that long ago that people just didn’t have cell phones or still only used the Internet for email because their dial-up was too slow for the web and they couldn’t figure out how to get into chat rooms. I’d like to say that you can safely breathe a sigh of relief, because no one can stop progress. I’d like to say that Sorkin will come around sooner or later, or he will become irrelevant. I’d like to say that the Internet can’t be stopped. But then I remember there are people who want to do just that and some of these people have a lot of money and power. Many of them are deeply entangled with production of the kinds of works that Sorkin makes, and I even wonder whether on some level that’s affected his opinions. At the very least, it’s one more fair question to ask.

why didn’t anyone tell me aaron sorkin was such a misogynist? from the portrayal of women in the movie to his statement that we all just write statuses about girls’ night out and want to be ally mcbeal (really, he couldn’t think of a more relevant female based show?? how out of touch is this guy??). he should stick to putting words in characters’ mouths because everything he tries to say for himself and doesn’t get the chance to revise and edit is pure rubbish.

rant over.

Like many things, one has to try and begin the immersion to social media before he/she can appreciate what it can do. I know websites that has become successful mainly because of FB and journalists finding new sources via Twitter. I know of too many instances where high-school classmates see each other after decades because of FB and a Mom has found her kidnap child, also because of the same platform. Justin Bieber and Charice Pempengco were YouTube discoveries and museums and photographers are finding an audience through Flickr.

Aaron Sorkin has a lot to understand, but his aversion comes across as ironic because of the film that he made. He may want to know, however, that one reason his film maybe on the top charts, was because the trailer and releases about The Social Network was shared, commented, tweeted, bookmarked, etc.

I recently read Sorkin’s interview with W. Have you? Basically Becky… I completely agree! No need to “read into” it anymore… As Facebook would give me the option… LIKE