this is me, musing.

[lagilman]

I have finally realized why the use of "friend" in "friendslist" and etc really bothers me, to the point of making me actively, if mentally, twitch. It is, no surprise, tied into my "circle of people" theory, which runs:

There are people I know (big circle) and there are people I know and enjoy spending time with (acquaintances) and there are people I enjoy spending time with on a regular basis at conventions and whatnot, but would not invite to my home ("playmates") and there are people I would/do invite into my home (friends) and there are people I would move the earth and kill the sun for (best-beloveds).

Blood relatives and unrelated individuals are all sorted into one of those circles, with regular movement in the outer three rings but the innermost one... that's fiercely difficult to get into, and as I get older and acquire more wounds, even the "friends" circle is more protected.

If you're a best-beloved, you know it.

If you're a friend, odds are good you know it, too, because I'm there, making an effort even when things get crazy, to keep up-to-date with your life and maintain a frequent, if not always steady, correspondence. Because to me, friendship isn't something you keep around in case you get lonely/need an audience. It's a gift and an obligation and it requires maintenance. But it seems like that's a really... unpopular view, these days.

And I blame terms like "friendslist" for a lot of that.

*colors herself an old-fashioned fuddy-duddy*

Comments

[xmurphyjacobsx.livejournal.com]

I've disliked the term since it first came into use. Ideally, I'd have an "acquaintance" list.

I don't think I am your "friend", because we do not know each other really at all and we have no personal stake in each other's lives. I think you are a cool author/editor person. I got to be all fangirlish and you signed my books. You are nice enough to answer questions on Twitter or FB or here. I imagine you have a LOT of people in the same situation. It would be intrusive to presume more.

[lagilman]

on the other hand, there are people whom I met via the internet, either as readers or as writers I read, or some combination thereof who have since moved into the "friend" category. Nothing is hard-set, but it has to happen of its own, yeah, not by assumption/presumption.

[black13.livejournal.com]

Count me among those who dislike the friendlist monicker, for exactly those reasons. I'm very picky who I consider a friend. Most of my online presence is business related. Marketing, you might say. I'll accept almost anyone into my Flist (as I prefer to call it), simply because everyone who is on the list is a potential reader. Nothing more, nothing less.

Putting LJ blogs or Twitter accounts on the Flist also has nothing to do with friendship. I put people on who I think are interesting. Which means that I don't necessarily follow everyone who follows me. (Come to think, I kind of like how Twitter talks about "followers".)

Like you, there are people with whom I only interact online who I by now consider friends.

[chickwriter.livejournal.com]

Chalk me up as old-fashioned, too. I've disliked "friendslist" as a term from day one. I see it more like a reading list--many are folks I enjoy reading about, some I engage in conversation. Some I know in RL and enjoy when I see them. A very few are soul-friends.

::likes your brain::

[lagilman]

the playmate circles may be shallow, but they are not "shallow." IYKWIM.

[joycemocha.livejournal.com]

Yes. I, too, see "friendslist" as being more of a reading list/networking thing.

I think the terminology is disjointed because the original development of the idea on social networking sites was more oriented toward personal relationships and less about professional networking. While the concept has evolved, the terminology hasn't.

[lagilman]

yeah -- it evolved out of college networking. But it's embedded in the media culture, for now.

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

I tend to use "friend" for "playmate" and "close friend" for "friend". Or at least, for half of playmates, the ones who I would like to know better if time and stars and geography would cooperate, as opposed to those who are deliberately held at that level indefinitely.

I like the concept of a distinct term for people at that intermediate level;, but I can't use playmates, since in my life that's reserved for a different set of shared activities.

[lagilman]

heh, yeah. I realize the term means different things to different people, and I apologize for any mental whiplash my usage may cause.

For me, it arose out of the realization that there are a lot of people I will happily carouse with at conventions, and hang out with in social settings... but if I were inviting some people over for dinner, they would not be the people I'd think of (even w/o the distances). And, likewise, there are many people I carouse with at conventions I would invite over, if they lived within a proper distance. There's a level of intimacy/trust that's the difference between a playmate and a friend, for me.

[jimhines.livejournal.com]

I dislike it as well, and would have much rather seen "Reading lists" or something similar. Especially the way I use LJ -- I love the folks who follow and comment at my blog, but they aren't all my friends. Some are fans. Some are colleagues. A few are trolls. "Friendslist" is the wrong word for it.

I'm neurotic enough I also feel guilty any time I "defriend" someone. I think that crazy part of my brain would have a much easier time just removing someone from my reading list.

[blitheringpooks.livejournal.com]

Absolutely. "Defriending" is more guilt-inducing than it should be, especially when it shouldn't be at all.

[kradical.livejournal.com]

Right there with you. I got into a big foofuraw with a friend for whom the term "friend" was too devalued. Drove me nuts, because to me a friend is someone close and important, and to her it's an acquaintance. And like you, I blame places like LJ and FB for it.

[sabriel-0405.livejournal.com]

It isn't so much that I dislike the term friendlist but rather I dislike what it implies. It implies that we know each other. That's fine when both parties realize that they don't but it's less fine when people think that because they read your LJ/FB/Twitter that therefore they know you. Not a problem for me (though I honestly can't figure out why people who don't know me would follow me on Twitter) but for celebrities (like authors) it makes fans think things that aren't true - as though there has been a mutual sharing of information and that a friendship has formed. That is rarely true even among the people on Facebook that I actually know (or knew once upon a time.)

[lagilman]

*laughs* Yeah. I am following a 'celebrity' on Twitter. Said celebrity decided to follow me, to my utter and overwhelming shock.

All this means is that we seem to find the other interesting in 140 characters.

[celticboy.livejournal.com]

For what it's worth, I count you as an "acquiantance" I'm familiar with you, I know some of your likes & dislikes and even share a few. If I met you outside the internet, I'd nod, tell you it was nice to finally meet you and share a few moments. I "wouldn't" call on you for a big favour, insist on going out for a dinner with you (although I'd certainly inquire if you'd like to) or make you change your plans for me.

So yeah, not "friends", but definitely in the circle of people I enjoy listening to

[eldestmuse.livejournal.com]

This.

If I ran into you at a con table, I'd say hi and mention my internet persona and get you to sign my books. (I know, because I've done this before -cough-). I certainly wouldn't be expected to be invited to dinner--whether in your home or just for the night of the convention with the rest of the New York writers. (I'd be insanely flattered, of course, you guys are all so interesting and nice!) --but hardly upset when the conversation ends and we go our separate ways.

Anyone who expects more is creepy :(

[lagilman]

Well, at conventions I am somewhat and occasionally known for sweeping everyone within reach off to the bar to be indoctrinated introduced to the world of single malts, so there is a certain level of presumption that's allowed and encouraged. I do try to keep the creepy stalker-types at least two down from me at the bar, though. Otherwise I might have to hit them over the head with a bottle, and that would be a waste of fine booze.

[icedrake.livejournal.com]

to be indoctrinated introduced to the world of single malts
No pictures, no proof.

[eldestmuse.livejournal.com]

The trouble with bars, conventions and me is that I tend not to get a hotel room, since the convention hotel is actually closer than the college I commute to :P (and I started going to Balticon before I was legal :<)

One day I'm going to stick around long enough for the "fun" part of convention-going to start, as opposed to the panel-attending I usually go for. Maybe '10 will be the year.

[anisosynchronic.livejournal.com]

Some of the "fun" parts of conventions are sitting around in the bar in an "amoeba"

[ex-fashioni.livejournal.com]

I think this is why I like the abbreviation "flist." Because the word "friend" isn't actively involved.

Not that I'm weird or anything like that...

[lagilman]

Also, "flist" is fun to say.

[goingferal.livejournal.com]

It sounds mildly naughty to me.

I'm one of those who follows you b/c I find what you say to be interesting. We are not likely to ever meet, and our RL interests may only peripherally cross. However, I've enjoyed your perspectives on many things and would be sorry to miss out on them.

[lagilman]

Indeed. On reading through the comments, I can see I'm going to have to create another circle for "people whom I intersect happily if virtually." But would it go before or after "playmates?"

*ponders*

[black13.livejournal.com]

"It sounds mildly naughty to me."

That's what makes it fun.

[mevennen.livejournal.com]

Most of my f-list - about 97% - consists of people I know in RL. Only a few of my closest friends are on LJ, although a slightly higher percentage, including some of my relatives, are on FB. I will always be wary, because I am British, of describing people I have never met as 'friends.' I usually say 'online friend', which demarcates. I prefer the term 'reading list.'

I would say, however, that people who think they 'know' me online from my posts, pretty much do know the public self that my casual friends in RL do. As a character in one of Jack Vance's novels once put it, I have no secrets, only reticences. There's a lot that I don't put online, but this tends to be the stuff that I don't talk about in public with anyone either (although sometimes this is because I might be sued).

It's an interesting issue and one that I may explore in more detail. Part of the oddness of sharing a spirituality with someone (I have done this in a workshop today) means that you will tell things to a near-total stranger that you'd be wary of sharing with quite close friends of another faith, simply because of the issue of understanding and shared context.

[lagilman]

Interesting point, about spirituality, and not one I have an equiv reaction for.

*ponders that*

Myself, I have both secrets and reticences, and I do not live "live on the net" as some of our peers do -- that's just not my comfort level. That's part of why I am careful now about who I invite into my home -- this is my space, and I protect the..... *fails for a word, trying not to be overtly New Age-y.*

[mevennen.livejournal.com]

It is just personal space - it's like not liking it when people stand too close. The space is the same, but just extended out into one's home.

I'm pretty careful who I invite here and T is even more guarded about having people at the house. I'm more used to communal living than he is: he's not keen on having our lodger here, although P is a nice guy, pretty exemplary as a lodger, in a separate bit, and we rarely see him. But T can feel him here, if that makes sense.

[aynjel.livejournal.com]

Thank you for managing to put the things chasing around in my head down in a coherent fashion. Though I think when things are bad enough in my own head, I push away even those in the tightest closest circle and then I am at a loss how to undo the things I've done.

[lagilman]

you say "hi. I'm back." The thing about best-beloveds is that they understand -- or at least forgive.

(lord knows some of mine try the patience of a saint...which I ain't!)

[badgermirlacca.livejournal.com]

I'm another who prefers "flist." I define my friends pretty narrowly, and on rare occasions have had to prune the numbers (always with regret, sometimes with rage). I've had people decide that we were friends without my consent, and it makes me sick to my stomach.

There are a lot of folks out there I admire very much, that I respect, that I enjoy spending time with--but they're not, as you say, the folks you'd invite to dinner, if only because it might feel like presuming on the acquaintanceship.

[sorek.livejournal.com]

I prefer "subscriber/publisher" for lj's/FB's use of friend. It means I'm interested in what they write (and/or I let them read what I write) but it doesn't necessarily correlate to how I think about them as a friend.

[fakefrenchie.livejournal.com]

I hear you! I don't like the term "friend's list" either.

[equesgal.livejournal.com]

I agree. When someone who plays WoW says ALL their friends are in the game, I cringe...and feel bad for them. To me a true friend is someone I've met in the flesh and can connect to...and want to keep in touch with. I have a lot of acquaintances who for some reason I can't think of as friends, either because I can't be my authentic self wwhen I'm around them or something, and so they don't shift over into my friends category. I feel the same way about the folks I invite into my home.

[deire.livejournal.com]

:nod: A friend isn't just for when you feel like it. My term for the outer circle is "friendly acquaintances." They aren't neutral or disliked, but they aren't close enough for friends.

[blitheringpooks.livejournal.com]

Late to this, because I've been mulling it over. I think I use the term "friend" loosely and always have. In high school I had a wide range of people that technically I should have termed acquaintances, but in my mind they were all friends, and it was the word I used, because acquaintance felt stiff to me.

GEnie created a new problem. There were people there I felt I knew intimately (and whom I later met in RL and became true friends with) but it was difficult to describe them to people in RL because nobody I knew in RL was online, and they all thought it was creepy and dangerous. How to describe someone I knew only online? Often I used friend because it was just the easiest to say without explanation, or I'd go with, "I know someone who..."

Then there's the fact that I'm a Texan and while this is a broad generality, I've had a lot of people from outside the state remark upon how "friendly" everybody is (which can be offputting to some who aren't used to it). Weirdly, our state motto isn't The Lone Star State (as many Texans would think) but The Friendship State. So as a fifth-generation Texan I feel rather safe in saying that for many of us, a casual, loose idea of friendship as a general state is comfortable. It's an indistinct word because a friend could be the person you'd give a kidney to, or someone you don't particularly want to go to Starbucks with but will do so to avoid hurting feelings.

So, I didn't respond to this post because I was mulling and trying to figure out what the word friend means to me, and did a poor job of it after all that.

But, I do agree that Facebook and LJ have attempted to create a false sense of connection by calling these "friends lists," and even someone who uses the word as casually as I do was put off when I first started getting requests to be my FB "friend" from people, and was trying to decide whether or not I wanted a "friends list" to have dozens or hundreds of people on it that I don't really know.