So, here’s the thing - while I am a baby twit, the appeal of Twitter is not lost on me. And I know there are a bunch of famous and/or funny people who are fun to follow and certainly that’s an accomplishment, as everyone who has ever tried to blog or Facebook knows, coming up with interesting stuff is not as easy as it seems sometimes. But, while I hesitate to appear to denigrate Twitter and it’s value as a communication tool and social media and even sometimes art form, I think for many people it is not their standout fact.
So, reading this article in which Stephen Fry, you know movie and television star Stephen Fry, as actor and Tweeter, I was taken aback. I tried to ponder if someone - someone who would be reading a newspaper would recognize Stephen Fry only as a tweeter (and yes, I realize the second paragraph gives a better accounting of his accomplishments). But he was in Alice in Wonderland and Bones, so I sort of think if you had managed to miss the other ninety some things in his imdb bio, that might have helped.
And look I’m not saying that you haven’t been paying attention if you didn’t know who he was, I’m suggesting that if you didn’t, I’m not sure tweeter would have helped you. And that leads me to the use of tweeter as a descriptor, because while I agree that it is something that people do, and may do very well, and certainly it is done in the public eye, it just somehow seems to me not one of the first two things I would tell someone about Stephen Fry. But maybe that’s just cause I don’t follow him.
Rants About New (and old) Things
