All God does is watch us and kill us when we get boring. We must never, ever be boring.”
— Chuck Palahniuk
I’ve never met Chuck Palahniuk, but knowing what I know of what he writes and how he writes it, I would hazard a guess that if he ever met @chuckpalahniuk he would either stomp all over his face or flee the room crying tears of boredom. Because the Chuck Palahniuk universe as I know it is a pitched battle between the Tyler Durdens of the world and the forces of ennui, and there simply is no place for being boring.
From all appearances, @chuckpalahniuk is boring, uncommunicative, and somewhat self-centered. He isn’t really interested in what other people have to say (judging from the total of 12 people he is currently following) and his sporadic communication with the legions of people that are following him all center around promotional offers and tour dates and occasional — in his words — shameless blog plugs.
Gratuitous webmaster plug. Check out my new blog! “How To Make A Film In A Week”: http://tinyurl.com/dle4fo3:17 AM Apr 28th from web
I don’t mean to pick on @chuckpalahniuk, I’m certainly a fan of his alter ego’s writing. I’m singling him out because he represents exactly how not to use this amorphous communication vehicle we call twitter. Namely…
It has to be you. Turns out @chuckpalahniuk is something of an amalgamation, a mythical creature with the name and likeness of the best-selling author but the voice of his webmaster Dennis. Quite simply, if you’re having your webmaster tweet, you shouldn’t be on twitter at all. Twitter is a place to be you, to talk like you, and to listen like you. If you’re not being you, people will sniff you out and they will lose interest quickly, as in “who invited the sociopathic self-promoting android to the dinner party?” Particularly if you ARE an inherently interesting person — like I assume Chuck Palahniuk to be — with a distinct and recognizable voice and humor. All the more obvious when it doesn’t sound like you. And it doesn’t sound like Chuck. It sounds like Dennis. Or more accurately, it sounds like Dennis begrudgingly tweeting because someone decided Chuck “should have a twitter presence.”
People do not follow you for a list of promotional updates. If I want promotional updates, I’ll opt into an email list or an SMS promotion. I follow @chuckpalahniuk because I want to know that Chuck Palahniuk had runny eggs for breakfast and he’s tired of hearing about the Swine Flu. I don’t care that Chuck is appearing at the Strand on May 6th at 6:30 PM — or maybe I do, but its not ALL I care about — I want to know details. I want to know if he thinks the Strand is as gross, musty, and utterly unnavigable as I do — in other words, I want to build a conversational relationship. Which is extremely easy to do. Contrary to what Dennis might think.
There is no “us and them.” Recently a follower of @chuckpalahniuk questioned whether Chuck would placate the masses by actually speaking to them himself. @chuckpalahniuks response:
@jamesgardiner I’m working on it, but he’s a busy guy. For now, this is the best you’re gonna get.
Take that, all you faceless fans out there. To use a facebook analogy — and to continue the gratuitous repetition of the letter f — Followers are neither fans nor friends. They land somewhere squarely in the middle. They certainly don’t expect you to share childhood photos, but they do expect a conversation that is more than a one-way communication from ruler to subject. And they certainly don’t want to be talked down to. Especially not by Dennis. Yeah, I’m busy too, Dennis. So is @RealHughJackman and @THE_REAL_SHAQ, both of whom tweet regularly — as themselves.
But Chuck, even if by some miracle you are busier than Shaq, tweeting is easy! You can tweet from your phone in 10 seconds. You can tweet from the cab on your way over to the Strand… something to the effect of:
in cab, on way to reading at Strand.
There’s simply no way you’re too busy to tweet. Which makes me think you probably aren’t that interested in twitter. Because only people who are actually interested in twitter bother to write updates about being in cabs on the way to readings. And if you’re not that interested in twitter, then you probably shouldn’t be on it…
I’ll end with a simple request to the real Chuck Palahniuk. If the Chuck Palahniuk you want the world to see and hear and engage with is indeed best exemplified in the tweets of @chuckpalahniuk, then by all means keep doing what you’re doing. But upon review, if you realize that @chuckpalahniuk is in fact a boring impostor, a man with your name and likeness but who does things you would never do and says things that you would never say… then maybe you should let us have the real Chuck for a while.
In other words, don’t be boring.
– @brooklynjosh
Author’s note: As I write this, @chuckpalahniuk has 228,584 followers on Twitter, and I have 92. So that fact alone might trump any feeble points I have made here.
May 2, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Spot on! Even if you only have 92 followers. Much more in touch with the spirit of Twitter than Chuck.
May 2, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Hey Josh,
I’ll get this out of the way upfront, I’m one of the staff on chuckpalahniuk.net. I wanted to say that so it doesn’t seem like I’m trying to hide something or being dishonest.
Your article raises many interesting points, but I think it is fundamentally flawed. You’re assuming that all Twitter users wish to user Twitter the way YOU do. Though I certainly understand the points you make, I can assure you that we have very different ideas on how to use the service.
Personally, if I choose to follow someone, and they choose to talk about what they eat for breakfast, I will stop following them pretty quickly. I really don’t care what Shaq is doing right now, not because I’m not a fan (I’m not), but because in no way does it have any effect on my actions. I prefer to user twitter to keep up on people or things I’m interested in. In my opinion, the best tweets are those that give me some sort of action, something to do. The occasional “This is what I’m doing right now” tweet is something I don’t mind, but most of the time I skim right past them.
In a way, I like to use Twitter as a simple RSS feed, and I think this is the case for the bulk of Twitter users. Obviously, I have no number to back this up, but that’s OK since we’re both making large assumptions. What we do know is that the bulk of Twitter users don’t frequently tweet.
I know Dennis personally, and I’m kind of guilty for encouraging him to use Twitter in the first place. Since Dennis has represented Chuck on the web for 10 years now, he did what he always does, he faithfully got Chuck a presence on popular media outlets that his fans are sure to use. In the event Chuck wants to begin using Twitter, Dennis will hook him up with the account details and Chuck will do as he pleases, with a built-in audience that will be immediately excited. In the mean time, Dennis does a great job posting tweets that he feels are of interest to Chuck’s fans. And the approach is clearly something that the fans enjoy. In terms of our website, when we tweet something internal, we immediately see thousands of visitors hit the site to see what is being discussed. The same goes for external sites, the Crowdspring tweet, from roughly a month ago increased the number of designs being voted on by multitudes.
Lastly, though you address it, your post makes it seem as though there is some bait-and-switch going on here. The Twitter account clearly states that it’s not Chuck, but in fact, Chuck-related news items posted by Dennis. “Bio Official Chuck Palahniuk Twitter, as run by his webmaster, Dennis Widmyer.”
You obviously have a vision as to how people should use Twitter. I have a different vision. I don’t see why either needs to be right or wrong. Use it how you wish, and I’ll do the same. In the end if everyone stops following @chuckpalahniuk, we’ll know you were right.
Kirk
May 2, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Completely agree with you. The best thing about “celebrities” on Twitter is the fact you get to see a side of them you don’t normally get to see when they do they work they do (whether act, sing or write) or even when they promote the work they do (by doing interviews). Twitter is the chance to get to see the person behind the famous face. It’s a shame that was all missed in regards to Chuck Palahniuk. Would’ve loved insights from him, maybe that would’ve made it easier for inspiring writers like myself to see what makes people like him tick and maybe learn a thing or two. But unfortunately the only way to maybe learn a thing or two from chuck is by buying a paying member on his official site and then your work MAY be chosen for him to read and give feedback on. So no, I wouldn’t expect him to read every piece of writing people post on his website, but this simple form of connecting to his readers like Twitter could’ve been at the very least something…
May 2, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Wow..well said!
May 2, 2009 at 5:29 pm
“People do not follow you for a list of promotional updates.”
Actually, that’s the main reason I use Twitter. I use facebook for friends, but Twitter really helps with news about bands/authors that I really like.
And perhaps you should read the biography on the Chuck Palahniuk Twitter account you just insulted.
May 2, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Does it really matter if its him, or his webmaster, or his second-cousins wonder cat? Twitter isn’t something that you have to apply rules and follow the, to be a apart of. There isn’t a standard way to tweet or a right way vs. Wrong way to do it. Its a popculture trend that has gained momentum for almost absolutely nothing. Its fun, its easy, its nifty to find real stars and follow them and figure out how interesting or ordinary they are, but to call someone out because you realize that an author you’re interested in isn’t really updating his twitter? Because he may or may not have better things to do then play on the internet all day and read the pointless updates that people absolutely feel the need to post?
It sounds like you’re stomping your feet over it because he didn’t turn out to be the real Chuck. Big deal. Get over it.
Thousands of journals on twitter aren’t the real people. @johnenV has a character journal for his creation Johnny C, tons and tons of people have RPing journals for Harry Potter characters, dozens impersonate stars left and right. And you’re throwing a fit because a webmaster created an update tweet that he /acknowledges/ as an update tweet for Chuck? Really? You have nothing better to do then bitch over it?
So he uses it to shamelessly advert Palahniuk’s books and readings and whatever else he feels like saying relating to the author, but its not something you can say he “can’t” do. What makes advertising on twitter any different then doing it on email lists, or sms messaging, or actual postmarked mail? You join those because you want updates, well people joined this because they want updates too. Don’t think yourself to be high and mighty enough to declare what a certain application is for and what its not, and flame people for using it to best suit their needs because you don’t like it.
Stop throwing a tantrum already. If you have this much energy to devote to something so meaningless, you obviously have way too my time on your hands.
May 2, 2009 at 8:27 pm
thanks for the comments everyone… apparently I offended a few people, which is almost always a good thing
. To clarify, I’m a fan of Chuck Palahniuk’s books, I have nothing against the man or against his webmaster Dennis, I’m not going to stop following him, and I may even go check out the reading at the Strand. I’m just interested in how people use twitter and this struck me as a pretty glaring example of an inherently interesting person using the service in a very web 1.0 way. Sure its just my opinion, but that’s exactly why I wrote it. Why do I admire Chuck Palahniuk? Specifically for his words, his humor, his take on things. All of that would come through if it actually was Chuck tweeting and if he actually wanted to be on twitter.
To me the question remains. Does Chuck really want to be on twitter? It doesn’t really seem like it if he’s not tweeting. So if he’s ambivalent to it, then in reality I’m not following Chuck Palahniuk the PERSON, I’m following Chuck Palahniuk the BRAND. which is a very different thing. Not a bad thing. Just a different — and in this case somewhat disappointing — thing. Yes, the bio is perfectly clear on who it is and that honesty is commendable. I still think it falls short of the promise that comes with using the name and likeness of a great author whose actual words and thoughts would have immense value to many people.
May 2, 2009 at 8:40 pm
and I also stand by there being no excuse for saying: “he’s too busy and this is all you’re going to get.”
May 2, 2009 at 9:06 pm
ITT angry fans that don’t get personalized attention.
May 3, 2009 at 6:33 am
You will be harshly flamed if you step over the invisible line in the sands of coolness while on Twitter!
The great thing about Twitter, other networking sites, and any new technology for that matter, is it CAN be used in many different ways, with many different aims in mind. While I agree with you that having a “ghost tweeter” is disingenuous (specially for a writer, dude, come on!) but do we really need to start making rules for every damn thing?
May 3, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Thanks for pointing this out, I had no idea Chuck had a Twitter, let alone such a poor and kinda arrogant one. I recently started following @Neilhimself which is writer Neil Gaiman who is just the opposite.
Chuck’s description says “Official Chuck Twitter…” while Neil’s says ” will eventually grow up and get a real job. Until then, will keep making things up and writing them down.”
I think the descriptions do a great job of representing each writer’s approach to Twitter, as Neil updates personal, interesting posts like
“Napped. Woke, amused to learn I’m taking a beautiful Parisienne I’ve never met to a dinner tonight, courtesy of a thoughtful @amandapalmer.”
While Chuck’s posts are usually about his website with few @replies.
In fact, I think I just might write my own post comparing the two a little more closely.
May 3, 2009 at 2:08 pm
What you don’t understand, you can make mean anything.
May 3, 2009 at 2:18 pm
you are a douche. get a hobby.
May 3, 2009 at 4:05 pm
interesting post and comments. I don’t agree or disagree. I do know that I get a little tired of the tinyurl links, but I also get sick of hearing mondane minute by minute lifelog details. I’m not quite sure what the point of Twitter is or isn’t, but I do know that I have fun with it. I would have never read this post if it wasn’t for @chuckpalahniuk.
May 3, 2009 at 4:10 pm
So, to clarify, this wasn’t a seemingly sly, but also desperate attempt to get more people to read your blog, which I’ve never heard of before you attacked @ChuckPalahniuk, via the exploitation of social media?
How do you feel about characters from fiction and media using Twitter? Is that a violation of the “rules” as you see them? Doonesbury fans seem to dig it. Not sure how the Eureka fans feel about it, though. Or the Lost fans. So, you know, since you obviously style yourself an expert on social media, as everyone seems to today, where do you stand on it?
May 4, 2009 at 10:01 am
Nah, the blog is just a hobby. I’m under no illusion that after the dust settles and the rabid Chuck Palahniuk fans move off to better things, my traffic will revert to the usual smattering of my facebook friends who occasionally click through
but to answer your question, I think that fictional and mythical characters tweeting is fine. I don’t claim to be an expert, and no, there are no “rules”… in the same way there aren’t “rules” to conversing with people. but there are certain accepted etiquettes. when someone has 240,000 followers, is only following 12 people, and isn’t updating their page themselves (particularly when they are a writer) it does call into question their commitment to — and use of — the medium.
May 7, 2009 at 11:33 pm
[...] post on the use of Twitter by celebrities the other day. The particular person in mind was writer Chuck Palahniuk or actually the fact that Chuck wasn’t really Chuck at all. Whether you agree or not with [...]